Essay Answers

Under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the federal government was responsible for holding states accountable for the performance of kids in their schools. The federal government compelled states to focus special attention on specific categories of kids who were performing below their peers. According to Hunt, the NCLB was implemented as a way to raise the standards of the American education system, which was becoming less competitive internationally (581).On the other hand, states were responsible for the testing of students in reading and math in grade three through to eight, and once in high school, and the results of both the tests for each of the students collected and reported. Also, states were to ensure that the proficient levels on the state tests were achieved dependent on the criteria they used. Lastly, states were required to oblige the schools in their jurisdiction to submit adequate yearly progress, failure to which the school was liable to specific sanctions.

The criticism of the NCLB arises since it is unclear if the law helped in solving the problem of low performing students or improved the student achievements in learning institutions. According to Hunt, the NCLB law enabled the growth of K-12 education and the relying on standardized tests, which affected the quality of education in most institutions (583). Also, the emphasis on math and reading tests was responsible for the narrowing of the curriculum, since other subjects that were narrowly tested were given less priority by most schools.



Identify and explain at least two significant differences between Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF). Why is TANF considered to be better for states?

AFDC has unlimited funding from the federal government that is used in compensation of needy families, while TANF’s funding by the federal government is fixed to the amount of 16.5 billion dollars per year and requires the states to spend most of the money on its needy eligible members. Moreover, ADFC recipients have no limit to their benefits, while TANF has a lifetime limit of five years on the amount of time a family with an adult can receive aid funded with federal funds, complete state flexibility on program design, and growing the work participation level requirements that states must realize.

TANF is a better model for the states since it gives the states the liberty to make decisions that are in line with its people’s standards of living and capacity that it has available. The funding for the TANF that the states receive is fixed for purposes of benefit reimbursements, and the states are required to spend 75% of the allocated funds on the needy families (Schott, Pavetti, and Finch). The states also have the power to deny or discontinue the payment of benefits for persons deemed to be able to support themselves, which provides more funds to be channeled to other needy persons.



Explain the difference between direct and indirect subsidies. Identify and explain at least two ways that states might use subsidies (either direct or indirect) as a means of promoting economic development.

Buigues and Sekkat define a subsidy as a financial aid that is given to a business or individual with the aim of supporting an economic and social course of action (2). Direct subsidies are funds given to businesses and individuals in the form of cash grants and interest –free loans, while indirect subsidies are actual agreements to provide valuable incentives other than money, which come in the form of low-interest loans, tax breaks, rent rebates, insurance among others.

Subsidies are useful in encouraging production of goods that are threatened by high costs of production and competition from foreign markets. Subsidies can be used to correct the imbalance of markets by granting subsidies to the undersupplied good or services to ensure their presence, and economic value in the state is at an equilibrium level. Additionally, subsidies encourage production activities in the states since they provide the producers with low cost of producing goods and services and availing them to the market (Buibues and Sekkat 13).



Explain the general characteristics of the spoils system and merit system of public employment. What are some potential problems with merit-based systems of hiring and promoting public employees?

The spoils system is a practice that is used by political parties to provide top jobs in the government to their supporters after their victory in an election. The loyal members of the winning side are often given the senior positions in the country based on their affiliations with the winning party as a form of reward for drumming support for the winning team from the people they represent.

Contrastingly, the merit system is a process that is used to hire government officials based on their qualification that entails their ability to perform the given job, rather than relying on their political sides and the sides they support (Dahlstrom, Lapuente, and Teorell 656). The merit-based system is functional since it gives the best candidate for the job the ability to do the work since they have proven expertise in the area.

However, the merit-based system has its disadvantages including it is subject to favoritism and bias by the supervisors who may be friends or close associates of the person being evaluated. Furthermore, the time and energy it takes to undertake the evaluation of performances to determine the merit require an extensive process of developing measurements and competencies to use to determine the achievements of individuals. Lastly, there is no accurate measure to assess the performance of an employee to determine the deserving of hiring and promotions, creating ambiguity in the merit-based systems (Dahlstrom, Lapuente, and Teorell 667).





Work Cited

Buigues, Pierre-André, and Khalid Sekkat. "Public subsidies to business: an international comparison." Journal of industry, competition and trade 11.1 (2011): 1-24.

Dahlström, Carl, Victor Lapuente, and Jan Teorell. "The merit of meritocratization: Politics, bureaucracy, and the institutional deterrents of corruption." Political Research Quarterly 65.3 (2012): 656-668.

Hunt, John W. "A Nation at Risk and No Child Left Behind: Déjà VU for Administrators?." Phi Delta Kappan 89.8 (2008): 580-585.

Schott, Liz, LaDonna Pavetti, and Ife Finch. "How states have spent federal and state funds under the TANF block grant." Washington, DC: Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (2012).