The U.S. Department of Education’s waiver guidelines do not allow state education agencies to use the fairest type of growth model, but there is a way to get around that.
Financial aid spending by the federal government includes about $35 billion in Pell Grants, which provide students from low-income families up to $5,645 per year to defray college expenses.
The majority of teachers in these cities do not remain in the same district long enough to qualify for even a minimal pension, and only a very tiny fraction of teachers stay long enough to receive a pension that would be sufficient for a stable retirement.
Those who follow New York City schools have been witnessing a time-honored ritual — pro-testing school reformers have mightily overreached, inviting pushback that’s now poised to dismantle much of their useful handiwork.
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.
As an advocate for struggling learners, I support the Common Core. Why? For these students, there’s nothing more effective than high expectations and accountability. The Common Core is tough love.
How can the government best incentivize and speed up the creation of “high impact” learning technologies?
Critics often accuse school reformers of “privatizing” public education. When for-profits enter the conversation, those same critics level more serious charges and often accuse those companies of having one motive: making money off of the backs of kids.
Will states and cities facing skyrocketing costs find a way to protect the retirement benefits that people have already earned while making changes to the way benefits are earned in the future?
Private schools that accept voucher students struggle to make ends meet, but are strikingly mission focused, often with a crusader’s zeal to educate every child that comes through their door, bearing a voucher or not.
How can we capture the benefits of course choice while also protecting students from poor-quality course choice providers?
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.
Most consequential decisions are made by district and state leaders, yet these leaders lack the infrastructure to learn quickly what’s working and what’s not.
Better policy alone won’t expand the public-school options available to rural kids. Charter advocates need to better understand rural communities—their strengths, challenges, hopes, and fears.
“Controlled choice”restricts families’ education options and imposes a top-down, government-run, social-engineering scheme based on somebody’s view of the value of racial and socioeconomic integration.
At some D.C. elementary schools, rather than settling into a healthy racial and socioeconomic balance, student populations are flipping from one extreme to the other, with fourth-grade classes dominated by minorities and preschool classes that are mostly white.
For thirty years, Don Hirsch has tried to persuade policymakers to undertake perhaps the one reform we’ve never tried: the widespread adoption of a coherent, sequential, content-rich curriculum. What might change the outcome over the next thirty years?
Empirically, pensions appear to have no effect on early- or mid-career teachers.
Are libraries repositioning themselves as learning centers that eventually might serve as schools of the future?
Have you noticed that the testing and accountability movement is in a bit of trouble?
Pension plans need to estimate how much money they’ll need in order to pay the benefits they’ve promised in the future. They also need to estimate how many employees will qualify for a benefit in the first place.
George Will’s column isn’t the real story here. It’s what the column represents: the quiet but growing and hardening principled opposition to Common Core.
I would be happy opposing state testing requirements for all schools (choice and traditional public) if those schools had some reasonable mechanism for accountability.
State testing makes choice schools look worse than they really are, and there’s no evidence that state testing requirements improve outcomes or ensure quality.