Your exam is to be a minimum of three (3) type-written, single-spaced pages following the guidelines presented in the course syllabus.  

Introduction 

On Friday November 28, 2014 Governor Jay Nixon of Missouri indicated that he was calling a special legislative session to deal with the rising costs incurred by the state related to the protests and civil unrest in Ferguson, Missouri (read NYT article , by Alan Blinder and Mitch Smith, 2014). 

Civil unrest whether in Ferguson, Missouri or Miami, Florida requires a collaborative and engaged response from government organizations. Farmbry (2009) writes that “the public servant of the future will have to work with increasingly diverse population in mind and with a better understanding of his or her processes of constructing images of The Other as someone influenced by his or her actions (p. xxiii)”. For this exam you are being asked to apply themes explored in the first half of PAD 5043 to government and minority group relations using Ferguson, Missouri as the example. 

Exam Instructions 

For this exam you should select three (3) current (2013 – 2018) sources of information (One article from an academic journal, one government report and one article from popular media [New York Times or Washington Post for example]) that have examined government and minority relations in Ferguson, Missouri. After examining your selected sources, present the following: 

1. The main argument or thesis for each source;
2. A discussion of the contribution made to course materials and concepts (by the author(s) of each article and report), including course texts and dialogue (Discussion Board where applicable); and
3. Identification and assessment of recommendations for improving and enhancing government and minority group relations in Ferguson. 

Please validate your arguments by incorporating and properly citing relevant literature. 

Grading Criteria 

The criteria that will be used to assess the exam include the following:

• indicators of subject content knowledge,
• indicators of critical thinking,
• organization in communication and progression of ideas,
• organization in content and development of response, language, and conventions.

Points will be awarded based on

• the conceptualization of arguments,
• assessment of literature,
• whether all components of the question are addressed and your application of relevant and useful knowledge gleaned from the course texts,
• course dialogue and discussion,
• other useful academic literature and other useful resources.
• Application, incorporation, and proper citation (of academic and nonacademic references) are expected. A list of references should be included. 

Please heed the grading criteria identified in the syllabus and the exam grading rubric.

Level of Achievement

Description

Exemplary

(99% – 100%)

All of the major indicators are demonstrated at the level of exemplary (Category 5). All of the components of the exam are beyond superior especially in comparison to other reviews that have been submitted.

Proficient

(94% –  96%)

All to most of the indicators are demonstrated at the level of proficiency and mastery, the assignment is reflective of outstanding mastery of subject content knowledge, critical thinking and assessment, clarity in the communication of ideas and arguments, use of relevant language and vocabulary, and use of all conventions.

Very Good

(91% – 93%)

The responses to parts a to c each of the indicators presented above in some degree or in combination are generally very good, the exam reflects a very good grasp of the relevant facts and important linkages, but is not reflective of the breadth and depth that would characterize the assignment as either proficient or exemplary. The language is not precise and purposeful. The conventions are not without error.

Good

(88% – 90%)

The exam reflects an attempt to respond to the requirements of the assignment. The submitted assignment reflects a good grasp of some theory and some ideas but it is clear that the exam is more descriptive than analytical and that a deeper assessment of the relevant literature is needed. Additional effort is needed with the organization and development of arguments and ideas. Additional effort is needed to reflect mastery of the use of conventions.

Satisfactory

(84% – 87%)

 (.84 – .87): The exam reflects an adequate attempt to respond to the requirements of the assignment.  While the demonstration of the indicators presented above demonstrate that theory and ideas from the course have been applied, the review merely repeats arguments and ideas but does not demonstrate the ability to engage in critical assessment and analysis. Additional work may be needed with the organization and development of the exam, vocabulary and language may need to be bolstered, and the use of conventions may need additional work.

Average

(80% – 83%)

The exam reflects an attempt to respond to parts a to c but is not reflective of an adequate grasp of the relevant literature, facts, and theories. The responses are reflective of a superficial exploration of the literature. The arguments are not clear. The language and vocabulary used are not precise. Multiple errors exist with the use of conventions.

Below Average

(75% – 79%)

The exploration and assessment presented in the exam are unsatisfactory and reflective of a below average understanding and grasp of the relevant literature and the expected requirements of the assignment.