Article Analysis
The topic of the article by Heise (2006), The Political Economy of Education Federalism, published in the Cornell Law Faculty Publications, looks at the relationship between two forces: federalism and educational funding. In his article, Heise (2006) argues that the distribution of school funds is influenced by political and social factors, and that this influence has a direct bearing on curriculum development. This article is pertinent to the position that funding for resources supporting curriculum development is politically and socially influenced, with those in power controlling the amount of funding allocated to schools, which in turn impacts the district's curriculum.
Analysis
Sampling Procedures
Heises (2006) study is qualitative; the method involved analyzing policy documents, historical funding data, and case studies from different states. The selection of these documents and case studies is not clearly articulated in the study and the exact sampling method appears to be focused on gathering complete overview of the existing political and social influences on educational funding. Because it is not clearly described, the sampling procedure has some limitations. The selection of case studies, for example, may not fully capture the diversity of educational experiences across the entire country as by their nature case studies describe only a small portion of the total experience. On top of this, the reliance on historical documents up to 2006 leaves out any recent changes in policy and funding practices...
Heise (2006) takes a thematic approach to finding the recurring patterns and themes in the data documents and case studies. This is an excellent qualitative approach, as it allows for an in-depth understanding of the issue, but empirically speaking it does not provide any of the statistical evidence associated with
quantitative research and analysis. This...
…prevent marginalized districts from excelling. For example, as Heise (2006) indicates, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a politically motivated policy that aimed to standardize education and hold schools accountable, but not all schools could compete (Jackson et al., 2015).
Heise's (2006) findings are relevant to the position that funding for curriculum development is influenced politically and socially because it shows how political lobbying and social advocacy contribute to inequities in education. Money is distributed unevenly. Outcomes follows as one would expect. Then there is the problem of teaching to the test (Jennings & Bearak, 2014), which only helps to perpetuate the system of influence.
Conclusion
Overall, Heises (2006) The Political Economy of Education Federalism helps to confirm that political and social factors have a major influence school funding. The analysis of this article reveals some limitations in terms of research method and sample; however, there are grounds here for future research, and Heises (2006)…
