need help

This is a continuation of the assignment posted below and uses your accumulated research. Imagine you are two different lobbyists, supporting two different sides of the policy issue you will read in the upload below which the topic is on Public Health. 

Write a 4–5 page paper in which you:

• Write a one-page position in favor of the policy.
• Write a one-page position against the policy.
• Write a one-page response to the argument in favor of the policy.
• Write a one-page response to the argument against the policy.

Absolutely no plagarism 

Make sure to follow all directions given above and below

Make sure to read the documents below to have a better understanding of the assignment and stay on the topic

APA format to include title page, page number. reference page , ect 

5 pages or mores 

Use the download below to use as a guide for the paper 

Looking for quality and thorough work, A++++ work

7

Analyzing Policy

Summary of Education Policy
Public education is generally considered the responsibility of state and local governments, however, over time, the federal government’s role in public education has been growing significantly. This federal government’s role has grown greatly from the mid-twentieth century to to-date. The growth can be attributed to the federal to education. Education policy covers principles, laws, and rules that govern the function and process in the education systems or educational sphere. In the U.S, for a long time, the education policy has been prioritized mainly because the purpose of education is viewed as critical in enabling individuals to gain skills that are required to participate in the global economy. The period after World War II marked an important phase in the development of education policy because the federal government’s interests in education grew and this was characterized by increased federal aid in education. Nonetheless, complexity related to the policy domain has continued to be seen as a result of the increased interactions between the state and the federal government.
Over time, the U.S education policy has undergone various changes in different administrations and these changes can mainly be attributed to goal, societal and cultural changes that push for the need to debate and review the policy. For instance, the Bill Clinton administration focused on supporting state development of standards and assessments whereas the Obama administration linked the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and education to economic recovery and development (Papa & Armfield, 2018). The goals of public education that have been revised over time include: teaching cultural literacy, promoting critical thinking among students. Cultivating a skilled workforce, enabling students to compete in the global workforce, and prepare individuals for citizenship. Initially, the focus on the U.S education policy was founded on religion however, the focus has changed today because the main focus is on facilitating the development of learning skills required to fit and participate in the global economy. Disagreements on how a combination of these goals can be achieved have triggered the need for change. Putting curriculum-building and classroom-running decisions in the hands of the community can help in addressing the issue.
Stakeholders Involved
In education, the stakeholders are parties invested in the welfare and success of a school and its students. The stakeholders include administrators, professionals, teachers, staff members, students, parents, community members, families, unions, government agencies, local business leaders, and elected leaders like school board members. Other unofficial stakeholders include collective entities like cultural institutions, advocacy groups, and media outlets (Brinda et al., 2016). Additionally, there are specific groups that are interested in education policy. They include teachers’ unions, school boards, and parent-teacher organizations.
Role and function of stakeholders
School administrators monitor the curriculum implementation. They play a vital role in developing and structuring schools and students. Additionally, they are tasked with the responsibility of acquiring learning materials that are important for the implementation of the curriculum. School administrators are always informed by students, teachers, and the community of curriculum success. Lastly, they can employ professional services to determine how the curriculum is performing.
Teachers play a vital role in the education process. The education process cannot happen without teachers. Teachers are required to have the professional knowledge to lead students (Brinda et al., 2016). A teacher can hence have an instructional role, community leader, mentor, and supervisor.
Professionals, that is, psychologists and social workers, highly contribute towards special schools and children. They provide strategies that can be used when dealing with students of foreign origin or with disabilities. Professionals may be part of the school board or community members. They contribute to resources that may not be available at school premises.
Students play a vital role in the educational process. As stakeholders, they should be encouraged in exercising a decision-making role in the education process. Participation helps students in gaining skills and knowledge to be a productive and viable part of society.
Parents impact curriculum implementation. They play an essential role in the monitoring of lessons taught at schools. Additionally, they also fill the gap between the school administration and students. This is by providing resources that may not be available in the school. Teachers also seek help from parents to monitor their children’s social and behavioral development (Brinda et al., 2016).
School board members act as guardians of the policy that help in the implementation of changes that will benefit the school. They also support the principal in the implementation and maintenance of the policies. The main responsibility is to take legal consideration when making policy governing decisions.
Government agencies develop the strategic direction of schools. They also collaborate with schools to develop effective policies and practices. The agencies have the responsibility to support teachers in helping students to achieve the desired outcomes (Calder & McCollum, 2013). 
The community transmits the right values and attitudes to the children and students. The community may recognize the abilities and talents that are possessed by young ones in the community.
The business community provides opportunities for students to experience the world of work. The community collaborated with schools in the formulation of programs and policy (Leal Filho & Brandli, 2016). The business community includes business people and institutions among others.
Stakeholder’s Political Influence
Stakeholders in the education industry play a vitally important role in ensuring that the best reforms are made in the education policy to fit the current educational needs and to ensure that the goals fit societal needs. The first stakeholder is teacher unions. Teacher unions are organizations that are highly considered to have great political power mainly because they have the ability to influence electoral outcomes. They can advocate for issues such as higher salaries not tied to high performance, protecting teachers from dismissal, career development, advocating against decentralized school management, and advocating for the improvement of the welfare of teachers. Conflicts within the unions are mainly attributed to exclusivity whereby the union fails to bargain for the collective interests of all the members of the bargaining unit.
The second stakeholder is government agencies. The agencies oversee and administer specific functions such as administration, development of policy reforms, etc. These agencies also have a significant political influence because they determine the nature of critical issues in education such as guidelines, funding, publishing teaching materials and strategies, etc. Conflicts of interest may arise within the agencies and between teacher unions and these agencies. Conflicts between the stakeholders mainly arise when government agencies develop guidelines that teachers feel do not represent their interests. Conflict also arises when unions make proposals that the government cannot fulfill. These two stakeholders must work collaboratively to ensure the goals of education are achieved through the creation of mutual reform decisions that will support this achievement. Successful education systems depend on the quality of partnerships between teacher unions and government agencies on education policies (Bascia, & Osmond, 2013). The education policy is significantly affected by politics because they can influence the creation of education reforms that do not necessarily reflection education needs and goals. The political context instigated by the stakeholder’s shapes opportunities and barriers for achieving progress in education policy, learning outcomes, and access to education (Wales, Magee, & Nicolai, 2016).

References
Bascia, N., & Osmond, P. (2013). Teacher union governmental relations in the context of educational reform. Brussels, Belgium: Education International. Retrieved from download. ei-ie. org/Docs/WebDepot/Teacher_Union_Study. pdf.
Brinda, T., Mavengere, N., Haukijärvi, I., Lewin, C., & Passey, D. (2016). Stakeholders and Information Technology in Education. Springer International Publishing.
Calder, J. A., & McCollum, A. (2013). Open and flexible learning in vocational education and training. Psychology Press.
Leal Filho, W., & Brandli, L. (Eds.). (2016). Engaging stakeholders in education for sustainable development at university level. Springer.
Papa, R., & Armfield, S. W. (Eds.). (2018). The Wiley handbook of educational policy. John Wiley & Sons.
Wales, J., Magee, A., & Nicolai, S. (2016). How does political context shape education reforms and their success?. ODI Dimension Paper, 6.

1

Historical Perspective

Education policy
Even though public education is considered a local and state responsibility, the federal government’s role has significantly grown, especially from the mid-twentieth century till today. Due to the increased federal-state interactions in the education policy domain, complexity has continued to be recorded. After World War II, the federal role in education continued to grow, and this can mainly be attributed to federal aid to education. Education policy has been discussed in different administrations.
Bill Clinton administration
Bill Clinton has played a crucial role in the 1989 education summit and national education goals. During his presidential campaign, he has emphasized how he would be committed to federal action for education. He introduced his first proposal in 1993. The proposal was referred to as Goals 2000: The Educate America Act. The act was centered on parental responsibility and teacher quality. The Goal 2000 program also focused on supporting state development of standards and assessments (Papa & Armfield, 2018). The plan acknowledged the reform efforts that had been enforced by different states. This proposal was unique because it targeted all local schools rather than a specific subject area or group of students. Funding became available, and therefore different States took advantage of this, and the budget helped in supporting states in developing their tests and standards. For example, from 1994 to 1997, Texas received more than $100 million for this program. Different states were using different titles for the program. For instance, the state of Texas used the title Academics 2000. The program was flexible and encouraged states to be innovative, and this was one of the major reasons why the program gained a lot of support from states. However, the flexibility accorded to countries compromised quality because states’ standards were not uniformly high.
Bill Clinton advanced his proposal for modification of Improving America’s Schools Act in parallel with the Goals 2000 (Benezra, 2016). The program was proposed at a time when there was a need to ensure the quality of education was improved through standards and tests. The program was successful because it received support from Democrats and Republicans. Business and education committed also presented their recommendations, which were considered. The economic, social, and political environment for the time the policy was implemented was stable. However, some financial constraints affected the implementation of the program but they were addressed eventually. Federal funding was low in 1994 but it increased from 1995. A new technology program was developed to support the creation and delivery of software to provide instructions on the applicability of standards and tests. The education policy was a success and necessary because it was proposed during a time when the creation of quality standards was paramount. The program was flexible and encouraged innovation which was a major reason why the majority supported it. The program created a good foundation for the delivery of high-quality education.
Obama administration
Obama linked the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act and education to economic recovery and development. The Obama administration initiated education policy efforts. During the implementation of the policy, there was an issue of low performing schools. The school improvement Grant was there under President George W. Bush administration. However, the Obama administration enormously boosted the program. The schools that received grants were the poorest-performing schools. They had low graduation rates, poor maths, or poor reading. There was a need to improve these schools. There was a need for better standards and assessments in education to ensure that students graduate. There was also a need to improve the efficiency of higher education (Araya, 2015).
During this era, there was an economic crisis. It was faced with the worst economic times in U.S. history. However, Obama tried to ensure that the economy had stabilized. Obama Administration ensured that there was an economic recovery due to the economic crisis during that time. The politics during this time was corrupt and defeaning. Public opinion was agitated with divisive new ideologies such as socialism. However, such behavior was condemned. The reckless political practices did not consider social interdependencies. With the ongoing crisis, the administration developed measures to deal with the economic crisis. The social environment was stable. During this era, most of the citizens were included in social cohesion, social capital, and social participation in community programs.
The major focus was on Education spending within the economic stimulus bill. Over $40 billion was allocated for stabilization aid to eradicate the budget shortfalls and additional funds through IIDEA and Title 1 of ESEA. Even though the stabilization aid was allocated to fund short-term programs, some states replaced their educational appropriations with federal funds. This presented a challenge of whether the state education funding could decrease the stabilization aid. More state stimulus aid was tied to the federal education reform agenda. A $4.35 billion grant program was applied for education reform goals which are: recruitment and retention of effective principals and teachers, benchmarking standards and assessments, and improvement of low-performing schools, among others (King, 2017). The policy was effective during this time since there was a need to improve the low-performing schools. The lowest-performing schools were reformed and educational equity was promoted.

References
Araya, D. (2015). Education Policy and the Obama Administration. In Rethinking US Education Policy (pp. 77-105). Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
Benezra, M. R. (2016). How Policymakers Started the Federal Charter School Movement: A Case Study in Policy Entrepreneurship (Doctoral dissertation).
King, J. (2017). Giving every student a fair shot. The Education Digest, 82(7), 16-25. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/cabinet-exit-memo ?utm_content=&utm_name=&utm_term=
Papa, R., & Armfield, S. W. (Eds.). (2018). The Wiley handbook of educational policy. John Wiley & Sons.