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.
It’s hard to make the case that this massive program had a transformative influence on the state’s most troubled schools.
The data are so discouraging that even the Department’s press statement found it difficult to conceal disappointment.
I am not against having better learning standards, but I also believe that we cannot be distracted from more fundamental reform of our schools.
I’ve predicted that SIG was not going to produce anything remotely close to the results the Department and others were promising. If I got it wrong, I’ll say so.
The desire to more evenly distribute effective teachers is laudable, but the feds should take care not to accidentally undermine successful schools, compromise teacher effectiveness, or drive good teachers from the profession.
While Arne Duncan continues to champion ideas that enjoy bipartisan support, his methods have become increasingly imperious.
Way back in March of 2010, President Obama released his blueprint for reauthorizing NCLB. Three years later, we’re still operating as if the blueprint never happened, as if three years of policymaking hasn’t happened.
Gridlock and stasis don’t seem to be leaving the K–12 space in Washington anytime soon.
I’ve been yearning for real data showing how the program is doing. I’m not the only one.
For nearly 30 years, education-minded conservatives have embraced a two-part school reform strategy, focused on rigorous standards and parental choice. Recent events have frayed that coalition, but it’s not too late to stitch it back together.
While working for the New Jersey Department of Education, I consistently struggled with a basic problem. My organization wasn’t designed to do the things that our leadership team prioritized.
But first clean up Head Start
How New Jersey has tried to bridge the gap between policy and practice on teacher evaluations.
Is it right to set lower standards of academic performance for students from minority groups?
It’s a safe bet that an Obama victory will mean more federal funding for education than would a Romney victory. But, either way, federal edu-spending is going to be on a lean diet for a good, long while.
We’re rolling into the final sprint to the election; this makes it a good time to look back at what the Obama administration has done with its time in office.
School district officials who have attempted to do more with less have been stymied by federal maintenance-of-effort requirements for special education.
No Child Left Behind’s aspirational aims were more effective as rhetoric than as an accountability regime.
The Department of Education’s latest foray into digital learning is a big deal.
Romney’s plan to voucherize Title I and IDEA has considerable merit—but it’s not the only way the federal government could foster school choice and it might not even be the best way.
If a race to the bottom is fueled by the desire to satisfy federal bureaucratic rules, why would we think the solution is in the adoption of more federal bureaucratic rules?
Whatever its other virtues or defects, Romney’s plan should be debated on the basis of what it actually proposes—and not a politically-colored version thereof.
We hope that Race to the Top-District competition encourages substantive student-centered reform, and in order to ensure this clear purpose we have a few suggested revisions.