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.
ESSA doesn’t come close to getting it all right, but it’s a vast improvement on NCLB and the status quo.
Conventional formula-based programs can divvy up dollars evenly, but they don’t change behavior much. The right kind of competitive grant, however, allows the federal government to set a priority while enabling state and local direction and innovation.
If the Obama Administration Wants Fewer Tests, It Will Have to Give Up On Test-Based Teacher Evaluations
Either you can reduce testing, or you can continue to demand test-based teacher evaluations in all subjects. It’s one or the other.
We might see some significant education action in DC come 2017, but it’s unlikely to get much of a preview on the 2016 trail.
Why Did President Obama Appoint John King as “Acting” Education Secretary Rather Than Put Him Through the Senate Confirmation Process?
As Arne Duncan exits, another missed opportunity for bipartisanship
In an article on The 74, Matt Barnum writes that the general public largely believes that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) didn’t work, but that this is wrong.