Thanks to No Child Left Behind and its antecedents, American education has focused in recent decades on ensuring that all children, especially those from poor and minority backgrounds, attain a minimum level of academic achievement.
Editor’s note: This is the fourth in a series of blog posts taking a closer look at the findings and implications of Evaluating the Content and Quality of Next Generation Assessments, Fordham’s new first-of-its-kind report.
I’m appalled that The Donald might actually win the Republican nomination running on a “platform” of bombast and xenophobia. But like many of you, I’ve also been trying to understand his appeal. A booming cottage industry—shall we call it Trumpology?—is emerging to explain his supporters to the rest of us. Is it the strength that he projects? His image as a “winner”?
How is education money better spent?
Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of blog posts that will take a closer look at the findings and implications of Evaluating the Content and Quality of Next Generation Assessments, Fordham’s new first-of-its-kind report.
For some, the ivory tower of academia is “ivory” in more ways than one.
In 2015, nearly 13 million schoolchildren across the country took a brand new “next generation” assessment: PARCC, Smarter Balanced, or ACT Aspire. These tests promised parents, teachers, and community members a better understanding of their students’ preparedness for college and career.
A new study, Public Pre-K and Test Taking for the NYC Gifted & Talented Programs: Forging a Path to Equity, released by NYU's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education, and Human Development, discovered a positive side effect of participat
By Andrew Scanlan
Way back in the days of NCLB, testing often existed in a vacuum.
Over the years, students have resorted to all kinds of chicanery as a means of concealing bad grades from their parents. Intercepting report cards in the mail has long been a reliable standby, along with the artful application of X-Acto knives, whiteout, and copy machines.
By Michael J. Petrilli and Chester E. Finn, Jr.
If you care about state education policy and/or the new federal education law, you ought to spend some time doing three things. First, consider how the performance of schools (and networks of schools) needs to be assessed.
In this week's podcast, Robert Pondiscio and Brandon Wright laud the progress of education policies since NCLB, weigh gentrification’s role in D.C.’s achievement gains, and discuss the controversy surrounding a Success Academies video. In the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines educators’ perspectives on Common Core implementation.
Reformers always face backlash, no matter the realm. People and institutions, structures and routines, budgets and staffing arrangements—all are tailored for the status quo. Indeed, they define the status quo, and myriad interests are then enmeshed in keeping things the way they’ve always been.
On February 2, I had the privilege of being a judge for the Fordham Institute’s ESSA Accountability Design Competition. It’s widely known that I’m a fan of using competition to drive policy innovation, and this competition did not disappoint.
I walked away from Fordham’s School Accountability Design Competition last Tuesday pleasantly surprised—not only at the variety of fresh thinking on accountability, but also at how few submissions actually triggered the “I think that’s illegal” response. I left encouraged at the possibilities for the future.
The Fordham Institute’s recent accountability design competition put a lot of great ideas on the table.
Editor’s note: This is the first in a series of blog posts that will take a closer look at the findings and implications of Evaluating the Content and Quality of Next Generation Assessments, Fordham’s new first-of-its-kind report.
Evaluating the Content and Quality of Next Generation Assessments examines previously unreleased items from three multi-state tests (ACT Aspire, PARCC, and Smarter Balanced) and one best-in-class state assessment, Massachusetts’ state exam (MCAS). The product of two years of work by the Thomas B.
By Amber M. Northern and Michael J. Petrilli
In this week's podcast, Mike Petrilli and Robert Pondiscio preview Fordham’s long-awaited assessments evaluation, analyze low-income families’ education-related tech purchases, and wave the red flag about TFA’s lurch to the Left. In the Research Minute, David Griffith examines how well the nation’s largest school districts promote parent choice and competition between schools.
