Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10 Instructions:
Module 05 Discussion – Effects of Short-Term Funding
Discussion Topic
Top of Form
For a number of years, the U.S. Department of Education’s “Race to the Top — Early Learning Challenge (RTT-ELC)” grant competition infused millions of dollars into States across the country. You can read about RTT-ELC below:
Article: Race to the Top — Early Learning Challenge Grant Competition
Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop-earlylearningchallenge/index.html on 3/22/2017.
Race to the Top — Early Learning Challenge Grant Competition.pdf
The grant competition funded initiatives designed to:
- increase the number of low-income children in high-quality programs
- design and implement an integrated state system
- ensure that assessments are appropriate
Many States applied for (and received) grant funds through this opportunity. However, eventually these short-term funds will dry up. At that time, the States will need to put their own money into sustaining these recently funded programs or they will cease to exist.
In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of this type of short-term funding? How does it influence the work states do? How does it impact children and families?
Bottom of Form
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow