The latest paper in Fordham's Creating Sound Policy for Digital Learning series examines the challenges our education governance system poses to reaching online learning's potential.
With the deadline for the next round of ESEA "Waiverpalooza" looming, states may be better off scrapping their applications.
It’s not that the wrong people are in charge. It’s that nobody’s in charge.
While business leaders rue the lack of American workers skilled enough in math and science to meet the needs of an increasingly high-tech economy, the situation may be growing even grimmer. The latest installment of TIMSS showed stagnation in U.S. science achievement, and the 2009 NAEP science assessment found that only 21 percent of American twelfth-graders met the proficiency bar. Yet while the gravity of the problem is clear, the root cause is not. Is our science curriculum lacking? Is it being squeezed out by an emphasis on math and reading? Is there a problem with our pedagogy? Are our teachers ill-prepared? Or are we simply expecting too little of teachers and students alike? Coinciding with its new review of state science standards, The Thomas B. Fordham Institute will bring together experts with very different perspectives to engage this crucial question: "What's holding back America's science performance?" Watch the discussion with UVA psychologist Dan Willingham, NCTQ President Kate Walsh, Fordham's Kathleen Porter-Magee, Project Lead the Way's Anne Jones, and Achieve, Inc.'s Stephen Pruitt.
In this paper, John Chubb examines how local school district control retards the widespread use of instructional technologies. He argues that the surest way to break down the system’s inherent resistance to technology is to shift control from the local district—and thus the school board—and put it in the hands of states. Download the paper to read the ten steps Chubb argues will get us to this brave new governance system.
4 predictions on the President and his education secretary's plans renege on their promise of “flexibility” for the states.
Why focusing solely on reading, math, and science could actually make the U.S. less economically competitive.
Fordham's latest report evaluates each state's science standards--and finds most of them sorely lacking.
American science performance is lagging as the economy becomes increasingly high tech, but our current science standards are doing little to solve the problem.
A look back at some of Fordham’s best posts for the week of January 23, 2012.
It turns out that many in the education world want to change federal policy in theory but not in reality.
When it comes to low-performing schools, we seem to be witnessing the same thing over and over—not unlike the classic movie, Groundhog Day.Ground Hog Day A recent study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute tracked about 2,000 low-performing schools and found that the vast majority of them remained open and remained low-performing after five years. Very few were significantly improved. So, are failing schools fixable? Join the Thomas B. Fordham Institute for a lively and provocative debate about that question. Fordham VP Mike Petrilli will moderate, and the discussion will be informed, in part, by Fordham's study, Are Bad Schools Immortal? The Scarcity of Turnarounds and Shutdowns in Both Charter and District Sectors.
Encouraging hard work in the nanny state.
Choice Words' new editor Adam Emerson outlines the need for a reinvented dialogue on school choice.
Guest bloggers Michael Podgursky, Stuart Buck, and Renita Thukral explain why proposed regulations would have a "dramatic and detrimental effect" on the ability of charters to accomplish their education goals.
Writers on the Gadfly Daily blogs analyzed issues from around the country this week, discussing everything from the lessons that the Louisiana Recovery School District has to offer to the tough talk coming from
Cooperation between charter and district schools has potential, but Fordham’s bloggers highlighted a few reasons for concern.
Mike channels realpolitik to analyze district-charter collaboration.
It is very rare for an education policy book to become a best-seller, much less a national phenomenon.
Meet the newest member of the Fordham team, and the editor of the Choice Words blog.
Guest blogger Adam Emerson explains why education reformers need to learn the value of subsidiarity.
A look back at some of the Fordham Institute’s best blog posts from the past week.
Ten years ago, George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, the law that has dominated U.S. education—and the education policy debate—for the entire decade. While lawmakers are struggling to update that measure, experts across the political spectrum are struggling to make sense of its impact and legacy. Did NCLB, and the consequential accountability movement it embodied, succeed? And with near-stagnant national test scores of late, is there reason to think that this approach to school reform is exhausted? If not "consequential accountability," what could take the U.S. to the next level of student achievement? Join three leading experts as they wrestle with these questions. Panelists include Hoover Institute economist Eric Hanushek, DFER's Charles Barone, and former NCES commissioner Mark Schneider, author of a forthcoming Fordham analysis of the effects of consequential accountability. NCLB drafter Sandy Kress, previously identified as a panelist, was unable to attend.
Last week, the House GOP presented the latest round of NCLB reauthorization bills. Now it's time for some Congressional deal-making.
