Brown V. Board Of Education Case Study

540 Words2 Pages

In the world of medicine, it would be simply say, "Primum non nocere” or “do no harm” which is commonly referenced aspect of the Hippocratic oath. It suggests that a Physician is obligated to provide the utmost care to his or her patient without causing harm. I suppose the same consideration should be understood about the federal government when it has to interject itself as it relates to collaborative federalism. It should, do not harm nonetheless attempt to correct inequities or injustices. It is important to understand that in these cases, the government only acts as a result of public or private institutional demand such is the case in education. Therefore people only remember the landmark ruling of Brown v. Board of Education but then again what necessitated such a ruling. Perhaps it was the fact that the states were allowed for discriminatory practices under the law as it related to education. …show more content…

Is this the case as it relates to “Race to the Top or Common Core”? Do the programs fit in with federalism and the powers of the state? At first glance, it appears that each program is slightly different, and are aimed at different constituents. Take a look at “Race to the Top”, this program is designed to facilitate reforms in the following areas of state education i.e. adopting standards to ensure success in college and the workplace; build a data infrastructure to measure growth; reward, develop and retain effective educators; improve underachieving schools. Each state must apply for a grant and ultimately will be awarded part the 4 billion program. Race to the top has 3 phases. Consequently, only 11 states and the District of Columbia were awarded “Race to the Top” grant, it would seem as though this program provided each state an opportunity to decide whether or not they wanted to participate in the program. In other words, it wasn’t a mandate and each state could freely decide, if it wanted to

Open Document