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.
The larger legacy of the Every Child Achieves Act may well be how it cleans up supplement not supplant, a little discussed and often misunderstood fiscal rule
When designing accountability systems, we need to find the sweet spot between defeatism and utopianism. In my view, that’s exactly what the states are trying to do. They deserve our praise, not our derision.
Where is the “plain language” of ESEA that gives the Department of Education the authority to mandate statewide teacher-evaluation systems, particularly for states that want waivers on school accountability. Just as with ObamaCare and the question of whether the federal government is a “state,” the administration won’t have a good answer.
Mike Petrilli hosts a live webchat with Kathleen Porter-Magee and Matt Chingos on what we’ve learned since No Child Left Behind was signed into law.
The administration wanted us to believe it had a smart, coherent vision and clear implementation plan for its federal education policy…until we realized it didn’t.
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.
AEI hosted a forum on No Child Left Behind, focusing on the role sanctions play in improving student achievement
Until policymakers pay attention to what states are accomplishing or not accomplishing for students, there is no reason to expect states to move in the same direction.
We need to return to the task of 2007 and to judge what might or might not usefully change in NCLB.
Is it right to set lower standards of academic performance for students from minority groups?
No Child Left Behind’s aspirational aims were more effective as rhetoric than as an accountability regime.
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?
I was amazed, befuddled, dumbstruck, bemused (choose your own adjective) to learn that Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has rejected a request from Iowa for flexibility under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
The Romney Education Plan: Replacing Federal Overreach on Accountability with Federal Overreach on School Choice
A better idea might be to take a page from the Obama Administration handbook and make funding portability voluntary.
Three cheers for California’s governor, state superintendent, and state board chair, for applying for a waiver from NCLB that doesn’t kowtow to Washington.
Should presidents talk about student achievement or jobs for teachers?
On Friday, March 2 from 9:00-10:30 am we’ll be watching a live webcast of the Fordham Institute’s forum on NCLB waivers.
An announcement on education waivers is anticipated this week. Don’t expect the reaction to be positive, for it appears that the President and his education secretary will renege on their promise of “flexibility” for the states.
It’s not just the President’s bizarre State of the Union request that states raise their compulsory attendance age to 18. No, I’m referring to the Army of the Potomac’s reaction to John Kline’s ESEA proposal and to Chairman Tom Harkin’s and Rep. George Miller’s response to the waiver requests put forward by several states.
“Consequential accountability” corresponded with a significant one-time boost in student achievement. As an early adopter, Texas got a head start on big achievement gains, and also a head start on flat-lining thereafter.