Some Utah teachers worry that the Ogden School District is setting a precedent for other districts by skipping negotiations with its teachers union and phasing out pay based on experience.

The Civil Rights data simply sheds more light on what those of us advocating for equity in the states have known for decades: the enormous disparities in the opportunity to learn for students in low wealth, high poverty communities as compared to their more advantaged peers in more affluent public schools and districts.

The pre-K-3 movement, which refers to the years spanning prekindergarten to 3rd grade, wants to revolutionize early education through an ambitious list of connected initiatives, including universal access to free public preschool, mandatory full-day kindergarten, and curriculum that is seamlessly connected from preschool to 3rd grade. Increasing parent involvement is also a major focus.

In an article in this week's New York Times Magazine, author Paul Tough notifies supporters of market-based reform that they cannot simply dismiss the "no excuses" maxim when it is convenient. He cites two recent examples of charter schools (the Bruce Randolph School in Denver, CO, and the Urban Prep Academy in Chicago) that were criticized for their low overall performance. Both schools have been defended publicly by "pro-reform" types (the former by Jonathan Alter; the latter by the school's founder, Tim King), arguing that comparisons of school performance must be valid - that is, the schools' test scores must be compared with those of similar neighborhood schools.

In my view, the hypocrisy lies in what those who choose elite private schools for their own argue are the best solutions for public education for the children of others.  If the preferences are the same, there is no hypocrisy. The problem is when those preferences are vastly different - completely at odds - as they tend to be in the present "ed reform" and "new normal" debate.

"By ranking schools on a wide spectrum of factors, such as test scores and per-pupil spending, the new system will more clearly show where a school is excelling or falling behind, empowering parents with the information they need to ensure their children are not trapped in failing schools." But some say rankings can be misleading and it's difficult to factor in differences in student populations and spending levels when making comparisons.

If you're concerned about the troubled educational system in New York, you might recall a classic scene in the movie "Casablanca."

Recent federal investments in teacher "residency" programs are illuminating both promising developments and growing pains for the schools of education implementing the more hands-on approach to training.

When I heard the news last week that the Department of Education is aiming to subject 4-year-olds to high-stakes testing, all I could do was shake my head in disbelief and despondently mutter a slightly altered riff off "The Big Lebowski's" Walter Sobchak. Four-year-olds, dude.

I've written before about KIPP attrition in response to reports that had been released studying it.  When reports conclude that KIPP does not have high attrition, they tout it on their websites.  When reports concluded that they do have high attrition, KIPP responds with a rebuttal. The problem with most of these reports is that the data they give us has already been analyzed and then turned into percentages, which are only relative measures.  This is why I finally got around to navigating the New York START data system to find the actual raw data for myself which I could then compare to KIPPs annual report card that they release.

It's one thing to say there was widespread cheating on standardized tests in Atlanta public schools, as the newly released results of a state investigation showed. It's another thing to actually read the volunimous report. The details are shocking.

A simmering scandal in Atlanta over cheating on standardized tests came to a head this week as state investigators released a report that found in the city's schools "an enterprise where unethical-and potentially illegal-behavior pierced every level of the bureaucracy," according to the Atlanta Journal Constitution. The scandal follows closely on the heels of a USA Today investigation into possible cheating in the Washington, D.C. schools. The Hechinger Report talked with Robert Tobias, director of the Center for Research on Teaching and Learning at NYU's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, and former head of assessment and accountability for the New York City schools, about whether high-stakes testing inevitably leads to cheating, and how it might be avoided.

Ever since Congress and President George W. Bush reauthorized the Early and Secondary Education Act in 2002 to become No Child Left Behind (NCLB), schools have been under the gun to up state-mandated student test scores or face financial and structural consequences. Results from those exams are notoriously inflated or teased with public relations precision, not out of the malfeasance of school administrators but as a function of what happens when students are taught to a series of exams that determine a great portion of the state's education funding.

States and districts would get unprecedented leeway to move around federal money under the latest in a series of bills to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. But the measure is already being decried by a top Democrat as a "backdoor" way to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and as an attack on students' civil rights.

School systems around the country are in transition. Propelled by a combination of evidence, logic, and intuition about the need for fundamental improvements in the content and management of public education, districts and states are continuing to exhibit an innovative drive that has in some ways been a hallmark of the American system since its beginnings nearly two centuries ago.

Although this article is about medicine, might the same apply to education?

Evaluating teachers based on the results of the MCAS test is unfair and counterproductive. The reality is that high-stakes testing continues to narrow the school curriculum and to fragment subjects, as pointed out in a meta-analysis published in "Educational Researcher."

In the early days of the education-reform movement, a decade or so ago, you'd often hear from reformers a powerful rallying cry: "No excuses." For too long, they said, poverty had been used as an excuse by complacent educators and bureaucrats who refused to believe that poor students could achieve at high levels.