Pell Grants don’t cause college readiness problems, but they do reveal them. The real blame lies with the combination of shoddy elementary and secondary schooling and, yes, students’ failure to prepare themselves for the rigors of college.
How can the government best incentivize and speed up the creation of “high impact” learning technologies?
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.
If the state board of education accepts this plan, things will never be the same. It will be a state-led initiative to replace the urban district as the delivery system for public schooling, thereby breaking with 100 years of history.
To transform America’s public education system, it’s all-hands-on-deck time.
The scores of U.S. students on PISA tests in math and science rose significantly in 2009, but fell in 2012.
SIG is failing both because turnarounds seldom work and because state processes for doling out funds have been unsound.
The idea that the Common Core might be a “game-changer” has little to do with the Common Core standards themselves and everything to do with stuff attached to them, especially the adoption of common tests that make it possible to readily compare schools, programs, districts, and states.
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.