Group items tagged

This is a pdf of the decision in the NYSUT vs Board of Regents case.

Diane Ravitch, the former assistant U.S. secretary of education, tells Miller-McCune what she thinks about No Child Left Behind now.

If Christie's comments have lost much of their ability to surprise (though not to sting), what is truly shocking is the weak defense against these attacks offered by the very people who've committed their lives to public education. True, the New Jersey Education Association (NJEA) denounces Christie's attack, but it is dismissed as a predictable opponent by the press and most legislators.

Realizing that many people reading my blog don't have the book to follow along with, I'm going to add more context in this post than the previous one.

Joel Klein responds to Steve Brill.

Diane Ravitch responds to Steve Brill.

"Today marks an important day for early education in North Carolina. Thanks to Governor Perdue's actions, that state's youngest children can continue to benefit from early learning programs that we know improve academic performance."

Joel Klein reviews books by Steve Brill and Terry Moe.

TERRY MOE MADE his name in the early 1990s when, with John Chubb, he co-authored a much-discussed book arguing for a system of publicly-funded private school vouchers. The central thesis of Politics, Markets and America's Schools was that "direct democratic control" of public education was "incompatible with effective schooling." Chubb and Moe argued that private school vouchers would create efficient markets in education, and that "choice is a panacea."

Sometimes it seemed like a slick oilman or salesman was hovering around the room. Yes, he is personable, but personality does not resolve issues affecting the masses and the middle class if a genuine intent to do the right thing is absent.

It wasn't quite the Smackdown in Edgartown, but two leading figures in the national education debate politely collided here Thursday over the causes of failing schools and the best ways to rescue them.

If you don't have the time or inclination to read Steve Brill's book on education reform, then his bombastic op-ed on the subject is a pretty good alternative. And similarly, if you didn't read Diane Ravitch's 4,400-word review of "Waiting for Superman" in the NYRB, then her 1,000-word response to Brill captures the heart of her argument. Reading them side by side, the conclusion I come to is that Brill protests far too much.

America was founded, and has flourished, as a land of opportunity-a place where, by working hard and seizing opportunities, each generation can do better than the last. But this very American notion seems frayed, as the effects of economic recession have taken a terrible toll on our kids and the schools they depend upon.

State-level battles over changes in education policy have shifted in many places from legislative chambers to courthouses, as unions and other critics of new laws challenge them on the grounds that they violate state constitutions and worker contracts.

We can't say how many high school principals get calls from Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, particularly when he knows he'll be speaking with a critic of his policies. We do know that he got an earful when he called the principal of South Side High School in New York, Carol Burris (one of the authors of this article).

As recently as 25 years ago, Finnish students were below the international average in mathematics and science. There also were large learning differences between schools, with urban or affluent students typically outperforming their rural or low-income peers. Today, as the most recent PISA study proves, Finland is one of the few nations that have accomplished both a high quality of learning and equity in learning at the same time. The best school systems are the most equitable - students do well regardless of their socio-economic background. Finally, Finland should interest US educators because Finns have employed very distinct ideas and policies in reforming education, many the exact opposite of what's being tried in the United States.

Few observers doubt that Teach For America (TFA) has high aspirations. Established in 1990, TFA strives to close persistent racial and socioeconomic achievement gaps in U.S. public education by recruiting high-achieving college graduates to teach for two years in low-income urban and rural schools. In recent years, applications to TFA have soared, especially at highly selective colleges. In 2009-10, for example, 18% of Harvard University's seniors applied to the program. Proposing to expand its teaching corps from 7,300 to 13,000 over the next five years, TFA recently won $50 million in the federal i3 (Investing in Innovation) competition and succeeded in raising $10 million in matching funds.

Misinformed charter punditry doesn't help anyone. It doesn't help the public to make more informed decisions either about choices for their own children or about policy preferences more generally. It also doesn't help charter operators get their jobs done and it doesn't help those working in traditional public schools focus on things that really matter.  This post is in direct response to the irresponsible and unjustified statement below from a recent editorial in the NJ Star Ledger