Article Critique and Overview of the Education Theories

Article Critique and Overview of the Education Theories

ArticleCritique and Overview of the Education Theories

CourseName/Code

Assignment

ArticleCritique and Overview of the Education Theories

Accordingto the historical records provided in the United States, thegovernance in education is primarily done by more than 90,000representatives who are elected locally to serve in more than fifteenthousand school boards. Additionally, according to the United Statesgovernment, the state is legally made responsible for publiceducation, governance, and authority that concerns schools aredelegated to the state and federal management. As a result, based onthe article read, it is evident that the state and the federalofficials should be in charge of all the changes when controlling allthe education issues. However, in the recent past the Stategovernment reasserted their primary influence in the policy used ineducation. This resulted in the federal government expanding its rolein educating the learners through programs that would benefit themthis included teaching programs such as No child left behind (NCLB)and other such as Race to the top (Manna,2010).Consequently, in order to understand the education governance that isused in the United States, it is paramount to examine the variouschanges and continuities in the United States that satisfy the state,local, or the federal government over the past years. According tothe article, Phi Delta Kappa is collect data that concerns educationissues as cited in education pieces of literature. The data is thenanalyzed in a longitudinal and comprehensive manner to determine thesolution to the issues outlines.

Forthese reasons, Manna(2010)affirm that local government is used to control the stakeholders ineducation more than the state or the federal government. Here, localcontrol is a term that is used to refer to the management andgoverning techniques that are used in the public schools by theappointed or elected representatives. The officials are used to servethe school’s governing bodies such as the school committees andschool boards of governance (BOG). All the leaders are based on thecommunities (local) that are served by the schools. Secondly, thelocal control can be used to refer to the degree at which theinstitutions, local leaders, governing bodies, and institutions arefree to make their automated or independent decisions about thepublic school operations and governance. (Pritchett&amp Filmer, 1999).

Onthe other hand, the constitution used in the United States does notexplicitly explain the importance of quality education. For example,the constitution, in the tenth amendment, states that any powers thatare not delegated to the U.S by the Constitution or is not prohibitedby the state government are meant for the States or to its people.Consequently, I am convinced that the primaries in the States aregiven the authority to control the governance and numerous operationsthat take place in public schools. From the above argument, it isevident that numerous federal regulations and laws are used toinfluence heavily the activities carried out in the public schoolseither directly or indirectly. Additionally, the state governmentplays major roles when handling the stakeholders in the publicschools. As a result, the federal government, the state government,and other development agencies play a crucial role in schoolgovernance and management that varies from one state to the other.For example, I am convinced that United States government has exerteddirect and more control measures in the public schools however, itis possible and easy to allow the local government to adopt schoolpolicies that enhance local governance, give positive functions forall the schools that are located in the immediate community (Corcoran&amp Evans, 2010).However, the term “local control states” is a term that is usedto assign responsibilities assigned to public schools management andgovernance this term is mostly used by the local governing body.

However,critically speaking, the state government is seen to defer from thelocal schools and committee used in governance and when solvingissues that relate to rules and regulation compliance both instatutes and regulations used by the state and the federalgovernment. As a result, the article affirms that most of theshareholders expect that the level of satisfaction in the localschool boards has to be the factor precipitating the massive growthin both the state and federal involvement. The article creates anargument that the trend in the public schools is heading in theopposite direction because the Americans are reporting an increasinglevel of satisfaction in their local schools. For example, in asurvey that was conducted in the year 2010, 50 percent of therespondents graded their local school boards as an A or B (Kirst,&amp Wirt, 2009). On the other hand, two decades ago, fewer people were satisfied withthe local school boards thus showing an improvement in the level ofsatisfaction when declining with the local government and localboards in the public schools. This shows that the locals cancurrently take part in controlling the shareholders and educationoffered in the public schools.

Lastly,it is evident that the general public wishes that their localgovernment would have more influence and help in improving the localschools. This means that the local government has the capacity tocontrol the shareholders in public schools in the United States thepublic demands that the local government should have more influencein school than the state and the federal government. In conclusion,the control should be assigned to the local.

Reference

Corcoran,S., &amp Evans, W. N. (2010). Incomeinequality, the median voter, and the support for public education(No. w16097). National Bureau of Economic Research.

Kirst,M. W., &amp Wirt, F. M. (2009). The political dynamics of Americaneducation. Berkeley,Cal.: McCutchan.

Manna,P. (2010). Collisioncourse: Federal education policy meets state and local realities.CQ Press.

Pritchett,L., &amp Filmer, D. (1999). What education production functionsreally show: a positive theory of education expenditures. Economicsof Education review,18(2),223-239.