In the mid-1970s, Ference Marton and Roger Säljö of the University of Gothenburg in Sweden noticed that their students took different approaches to learning.
To gauge the magnitude of global learning loss during the pandemic, a team at the World Bank examined data from the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) from 2018–2022, which tests fifteen-year-olds in math, reading, and science.
The school choice movement continues to rack up dramatic wins nationwide. This growth in “educational freedom,” as many advocates now call it, is a fantastic development. But under the surface of these victories, an important debate is brewing: how to balance the drive for maximum choice with other values, including fiscal responsibility and fairness.
Last week, I did something unorthodox. I asked teachers to message me directly via X (formerly known as Twitter) to vent their frustrations. Within hours, I received almost 200 messages expressing not only frustration, but also hope, humor, fatalism, and quite a bit of hesitancy to converse with a complete stranger on the internet.
In last week’s Gadfly, Karen Nussle and Lorén Cox penned a thoughtful piece on “cross-partisanship,” a concept they explore at greater length in a very nice paper for the Aspen
A recent study in the Economics of Education Review Journal looks at one promising effort to recruit and retain teachers: providing upfront grants and loans to financially-strapped potential teachers to encourage them to become and remain educators.
The Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) are arguably the most important international tests in education. Both have been administered for decades in dozens of countries. Each new set of student outcomes is tracked, analyzed, and endlessly written about.
Chronic absenteeism remains one of the most persistent problems facing schools post-pandemic. —New York Times “What’s missing from states’ reading laws?
In a recent Aspen Institute paper, the authors introduce the notion of “cross-partisanship”—two or more sides agreeing on the same policy outcome for disparate reasons—as a modern alternative to bipartisanship, wherein both sides concede something. They argue that adopting this new approach in education policy may be imperative for success—not just for legislative wins, but for the long-term well-being and prosperity of our children and communities.
The closure of schools in response to the seismic disruptions of the Covid-19 pandemic has left an indelible mark on education worldwide. As nations grappled with closures lasting varying lengths of time, the implications for student learning became increasingly evident.
Editor’s note: A portion of this essay is excepted from the author’s Substack, The Education Daly.<
One Tufts professor taught a seminar on conservative thought, and students learned about more than just Burke and Tocqueville. —Boston Magazine After Florida passed the first such legislation, lawmakers in several states now are making moves to ban cellphones in classrooms.
Congress is currently considering legislation to update the way that the federal government funds education research and development.
New York City public schools offer two types of gifted and talented education.
The findings of Fordham’s latest report, "Do Authorizer Evaluations Predict the Success of New Charter Schools?" suggest at least three takeaways: authorizers should pay close attention to applicants’ education and financial plans; should incorporate multiple data sources and perspectives; and must continue to hold approved schools accountable for their results.
This is the eighth in a series on doing educational equity right.
The hits just keep on coming: Earlier this month, a motley crew of former Colorado lawmakers helped spur the introduction of a grotesque piece of legislation aimed squarely at dismantling the state’s
When the TV salesman pitches a beauty product to eliminate wrinkles or a politician promises no new taxes, most of us raise a skeptical eyebrow. If only we afforded that same skepticism to education fads.
For many students and teachers, the pivot from in-person to remote learning in March 2020 was a sudden lurch from the known to the unknown. Writ large, research shows the academic impact of that move was devastating. But details matter—and so do exceptions.
An activist trades the culture wars for more pragmatic concerns after winning a seat on a school board. —Washington Post Advising all students to major in high-income fields such as engineering is an appealing but misguided recommendation.
As the sector’s gatekeepers, charter school authorizers are responsible for ensuring that schools in their purview set students up for success. But can authorizers predict which schools will meet that standard?
Editor’s note: This was first published on the author’s Substack, The Education Daly.
Many of the conditions that led to the prominence of “no-excuses” charter schools a quarter-century ago have returned. For students, teachers, and parents who have never lost their appetite for safe and orderly schools, it can’t come soon enough.
It’s looking like this year’s election will feature a Trump-Biden rematch—a pairing that’s especially frustrating for education, where the nation is wrestling with a raft of real problems:
I recently watched a seventh-grade math lesson that did a better job than I ever did as a teacher asking kids relatable theoretical probability questions. How would you represent the probability of a six-foot-tall seventh grader? How would you represent the probability of getting a test in school in any given week? Making sense of where students were coming from was a fascinating puzzle.
