Ignite Reading is one of many tutoring interventions unleashed upon America’s schools to try to mitigate learning loss experienced by students in the wake of pandemic-era school closures.
Despite working longer hours and experiencing higher levels of stress
Editor’s note: This piece was also published on the author’s new Substack, The Next 30 Years.
Remedial courses can soak up time and money (with often poor results), but federal
The forthcoming results from the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress—due out on January 29—are likely to be bad, bad, bad. The term we may hear a lot is that “the bottom is falling out,” if the scores for low-performing students in particular continue to plummet.
President-elect Donald Trump is about to return to Washington with a ragtag coalition, united in their rejection of the status quo. Yet this shared opposition has also led to a rash of infighting over a range of policy issues.
The Advanced Placement (AP) program, celebrating its seventieth anniversary this year, has largely lived up to the promise of encouraging and rewarding ambitious high school students looking to prepare themselves for college rigor.
Once upon a time, such as when I entered college in 1962, it was possible—correction: it was relatively easy—to graduate in three years with the help of Advanced Placement scores that you submitted upon arrival.
I’m going to give you a reading test. Ready? Say these words out loud: Chip Hill Jars Bep Fod Glork
Any hope that Musk would find success in revolutionizing education is unlikely. His educational experiments may succeed on Space X grounds with the children of Space X employees—with all of the cultural capital that comes with such an upbringing—but would almost certainly explode on lift off were they launched at scale.
The recently released results from Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) 2023 highlight a concerning decline in U.S. students’ performance in science and mathematics, with the country falling further behind peer countries. But it isn’t just America.
There has been a fierce and counterproductive backlash to “no excuses” charter schools, stemming from the idea that student discipline and orderly classrooms are culturally insensitive, particularly when imposed on students of color. This critique drove the rise of social justice education with its focus on reducing racial harm while functionally neglecting academic instruction and enshrining low expectations.
An increasing number of districts across America are rightly procuring so-called high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) for use in their schools.
California has a long history of attempting to reform Algebra I in the name of equity.
New York City is awash in “gifted and talented” children, otherwise known as high-achieving public school students who would benefit from advanced education. In some neighborhoods, for example, over 50 percent of students test in the top 10th percentile nationwide.
Virginia’s new accountability system incentivizes schools to provide valuable middle-school math pathways, resulting in more opportunities for Virginia students, especially the most underprivileged.
Some days, when you’re rocking a seven-day-old infant to sleep at three in the morning, the only thing to do is pick away at instruction manuals in a bleary-eyed daze.
The amount of time students spend in school is a popular lever of change pulled by education policymakers of all types.
Social media lit up Tuesday evening with the news that President-elect Trump has tapped professional wrestling magnate and former Small Business Administration (SBA) administrator Linda McMahon to lead the U.S. Department of Education.
Ah, David Brooks. Ordinarily, I’d start a piece in which I plan to (partially) disagree with him by stating that he’s a very smart guy—but what I’m going to push back at this time is his much-disseminated contention that America needs to rethink what “smart” means. Even though his own qualities would likely still qualify under his new formulation, I ought not take chances.
After an eventful year of politics and controversy—with more lurking on the horizon—several friends have shared their apprehension about holiday gatherings. No one wants to see Grandma serve the turkey wearing her red hat or Uncle Bob stick a “We’re not going back” flag in the cranberry sauce.
In the Fordham Institute policy report titled Think Again: Are Education Programs for High-Achievers Inherently Inequitable?, Brandon Wright outlines four claims describing arguments that opponents of advanced education programs use to advocate for their
Early-college high schools are those that fully incorporate college course-taking into the curriculum. They are not to be confused with a more-typical “dual enrollment” model, which allows students the opportunity to take college courses if they have time.
Editor’s note: This is an adapted excerpt from the author’s recent Fordham Institute report, “Think Again: Are Education Programs for High Achievers Inherently Inequitable?”
Almost forty years ago, E.D. Hirsch published his seminal book, Cultural Literacy, which advanced a simple, albeit paradigm-shifting, premise: Intellectual aptitudes—including literacy itself—depend on knowledge more than skills.
Within just a few short months, there will be a new occupant of the Oval Office and, with that, a new administration in charge of the education and workforce regulatory regime.
In 1990, 48 percent of our nation’s eighth graders had very weak math skills. How did we know? They scored in the lowest performance category, Below Basic, on the national test given to a sample of American students every two years.[1]
The academic impacts of pre-kindergarten programming for children are a matter of unsettled science, with some research finding a positive impact, some a negative, and much showing the fade out of all impacts by third grade or soon thereafter.
The Greek poet Archilochus wrote that “the fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Finn’s experience has made him more like the fox: as keen as ever to overhaul and revitalize American education, but having come to “knows many things” about that enterprise, is more a wary realist regarding its difficulty.
I confess I approach the question of virtual education with more than a little skepticism. Kids spend enough time staring at screens, and I’ve developed a reflexive distrust bordering on cynicism for all things ed tech, which has a reliable history of overpromising and underdelivering. And, of course, student outcomes from virtual schools have been awful.
