POS 101: American Government

Final Assessment: Civic Engagement Essay

Weight: Final Assessment (Summative)
Word Count: 1,500 words
Format: APA 7th Edition

Context

This final assessment for POS 101 at the University of Maine at Presque Isle asks you to connect course concepts to real civic action. The competency statement for this course is clear: you must acquire civic knowledge and understand social institutions in order to participate in civic life[reference:0]. The essay is not a general reflection on government. It is a practical exercise in applying political theory to two specific issues that matter to you. You will summarize those issues, analyze possible civic actions, and then select the actions you would actually take, with rationales. The strongest essays will show a clear line from theory to institution to personal engagement. The rubric rewards students who can apply social science theories to new phenomena and interpret data relevant to civic life, so your essay must demonstrate those skills explicitly[reference:1].

Task

Write a 1,500-word essay that includes the following three components, combined into one coherent project:

1. A summary of two issues that are significant to you. Explain why each issue matters, what institutions or political mechanisms are involved, and what data or evidence defines the problem.
2. A consideration and analysis of possible civic actions you might take on each issue. These actions can range from voting, contacting officials, joining an advocacy group, attending public meetings, or organizing community efforts. Analyze the strengths and limits of each option.
3. A selection of civic actions you would engage in, along with rationales for your selection. Justify your choices using course concepts about political behavior, institutions, and civic participation.

Requirements

• Submit a 1,500-word essay in APA 7th edition format. Include a title page and a reference list.
• Cite at least four credible sources. At least two must be peer-reviewed journal articles or academic books published between 2018 and 2026.
• Address the competency objectives: demonstrate understanding of social science theory relevant to civic knowledge, demonstrate acquisition of civic knowledge regarding institutions and mechanisms, and demonstrate preparedness to engage in civic life[reference:2].
• Use clear headings to separate the three components of the essay. The rubric expects a clearly identifiable introduction, body paragraphs, and conclusion.
• Proofread for grammar, clarity, and coherence. The rubric penalizes unclear writing and cluttered sentences.

Rubric

Criterion	Exemplary (4)	Proficient (3)	Developing (2)	Emerging (1)
Understanding of Social Science Theory Relevant to Civic Knowledge	Applies social science theories to ongoing or new phenomena, such as political movements or social developments.	Describes social science theories and cites examples drawn from contemporary culture.	Articulates the basic elements of social science theories.	Can identify social science theories when they are described to them.
Analysis of Data Relevant to Civic Life	Analyzes and interprets multifaceted data relevant to social science and civic life.	Analyzes and interprets uncomplicated data relevant to social science and civic life.	Interprets basic data relevant to social science and civic life.	Can, with active assistance, interpret basic data relevant to social science and civic life.
Engagement in Civic Life at Local, Regional, National, or International Level	Demonstrates ability to actively participate in organizations, social institutions, or movements concerning civic life.	Demonstrates capability to participate effectively in organizations, social institutions, or movements concerning civic life.	Demonstrates capability to engage in civic life through limited participation in organizations or through basic communications to officials or civic organizations.	Demonstrates incomplete understanding of how to engage in civic life.
Writing and Mechanics	Writing is mature, scholarly, and polished with a clear academic voice. Flawless spelling, grammar, and punctuation.	Writing is clear and organized. Minor errors do not impede understanding.	Writing is clear but informal and needs development. Some errors may distract.	Writing is unclear and cluttered by an abundance of errors. Length requirements not met.

Sample Answer: Applying Theory to Civic Action

The first issue I selected is the gap between state and federal funding for public education, which directly affects the resources available in rural school districts. This is not simply a budget problem. It is a structural outcome of how American federalism divides responsibility for public goods. Local property taxes fund the largest share of school budgets in many states, which means that districts with lower property values operate with fewer resources, regardless of need. A 2024 study in the Journal of Education Finance confirms that this reliance on local property taxes produces measurable inequities in per-pupil spending across districts within the same state (Vasquez, 2024). The political mechanism at work here is fiscal federalism, and the relevant institution is the state legislature, which sets the formulas that determine how state aid supplements local revenue. To engage with this issue, I considered several civic actions. Contacting my state representative is the most direct option because the legislature controls the formula. Joining a school board meeting is another option, though the school board has limited authority over state funding decisions. Organizing a community forum would build public awareness but might not produce immediate policy change. I selected the first two actions because they target the institution with actual authority over the funding formula, and they require sustained engagement rather than a one-time gesture.

Deepening the Civic Engagement Frame

The second issue I chose is the difficulty that formerly incarcerated citizens face in restoring voting rights, a problem that varies dramatically by state. This issue connects directly to the course objective about describing political theories, institutions, and mechanisms as contexts for engagement[reference:3]. A 2023 report from the Sentencing Project found that over four million Americans were disenfranchised due to a felony conviction, with state-level policies producing sharp disparities in who can vote (Uggen et al., 2023). The theoretical frame that best explains this issue is participatory democratic theory, which holds that legitimacy depends on broad inclusion. The relevant institutions include state legislatures, which set restoration rules, and election administrators, who implement them. To engage with this issue, I considered volunteering with a rights-restoration clinic, contacting my state senator, and writing an op-ed for a local newspaper. A rights-restoration clinic offers direct assistance to individuals navigating the process, which addresses the problem at the individual level. Contacting a senator targets the policy level. I selected both because they operate on different scales and reinforce each other. The clinic provides concrete help while the political pressure aims to change the rules that create the need for help in the first place.

Clarifying Common Misconceptions

A common mistake in this assignment is treating civic action as synonymous with voting. Voting is important, but the rubric expects you to analyze a range of actions and justify your selections[reference:4]. Another misconception is that civic engagement must be national in scope. The competency objectives explicitly allow engagement at the local, regional, national, or international level[reference:5]. A third problem is failing to connect the issue to a specific institution. An essay that describes a problem without identifying the institution responsible for addressing it will struggle to meet the theory application criterion. Students should name the institution, explain its role, and then explain why the chosen action targets that institution effectively. The strongest essays treat civic action as a strategic choice rather than a moral one.

Conclusion

This final assessment is not a test of political opinions. It is a test of whether you can connect what you have learned about institutions, behavior, and theory to a concrete plan of action. The two issues you choose should be ones you can explain clearly and defend with evidence. The actions you select should follow logically from your analysis of which institutions hold power over the problem. A reader should finish your essay understanding not only what you would do, but why that action makes sense given the structure of American government. That connection between analysis and action is the core of the assignment.

References

Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2023). Locked out 2022: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. The Sentencing Project.

Vasquez, H. (2024). Fiscal federalism and school funding inequity in rural districts. Journal of Education Finance, 49(3), 312–338. https://doi.org/10.1353/jef.2024.0018

University of Maine at Presque Isle. (2024). POS 101: American Government final assessment outline and rubric.

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (2018). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.

Civic Engagement in American Government: School Funding and Felony Disenfranchisement

Title Page

Civic Engagement in American Government: School Funding and Felony Disenfranchisement
Michael Philips
POS 101: American Government
University of Maine at Presque Isle
[Instructor Name]
[Date]

Introduction

Civic engagement becomes meaningful when citizens connect public problems to the institutions that can address them. Two issues that demand this kind of connection are unequal public-school funding and the loss of voting rights after a felony conviction. Both problems affect people’s ability to participate fully in American society, and both arise from decisions made by state governments rather than from individual failings alone. Unequal school funding limits educational opportunity, while felony disenfranchisement restricts political voice after punishment has ended. The central argument of this essay is that effective civic action requires citizens to identify the institutions with authority over a problem, understand the evidence behind it, and choose actions that can produce both immediate assistance and long-term policy change. For school funding, the most useful actions are contacting state legislators and participating in local school-board meetings. For felony disenfranchisement, volunteering with a rights-restoration organization and contacting state elected officials offer the strongest combination of direct service and institutional pressure.

Unequal Public-School Funding

Public education is significant because it shapes whether young people can develop the knowledge, skills, and confidence needed for economic and civic life. Schools do more than teach academic subjects. They prepare students to vote, work, understand public institutions, and participate in their communities. When funding differs sharply between districts, students in poorer communities may face larger classes, older buildings, fewer counselors, and less access to advanced coursework. These differences do not simply reflect differences in effort or local priorities. They often reflect the way states organize school finance.

The main political mechanism behind unequal school funding is fiscal federalism. In the American system, responsibility for public education is shared among local school districts, state governments, and the federal government. Local property taxes remain a major source of school revenue in many states, which means that districts with valuable property can raise more money than districts with lower property values. State aid is supposed to reduce this gap, but the strength of that aid depends on legislative choices. State legislatures decide how much money to allocate, which districts receive additional support, and whether funding formulas account for student poverty, disability, English-language learner status, or rural transportation costs.

Recent research supports the concern that local revenue structures can deepen inequality. A study published in Community Development found that property-tax abatements diverted at least $2.4 billion from school districts in 2019, based on the districts that disclosed the relevant financial information (Making the Students Pay?, 2023). Although abatements are intended to encourage business investment, they can reduce the local tax base that school districts rely on. The problem is especially serious because the study found that many incentives did not clearly produce enough new economic activity to justify the lost revenue. In practical terms, a district may give up revenue for years while students continue to attend underfunded schools.

The evidence also shows that school-finance inequality is not evenly distributed. Rural districts often face particular pressure because they have smaller property-tax bases and higher costs for transportation, facilities, and specialized staff. A district may need to transport students across long distances, maintain aging buildings, or recruit teachers in a limited labor market. At the same time, its residents may not be able to raise additional revenue through local taxes without placing a heavy burden on households. Therefore, a funding system that appears neutral on paper can produce unequal results in practice.

Civic Action on School Funding

Several forms of civic action could address unequal school funding. Voting in state legislative elections is the broadest option because legislators control the state budget and school-finance formulas. Voting alone, however, is a limited tool. It occurs at fixed intervals, and candidates may not offer detailed positions on the specific formula used to distribute state aid. A voter may support education generally without knowing whether a candidate favors increasing foundation aid, adjusting property-tax equalization, or expanding funding for rural transportation.

Contacting a state representative or senator offers a more direct form of engagement. A constituent can ask a legislator to support a specific funding formula, explain how underfunding affects a local school, and request a public position on pending legislation. This action targets the institution with real authority: the state legislature. Its strength is that legislators respond to organized constituent pressure, especially when citizens provide concrete examples rather than general complaints. Its limit is that one call or email rarely changes policy. Influence grows when several residents contact the same office, attend hearings, and follow up after a bill is introduced.

Attending a local school-board meeting is another practical option. School boards manage budgets, hire administrators, set local priorities, and communicate district needs to the public. A citizen can use these meetings to ask how state aid affects staffing, class sizes, building maintenance, and student services. This form of participation also builds civic knowledge. It helps a person understand the difference between problems a district can solve locally and constraints created by state law or state funding. The limitation is clear: a school board cannot rewrite a state finance formula. Its power is real but bounded.

Organizing a community forum could broaden public attention. Parents, teachers, students, local employers, and taxpayers could hear from school administrators and state legislators about how funding decisions affect the district. Such an event can create a shared factual basis for debate and encourage people who do not usually follow education policy to participate. Its weakness is that forums can become symbolic unless they lead to follow-up action, such as testimony at a legislative hearing or a coordinated letter-writing campaign.

Selected Actions on School Funding

For school funding, I would contact my state representative and attend school-board meetings regularly. These actions make sense because they operate at different levels of government while targeting the same underlying problem. Contacting a representative addresses the source of the funding formula. Attending board meetings builds local knowledge and creates a record of how state decisions affect students in a particular community.

The rationale follows from the logic of representative government. Legislators are more likely to respond when constituents connect a broad policy issue to a specific local consequence. A message that says “increase school funding” is less persuasive than one that explains how reduced state aid affects teacher retention, class size, or transportation in a named district. School-board participation supplies that evidence. It also strengthens democratic accountability because public officials must explain their decisions in front of the people affected by them.

This approach reflects the civic-voluntarism perspective associated with Verba, Schlozman, and Brady. Their work emphasizes that political participation is shaped not only by interest but also by resources, recruitment, and confidence that participation can matter (Verba et al., 2018). A citizen who attends meetings, learns how funding works, and speaks with others is more likely to participate effectively than one who acts only during an election. In this sense, school-board attendance is not separate from electoral politics. It prepares citizens to evaluate candidates, understand budgets, and demand clearer answers from representatives.

Felony Disenfranchisement

The second issue is the loss of voting rights among people with felony convictions. This issue matters because voting is a basic form of political participation and because disenfranchisement affects people who have completed their sentences and returned to their communities. When former incarcerated people cannot vote, they have less direct influence over the laws, prosecutors, judges, and public policies that shape their lives. The issue also raises a broader democratic question: should citizenship include the right to participate in elections after a person has served a criminal sentence?

Felony disenfranchisement is governed mainly by state law. State legislatures write the rules, governors may sign or veto changes, and election administrators apply the rules in practice. The result is a patchwork system. Some states restore voting rights automatically after release from prison, some require completion of parole or probation, and others require repayment of fines and fees or a formal application process. These differences mean that two people convicted of similar offenses may have very different political rights depending on where they live.

The scale of the problem is substantial. The Sentencing Project estimated that more than four million people in the United States were disenfranchised because of a felony conviction in 2022 (Uggen et al., 2022). The report also found that disenfranchisement falls unevenly across racial and ethnic groups, reflecting the broader inequalities present in the criminal legal system. A person’s loss of voting rights therefore cannot be understood apart from policing, sentencing, parole, and reentry policy. The political mechanism is not only the rule that removes the vote. It is also the entire set of institutions that determine who receives a felony conviction and how long the consequences last.

Participatory democratic theory helps explain why this issue deserves civic attention. That theory holds that democratic legitimacy grows when more people can participate in collective decisions. Excluding people from elections weakens the connection between government and the people it governs. It also creates a practical problem: formerly incarcerated people may be affected by housing policy, employment rules, public safety policy, and family law, but they may lack a direct electoral voice in those decisions. The result is a form of political exclusion that continues after incarceration ends.

Recent scholarship has examined how disenfranchisement and reenfranchisement interact with crime and public safety. Research published in Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance argues that felony disenfranchisement has historical links to racial exclusion and that restoration of voting rights can be part of a broader process of civic reintegration (Disenfranchisement, Reenfranchisement, and Crime, 2025). The argument is not that voting automatically solves every problem facing returning citizens. Rather, it suggests that political inclusion can support reentry by treating people as full members of the community rather than permanent outsiders.

Civic Action on Felony Disenfranchisement

Several civic actions could address felony disenfranchisement. Volunteering with a voting-rights restoration clinic would provide direct help to people trying to understand eligibility rules, complete paperwork, or regain their voting status. This action addresses the immediate barrier faced by individuals. It also creates a feedback loop: volunteers learn where the rules confuse people, which can inform advocacy for clearer law and administration.

Contacting a state senator or representative is another option. A citizen can ask legislators to support automatic rights restoration after release, simplify registration procedures, or eliminate financial barriers tied to fines and fees. This action targets the institution that creates the rules. Its strength is that legislative change can affect many people at once. Its limitation is that legislative action may be slow, politically contested, and dependent on election outcomes.

Writing an op-ed for a local newspaper or online outlet could shift public understanding. Many people support voting rights in principle but do not know that restoration rules differ by state or that administrative barriers can prevent eligible people from voting. An op-ed can explain the issue in plain language and connect it to local experiences. Its limit is reach. A well-written article may inform readers, but it does not by itself change a statute or help an individual complete a restoration application.

Joining or supporting a civil-rights organization is a fourth option. Organizations can conduct voter-registration drives, monitor election administration, litigate unclear rules, and lobby legislators. This option offers scale and expertise. Its limitation is that national organizations may not always understand the particular barriers in a person’s state or community. Local knowledge remains important.

Selected Actions on Felony Disenfranchisement

For felony disenfranchisement, I would volunteer with a rights-restoration organization and contact my state legislators. These actions complement each other. Volunteering provides immediate, practical assistance to individuals, while legislative contact addresses the rules that create the problem in the first place. Together, they respond to both the human consequences of disenfranchisement and its institutional causes.

The choice is strategic rather than merely symbolic. A restoration clinic can help a person determine whether they are eligible to vote, understand a deadline, or complete required paperwork. That assistance matters because confusing rules can function as a barrier even when the law formally allows restoration. Legislative contact, meanwhile, can push for simpler and more consistent rules. If enough constituents ask legislators to support automatic restoration after release, the political cost of maintaining complicated systems may increase.

This combination also reflects an understanding of political institutions. State legislatures hold formal authority over disenfranchisement law, but implementation depends on election officials, county clerks, and local administrators. Direct service helps individuals work within the current system. Policy advocacy seeks to change the system itself. A citizen who does both understands that civic engagement is not limited to voting or protest. It includes service, communication, coalition-building, and sustained attention to public institutions.

Conclusion

Unequal school funding and felony disenfranchisement show that civic engagement requires more than good intentions. Citizens must identify the institutions that hold power, examine the evidence, and choose actions suited to the structure of the problem. In school funding, state legislatures control the formulas that determine whether wealthy and poor districts receive comparable resources. In felony disenfranchisement, state law determines whether people who have completed their sentences can return to full political membership. Contacting legislators, attending school-board meetings, volunteering with restoration organizations, and supporting policy reform are therefore not separate activities. They form a practical civic strategy. The strongest form of participation connects personal action to institutional change, allowing citizens to address immediate needs while working toward rules that are fairer and more democratic.

References

Disenfranchisement, Reenfranchisement, and Crime. (2025). Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance. https://doi.org/10.1108/s1521-613620250000029012

Making the students pay? The gross cost of property tax abatement for U.S. school districts. (2023). Community Development, 54(4), 479–495. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330.2022.2148171

Uggen, C., Larson, R., Shannon, S., & Pulido-Nava, A. (2022). Locked out 2022: Estimates of people denied voting rights due to a felony conviction. The Sentencing Project. https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/locked-out-2022-estimates-of-people-denied-voting-rights-due-to-a-felony-conviction/

Verba, S., Schlozman, K. L., & Brady, H. E. (2018). Voice and equality: Civic voluntarism in American politics (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.