Discredited ideas don’t return to most professions.
For the science of reading to succeed in elementary school classrooms, we need to prepare aspiring teachers in what it is, how to use it, how to measure it, and how to target it to meet the needs of individual learners. That means starting in teacher preparation programs.
For decades, high-achieving high school students have been told the surest way to impress selective colleges is to take calculus. In a recent national survey of 133 admissions officers, 74 percent said the College Board’s Advanced Placement calculus course is among the math classes that “carry the most weight” in admissions decisions.
During my second tour as a U.S. Navy officer, I served as a navigator aboard a test warship in San Diego. In port, navigators often have little to do other than prepare for the next deployment. But not every military job is created equal.
The types, amounts, and modes of testing done in our schools are subject to debate and analysis, with “too much,” “too often,” “too complex,” and “not helpful” among the many complaints.
Editor’s note: This was first published on the author’s Substack, The Bell Ringer. Last week, Eric Hirsch, the Chief Executive Officer of curriculum review nonprofit EdReports, announced he is stepping down in June of 2026.
Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2025 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to answer this question: “What needs to happen next—at the state, district, and school levels—for the science of reading revolution to fulfill its promise and ensure that far more
Editor’s note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli’s Substack, SCHOOLED.
The new federal tax-credit scholarship is being hailed as a breakthrough for school choice: more options, more opportunity, more innovation. But history offers a warning. Even though these tax-credit funds never technically enter federal coffers, once Washington confers a benefit, its influence tends to follow.
The science of reading (SOR) has been one of education’s hottest topics in recent years, with 40 states and the District of Columbia
From Silicon Valley to the World Economic Forum, boosters insist that artificial intelligence will transform education—closing learning gaps and personalizing instruction for every child. We’re betting it won’t.
Except for cancelled proms and mothballed graduation celebrations, the class of 2020 largely escaped the negative impacts of pandemic school closures that wreaked havo
In the 2020 presidential election, barely half of 18- to 24-year-olds voted, compared to 76 percent of those in the 65–74 age group.
I’m no fan of many so-called “equitable” grading reforms.
My last column on teacher standards focused on the how. How should we deliver professional development? How long? Which teachers? Who leads? They were recommendations for structural changes about the medium of delivery.
The first time I encountered “no-zeros” grading, I was still a teacher. To demonstrate how to use a new data entry system, our technology coordinator plugged a zero into the software, and to everyone’s surprise, the online gradebook rounded up to 49.9 percent. He’d accidentally exposed a yet-to-be-announced grading policy (the “50 percent” rule).
We face a gnarly problem in reading instruction.
Critics contend that the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policies for the Nation’s Report Card, sets the bar too high—that the definition of “proficient” is too challenging. This aligns with moves to lower the bar in parts of the country, including efforts in some states to make it easier for kids to pass end-of-year assessments or to eliminate those tests completely. This line of thinking and these polices are deeply misguided.
What do the conservative former U.S.
Nothing elicits a groan from teachers quite like the word “professional development” or “PD.” It conjures images of peppy consultants who spent less than a year in the classroom, state-mandated training videos with all the excitement of a dental waiting room, or a waste of five precious hours just days before the school year begins.
In K–12, we’ve often treated student experience data as a “nice to have.” As we confront another disappointing set of NAEP scores, a growing evidence base suggests that understanding how students experience school
Last week, the Houston Chronicle’s editorial board looked into claims by the Mikes (Mike Miles and Mike Morath) about the many Space City schools going from D’s or F’s to A’s and B’s on the state report card, thanks to the sweeping reforms undertaken in the d
From my experiences supporting districts to choose and use high-quality instructional materials (HQIM), I’ve seen that curriculum selection often breaks down where it matters the most: in classrooms.
There’s been a lot of smart analysis of the dismal NAEP results released last week. But here’s an alarming fact that you probably haven’t seen before: The cohort of students who scored at record-low levels in twelfth grade reading were part of the same generation of kids who scored at record-high levels in fourth grade. So what happened?
Scary NAEP results again. Harvard Graduate School of Education Academic Dean Marty West writes: “We must search for new explanations and solutions.” But how?
Editor's note: This was first published in the “Civic-Ready” issue of NASBE’s State Education Standard.
The latest twelfth-grade results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress are awful, as
This fall, students are returning to school amidst tighter cellphone restrictions. From California to Florida, a rare consensus of politicians, educators, and parents is rising against the dangers that smartphones pose to student learning and well-being. But it is too early to celebrate. Simply banning cellphones without curtailing other devices is like locking the front door while leaving the back door open.
Much commentary has been offered on the literacy crisis plaguing the country. Massachusetts, often recognized as a leader in student achievement, has experienced the same challenge. Signs of the problem were clear in advance of the pandemic with NAEP fourth-grade reading proficiency rates falling from 50 percent to 45 percent between 2011 and 2019.
Given our moniker as “The Education Gadfly,” we at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute are not accustomed to lavishing praise on education leaders. That’s OK, considering how rarely they deserve it. But when someone in a position of authority demonstrates leadership, courage, and common sense, it’s important for us gadflies (and reformers) to say so.
