It’s going to be important for the press, and for the Senate HELP committee, to ask a lot of questions to understand where she and the President who chose her plan to take federal education policy
The regulatory process provides a unique opportunity for researchers and the public at large to engage with policy. We should take advantage of it, in any administration.
States are now putting pen to paper on their accountability plans and many of them want advice about what to do.
Here are some of the names I’d love to see considered for a dozen of the top jobs.
Here are my 11 reflections on what this means and predictions for what might happen.
With Donald Trump set to enter the Oval Office, Vice President-elect Michael Pence seems likely to shape the federal role in education for the next four years.
What does this political earthquake mean for education policy?
What does this mean for education? We’ll have to see who gets named to key policy positions in the White House and the Department of Education.
Requiring that districts move closer to equal spending across schools may simply shift high-cost but less effective resources to students in need.
The stakes seem to get higher and higher as presidents and their appointees tear away at the moorings meant to constrain them.
School failure is no longer the United States’ most pressing educational problem—mediocrity is.
Trump has spent at least half his adult life as a Democrat, has been on every side of every major issue, and seems wholly unacquainted with the Constitution.
Instead of continuing with a complex and ineffective maze of Title I regulations, states should have the opportunity to let parents decide how to use Title I dollars.
Our next President will be forced to make a number of important education policy decisions almost immediately upon taking office.
Today’s dispute over comparability marks the midpoint in a decades-long struggle over whether districts have a right to skimp on funding their most troubled schools.
Three provisions in the new law might help states and school districts improve their systems of school finance.
Like No Child Left Behind, the proposed ESSA regulations are going to stand in the way of some promising approaches to state accountability. What’s the point of that?
For all their differences, George W. Bush and Barack Obama shared a surprisingly common approach to school reform: a regulatory approach.
If these rules are put into place, districts will face several incentives at odds with helping disadvantaged students.
The Obama administration’s Department of Labor is moving to revamp the “overtime rule” under the Fair Labor Standards Act. This could have a big impact on programs that depend on the passionate commitment of small staffs.
One reason that Trump makes political veteran observers so nervous is that he could very well be elected President of the United States, and yet no one has any idea of what he’d attempt to do in office.
From Evidence-based Programs to an Evidence-based System: Opportunities Under the Every Student Succeeds Act
A series of provisions in the new education law encourage the use of evidence to inform the kinds of decisions states are now empowered to make.
The new law retains NCLB’s federal framework for testing while getting the federal government out of the business of trying to judge teacher or school quality or how to “fix” schools.
The sooner schools see building knowledge across the curriculum as Job One in strengthening reading comprehension, the better.
With NCLB reauthorization taking another step forward, I’m again hearing the refrain that states won’t back away from school accountability when they’re not forced to by the feds.