Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

 

As a nurse, how often have you thought to yourself, If I had anything to do about it, things would work a little differently? Increasingly, nurses are beginning to realize that they do, in fact, have a role and a voice.

Many nurses encounter daily experiences that motivate them to take on an advocacy role in hopes of impacting policies, laws, or regulations that impact healthcare issues of interest. Of course, doing so means entering the less familiar world of policy and politics. While many nurses do not initially feel prepared to operate in this space effectively, the reward is the opportunity to shape and influence future health policy.

To Prepare:

• Select a bill that has been proposed (not one that has been enacted) using the congressional websites provided in the Learning Resources.

The Assignment: (1- to 2-page Comparison Grid; 1-page Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement)

Part 1: Legislation Comparison Grid

Based on the health-related bill (proposed, not enacted) you selected, complete the Legislation Comparison Grid Template. Be sure to address the following:

• Determine the legislative intent of the bill you have reviewed.
• Identify the proponents/opponents of the bill.
• Identify the target populations addressed by the bill.
• Where in the process is the bill currently? Is it in hearings or committees?

Part 2: Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Based on the health-related bill you selected, develop a 1-page Legislation Testimony/Advocacy Statement that addresses the following:

• Advocate a position for the bill you selected and write testimony in support of your position.
• Describe how you would address the opponent to your position. Be specific and provide examples.

  

PLEASE FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS AS INDICATED BELOW:

1). ZERO (0) PLAGIARISM

2). 5 REFERENCES, NO MORE THAN 5 YEARS

3). PLEASE SEE THE FOLLOWING ATTACHED: RUBRIC DETAILS, AGENDA GRID TEMPLATE.

Thank you so much. 

Legislation Comparison Grid Template

Use this document to complete Part 1 of the Module 2 Assessment
Legislation Comparison Grid and Testimony/Advocacy Statement

Health-related Bill Name
Bill Number
Description
Federal or State?
Legislative Intent
Proponents/ Opponents	Proponents:
Opponents:
Target Population
Status of the bill (Is it in hearings or committees?)
General Notes/Comments

Legislation Comparison Grid Template

© 2018 Laureate Education Inc.
2

Rubric Detail

Select Grid View or List View to change the rubric’s layout.

Content

Name:

 

NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric

• Grid View
• List View

 

Main Posting

Main Post: Timeliness

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

First Response

Second Response

Participation

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Points:

Points Range:
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Feedback:

Excellent	Good	Fair	Poor
Points: Points Range: 45 (45%) – 50 (50%) Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.   Supported by at least three current, credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 40 (40%) – 44 (44%) Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.   Supported by at least three credible sources.   Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 35 (35%) – 39 (39%) Responds to some of the discussion question(s).   One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.   Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.   Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   Post is cited with two credible sources.   Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.   Contains some APA formatting errors. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 34 (34%) Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.   Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.   Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.   Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.   Contains only one or no credible sources.   Not written clearly or concisely.   Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.   Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 10 (10%) – 10 (10%) Posts main post by day 3. Feedback:				Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not post by day 3. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 17 (17%) – 18 (18%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 15 (15%) – 16 (16%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 13 (13%) – 14 (14%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 12 (12%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 16 (16%) – 17 (17%) Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.   Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 14 (14%) – 15 (15%) Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.   Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.   Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.   Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.   Response is effectively written in standard, edited English. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 12 (12%) – 13 (13%) Response is on topic and may have some depth.   Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.   Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 11 (11%) Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.   Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.   Responses to faculty questions are missing.   No credible sources are cited. Feedback:
Points: Points Range: 5 (5%) – 5 (5%) Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days. Feedback:	Points: Points Range: 0 (0%) – 0 (0%) Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days. Feedback:

Show Descriptions

Show Feedback

Main Posting–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
45 (45%) – 50 (50%)

Answers all parts of the discussion question(s) expectations with reflective critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module and current credible sources.
 
Supported by at least three current, credible sources.
 
Written clearly and concisely with no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Good
40 (40%) – 44 (44%)

Responds to the discussion question(s) and is reflective with critical analysis and synthesis of knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
 
At least 75% of post has exceptional depth and breadth.
 
Supported by at least three credible sources.
 
Written clearly and concisely with one or no grammatical or spelling errors and fully adheres to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Fair
35 (35%) – 39 (39%)

Responds to some of the discussion question(s).
 
One or two criteria are not addressed or are superficially addressed.
 
Is somewhat lacking reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
 
Somewhat represents knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
 
Post is cited with two credible sources.
 
Written somewhat concisely; may contain more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
 
Contains some APA formatting errors.

Poor
0 (0%) – 34 (34%)

Does not respond to the discussion question(s) adequately.
 
Lacks depth or superficially addresses criteria.
 
Lacks reflection and critical analysis and synthesis.
 
Does not represent knowledge gained from the course readings for the module.
 
Contains only one or no credible sources.
 
Not written clearly or concisely.
 
Contains more than two spelling or grammatical errors.
 
Does not adhere to current APA manual writing rules and style.

Feedback:

Main Post: Timeliness–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
10 (10%) – 10 (10%)

Posts main post by day 3.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not post by day 3.

Feedback:

First Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
17 (17%) – 18 (18%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
 
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
 
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
15 (15%) – 16 (16%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
 
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
 
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair
13 (13%) – 14 (14%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
 
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 12 (12%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
 
No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Second Response–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
16 (16%) – 17 (17%)

Response exhibits synthesis, critical thinking, and application to practice settings.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are fully answered, if posed.
 
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by at least two scholarly sources.
 
Demonstrates synthesis and understanding of learning objectives.
 

Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Good
14 (14%) – 15 (15%)

Response exhibits critical thinking and application to practice settings.
 
Communication is professional and respectful to colleagues.
 
Responses to faculty questions are answered, if posed.
 
Provides clear, concise opinions and ideas that are supported by two or more credible sources.
 
Response is effectively written in standard, edited English.

Fair
12 (12%) – 13 (13%)

Response is on topic and may have some depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion may lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are somewhat answered, if posed.
 
Response may lack clear, concise opinions and ideas, and a few or no credible sources are cited.

Poor
0 (0%) – 11 (11%)

Response may not be on topic and lacks depth.
 
Responses posted in the discussion lack effective professional communication.
 
Responses to faculty questions are missing.
 
No credible sources are cited.

Feedback:

Participation–

Levels of Achievement:

Excellent
5 (5%) – 5 (5%)

Meets requirements for participation by posting on three different days.

Good
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Fair
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

 

Poor
0 (0%) – 0 (0%)

Does not meet requirements for participation by posting on 3 different days.

Feedback:

Total Points: 100

Name: NURS_6050_Module02_Week03_Discussion_Rubric