Michael J. Petrilli
School districts and teachers unions are fighting charters with renewed energy.
What autonomous automobiles will mean for adolescence
Among news media, competition less important than achievement gap
Education Next talks with Ben Austin and Michael J. Petrilli
Forum: Pulling the Parent Trigger
How “narrowcast” is the education policy debate?
Surprise! The press paints a distorted picture
Does the reality match the rhetoric?
Improving our schools in 140 characters or less
The following essay is part of a forum, written in honor of Education Next’s 10th anniversary, in which the editors assessed the school reform movement’s victories and challenges to see just how successful reform efforts have been. For the other side of the debate, please see A Battle Begun, Not Won by Paul E. Peterson, […]
Using video recordings to evaluate teachers
Educating high and low achievers in the same classroom
Why 2010 is a banner year for the education documentary
Interactive and expensive, whiteboards come to the classroom
The charter school movement turns 14
this year, and its behavior, some might say, is “developmentally
What happens when the education reporter goes away?
A peek inside the education blogosphere
Online training is the norm in other professions. Why not in K–12 education?
Newspaper editorialists support charter schools, split on NCLB
Assessing the online encyclopedia’s impact on K–12 education
Talk radio’s take on K–12 education
New technologies target teacher performance
Implementation is not the problem
Quality data and sound analysis matter, after all
Hollywood and Hip-Hop Discover Charter Schools
Schools get an A in resisting reform.
Will NCLB’s restructuring wonder drug prove meaningless?
The case for national standards and tests
Where is the “plain language” of ESEA that gives the Department of Education the authority to mandate statewide teacher-evaluation systems, particularly for states that want waivers on school accountability. Just as with ObamaCare and the question of whether the federal government is a “state,” the administration won’t have a good answer.
Different reformers prefer different reforms, and those reforms are colliding. Something has to give. We need to either pause the move to the tougher tests or pause the stakes attached to the teacher evaluations.
President Obama’s policy will have a predictable effect: eliminating suspensions and expulsions as an option for school administrators.
In which states and cities are high-quality charter schools thriving, and what policies make the charter sectors in those states so strong?
Tenure is just one part of a dysfunctional approach to human resource management in U.S. schools that needs a complete overhaul.
It’s a myth that district schools “serve all comers.” They simply don’t. Nor should they. Every child deserves to have his or her needs met, but not necessarily under the same roof.
One of the great unanswered questions in American education policy is why the major gains we’ve seen on the Nation’s Report Card in the fourth and eighth grades evaporate once students reach the twelfth grade.
Common Core will not lead to a national curriculum. Local control is alive and well, as it should be. But that’s not to say anything goes in the Common Core era or that changes to teaching and learning aren’t needed.
As legislatures wind down their spring sessions nationwide, Oklahoma is one of the few remaining states with an ongoing, unresolved debate over the Common Core State Standards
What should we do with these students while they are in high school? What education offerings would benefit them the most?
Standards-based reform and school choice are interdependent, maybe even codependent.
Is exactly what we should be telling a lot of high school students.
There are vast differences between ObamaCare and the Common Core when it comes to federal involvement.
Those who criticize the Common Core standards for asking kids to estimate the answer to a math problem get a few things wrong.
If you want to understand why supporters of the Common Core are frustrated—OK, exasperated—by some of our opponents’ seemingly unlimited willingness to engage in dishonest debate, consider this latest episode.
The U.S. Department of Education issued new guidance for the Public Charter Schools Program that will allow charters to use “weighted lotteries” without forfeiting their chance to receive federal start-up funds.
If DCPS wants to have diverse schools among its ranks, it’s going to need some help from public policy. Controlled choice is one way.
Students receiving publicly funded scholarships or vouchers should take state assessments and that the results should be reported publicly.
The so-called War on Poverty has been fantastically successful at eradicating poverty among the old and devastatingly miserable at eradicating poverty among the young.
No, we did not achieve universal proficiency by 2014. But that doesn’t mean that students haven’t benefited from the law and its associated reforms.
With winter break upon us, parents face a multitude of decisions. Will we let our kids watch TV? How much? Which shows? Play video games? Which ones? Watch sports?
Any gains provided by a massive new investment in preschool will quickly fade away if Mayor de Blasio doesn’t also tackle New York City’s mediocre elementary schools.
The SIG analysis released by the Department of Education is completely worthless. Looking at changes in proficiency rates tells us virtually nothing about the progress (or lack thereof) of these schools.
What’s a better hypothesis for the lackluster math performance of our fifteen-year-olds? Maybe we’re just not very good at teaching math, especially in high school.
This testimony was presented in Ohio by Mike Petrilli, executive vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, on November 20, 2013.
The main reason there’s been so little achievement gain over the past few decades arising from the reforms that so many of us have been pressing is precisely because neither curriculum nor instruction much changed.
Someday I’d like to write a book on anti-poverty efforts, and I hope it might have the title above.
Let’s not pretend that the behavior of rich parents is somehow “bad,” even if it creates an unfortunate outcome (greater inequality).
It brings me no pleasure to predict that the project to create rigorous teacher evaluations by fiat is likely to fail.
There’s a simple reason why education has been in the spotlight for so long: It’s one of the few things upon which the politicians–and the Americans they represent–can agree.
In her new book, Diane Ravitch commits the exact same errors for which she lambastes reformers. She oversells the evidence; she fails to consider likely unintended consequences; she doesn’t think through implementation challenges.
Our message to young people, especially those growing up in poverty, should be clear: If you’re willing to do the work, we’ll clear your path to the middle class.
Rather than accept a future of low-skill, low-wage work for our impoverished young people, education reformers aspire to build their “human capital”–their knowledge, skills, capabilities, talents, habits, character–so that the labor market will one day repay their contributions to society with a wage that far exceeds any minimums.
Is there anything schools can to do to encourage their students to follow the "success sequence"?
A response to Deborah Meier
A manifesto in response to Alison Benedikt.
Parents of high-achieving students—whether they be rich or poor, newcomers or old-timers—deserve schools that will challenge their children. If they don’t find them in the city, they will move.
Either policymakers need to combine evaluation systems with reforms that make it plausible to fire ineffective employees, or they shouldn’t bother with high stakes at all.
Proficiency rates are terrible measures of school effectiveness.
Sign Up To Receive Notification
when the latest issue of Education Next is posted
In the meantime check the site regularly for new articles, blog postings, and reader comments