Reasons of Falling of Students Proficiency Rates - Assignment Example

7. As mentioned, the No Child Left Behind Act was in partial response to the fact that even with increasing subsidies to public education, measures of performance of U.S. students remained static or fallen. Meaning, the mere increase in public school funding does not work, or is not enough to address the situation. In my opinion, the falling of student's proficiency rates despite increased federal funding may be due to several reasons. For one, the funds may not be used for the right measures. An example of which is when these funds are used to improve school facilities: a new gym perhaps, or newly painted school walls. These expenditures no not contribute to improve the reading or mathematical ability of any student. Even a new library may not do that if students themselves do not use libraries. To address this, the funds need to be focused on those activities that actually help improve math and reading proficiencies. Also, I think another reason would be that even if federal funds to be allocated are substantially big, when it is divided among numerous public schools all over the country, the end amount may be considerably small already. It may be so small that it is already insufficient to have any bearing on the improvement of proficiency rates. To address this, the act intends to focus on those schools that need the funds more. This is the very reason why there are conditions imposed. To increase the funds of schools with satisfactory student proficiency rates would be a waste of resources. It would have the effect of increasing the already high proficiency rate or some, leaving those with low proficiency rates behind. 9. First of all, I do not agree with Robert Repetoo when he included resource depletion in the computation of GDP. In my opinion, forest resources are to be considered as capital. Trees in the forest provide a lot of benefits especially in the environment. And I recognize the fact that it is very important to keep a growing forest. However, prior being cut down, trees cannot be considered as a product. Before that, there is still no commercial gain. For me, trees that are still part of the forest cannot be considered as consumption or as an export for the computation of GDP. Nor can they be considered as investment because there is no spending involved. Hence, if forest resources are capital, its depletion should be considered as depreciation in capital. "Gross" means that capital depreciation is not considered or subtracted in the equation of GDP. Otherwise, we come up with the Net Domestic Product. As to whether or not increase in forest resources should be added to GDP, in my opinion, the answer is no. As previously stated, I believe forest reserves are merely capital. As such, decrease or increase in the number of trees in our forest must be considered as a capital loss or gain - which is considered in the computation of NDP, not GDP. I believe that to add it to GDP would cause inaccuracy. The trees, if not cut down would not result to an actual commercial gain. 10. Oil reserves that are presently utilized are now being depleted. Because of this, oil supply is currently very limited. Considering this depletion, the cost to produce oil is now very high. In turn, this would result to the increase in oil prices in the world market. According to various researches, there is a great deal of oil reserves to be found in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). If Congress would allow the drilling in ANWR, this would increase the already limited oil reserves. Consequently, the cost to produce oil would decrease. Because of the decrease in the cost to produce oil, suppliers are now willing to produce more with the same purchase price. As such, this would result to a shift in the short-term aggregate supply (SRAS) curve to the right. Due to the resulting shift of the SRAS curve, prices of oil in the world market would decrease. This would benefit, not just the US economy, but the world economy in general. This universal positive effect in the world economy is the reason why I now agree to the drilling in ANWR. True that there will be environmental effects, but I think thru advances in technology, we can discover a method to protect the wildlife in ANWR and minimize if not totally avoid negative environmental effects. I believe that the development offered by drilling in ANWR is substantial. And as such I think it is unwise to just close our minds against it. I believe the solution is not to prohibit the drilling altogether. In my opinion, the better solution would be to develop technology to protect the affected wildlife. This way, there would be a win-win situation for everybody. 14. In my opinion, importing is not always disadvantageous. The release of funds outside the border in exchange for goods and services may actually be beneficial for the country. Hence, I believe that it is possible for a country like Luxembourg to have a strong economy despite importing almost everything. By importing, a country's government may impose tariffs on goods imported. For example, China has a surplus of consumer goods. For China to be allowed to export said goods to Luxembourg, Luxembourg will put tariffs on said goods. In this case, Luxembourg earns from taxing imported consumer goods from China. And said tariff earnings may form a big part of its GDP. Also, by importing, a country may create relations with other countries. For example, Luxembourg imports consumer products from Germany. In return, Luxembourg is allowed to export their steel products to Germany. In this case, by importing products, the country is actually granted a venue to sell its goods. Said sale of goods is very important to GDP as well. And it is not only the sale of goods that may be an outcome of such international relations. It may also come in the form of foreign investments. For example, Luxembourg imports foodstuff from France. In exchange, France would invest a certain amount of money to create companies to boost employment in Luxembourg. In conclusion, I don't believe that a country who imports a lot, necessarily have a weak economy. It is the exchange of goods between borders and the relationship among nations that determines the strength of a nation's economy. Read More