Sentences with phrase «by poor and minority children»

Those low expectations contribute to low educational attainment by poor and minority children.

What American history has long ago shown is that without strong federal action, state governments rarely do the right thing by poor and minority children.

An issue made clear again earlier this week when her priorities list was revealed, none of which mentioned doing right by poor and minority children.

Not exact matches

Some of the potential causes of poor breastfeeding outcomes among black and Puerto Rican women include breastfeeding ambivalence (7), the availability of free formula from the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC)(8), a high level of comfort with the idea of formula feeding (9), limited availability and lower intensity of WIC breastfeeding support for minority women (10, 11), and issues surrounding trust building and perceived mistreatment by providers (12).

Once typical of only poor and minority women, this trend doesn't seem to be slowing down, as the stigma of being a single mother has been replaced by the choice by women to have children on their own.

Her research on achievement and motivation in poor and minority children has been supported by the Spencer Foundation and the National Science Foundation.

By shifting funds, public attention and scarce organizational and budgetary resources away from schools and into the coffers of the testing industry vendors, the futures of poor and minority children and the schools they attend get compromised.»

A study of 49 states by The Education Trust found that school districts with high numbers of low - income and minority students receive substantially less state and local money per pupil than school districts with few poor and minority children.

Some have argued that the legal basis for this mandate can be found in section 1111 (a)(8), the so - called «equitable teacher distribution» requirement, which asks states to submit plans to the Secretary that describe «steps that the State educational agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers, and the measures that the State educational agency will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress of the State educational agency with respect to such steps.»

The Forum declared that Education for All must take account of the needs of the poor and the disadvantaged, including working children, remote rural dwellers and nomads, ethnic and linguistic minorities, children, young people and adults affected by HIV and AIDS, hunger and poor health, and those with disabilities or special needs.

But ability grouping and its close cousin, tracking, in which children take different classes based on their proficiency levels, fell out of favor in the late 1980s and the 1990s as critics charged that they perpetuated inequality by trapping poor and minority students in low - level groups.

But the near - unanimous vote by the conference committee in favor of the deal belied growing anxiety on the left, with civil rights advocates and education reformers becoming increasingly nervous they had spent close to a year working on an education bill that will ultimately harm poor and minority children.

What has become clear is that explicitly focusing on the educational concerns of poor and minority children regardless of where they live, and expanding that to the criminal justice reform and other the social issues that end up touching (and are touched by) American public education, is critical, both in helping all children succeed as well as rallying long - terms support for the movement from the parents and communities that care for them.

More importantly, the most - successful efforts to expand school choice (including Virginia Walden Ford's work in Washington, D.C., Steve Barr's work with Latino communities in Los Angeles, and Parent Revolution's Parent Trigger efforts), have been ones led by poor and minority communities who explicitly made the case for helping their own children escape failure mills that damaged their families for generations.

For poor and minority students, risks are higher: 26 percent of those who face the «double jeopardy» of poverty and low reading proficiency fail to earn high school diplomas, and Hispanic and African American children who lack proficiency by third grade are twice as likely to drop out of school as their white counterparts.

For many poor, language - minority, and dialect - speaking children attending low - performing schools, the odds of learning to read by the end of third grade are far too low.

Thanks in part to a board of education dominated by conservative reformers such as Andy Smarick of the American Enterprise Institute and former Thomas B. Fordham Institute President Chester Finn Jr. (the latter of whom presided over the think tank's initial activism against the Obama - era guidance), the Old Line State only plans to intervene when suspension levels for poor, minority, and special ed - labeled children are three times higher than that of other peers.

The No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 included language requiring states to «ensure that poor and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers.»

No Child Left Behind, first passed in 2002, was an ambitious, bipartisan attempt to close achievement gaps between poor and minority students and their peers by setting a goal for all students to eventually become proficient in reading and math.

As any student of American history knows by now, the federal government has more - often been used as a tool for promoting the racism that is America's Original Sin (especially in education policy) than for transforming schools and communities for poor and minority children.

By shining harsh light on the low performance of schools as well as prescribing consequences for continued failure, No Child's accountability approach forced districts to focus on improving student achievement, especially for poor and minority children they have long ignored.

As Dropout Nation has pointed out ad nauseam since the administration unveiled the No Child waiver gambit two years ago, the plan to let states to focus on just the worst five percent of schools (along with another 10 percent or more of schools with wide achievement gaps) effectively allowed districts not under watch (including suburban districts whose failures in serving poor and minority kids was exposed by No Child) off the hook for serving up mediocre instruction and curricula.

Last month, the administration scrambled to get Virginia to scrap its low expectations for poor and minority children amid outcry from reformers and civil rights activists over the Old Dominion's move to approve AMO targets that only require districts to ensure that 57 percent of black students (and 65 percent of Latino peers) are proficient in math by 2016 - 2017; those targets were blessed by the administration back in June as part of its approval of the state's waiver proposal.

As I have noted, stronger standards alone aren't the only reason why student achievement has improved within this period; at the same time, the higher expectations for student success fostered by the standards (along with the accountability measures put in place by the No Child Left Behind Act, the expansion of school choice, reform efforts by districts such as New York City, and efforts by organizations such as the College Board and the National Science and Math Initiative to get more poor and minority students to take Advanced Placement and other college prep courses), has helped more students achieve success.

Around this time last year, Dropout Nation applauded Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder's effort to expand the state's inter-district choice program — and end the practices of Zip Code Education that condemn poor and minority children to dropout factories — by requiring every district to open their doors to any student anywhere.

And it is important to remind some Beltway reformers that focusing on poor and minority children will not only help all kids, but can even win suppoet from middle class blacks and Latinos, who will make up the majority of all Americans by mid-centuAnd it is important to remind some Beltway reformers that focusing on poor and minority children will not only help all kids, but can even win suppoet from middle class blacks and Latinos, who will make up the majority of all Americans by mid-centuand minority children will not only help all kids, but can even win suppoet from middle class blacks and Latinos, who will make up the majority of all Americans by mid-centuand Latinos, who will make up the majority of all Americans by mid-century.

There are so many education implications in this New York Times story about child safety agencies discriminating against poor minority parents: How are children's academics affected by being removed from their parents» homes and sent to foster care?

Among the characteristics shared by urban schools include large class sizes, social and disciplinary problems, a large percentage of poor and minority children, and little involvement from parents compared to their suburban counterparts.

As Dropout Nation has noted ad nauseam, few of the accountability systems allowed to replace No Child's Adequate Yearly Progress provision are worthy of the name; far too many of them, including the A-to-F grading systems put into place by such states as New Mexico (as well as subterfuges that group all poor and minority students into one super-subgroup) do little to provide data families, policymakers, teachers, and school leaders need to help all students get high - quality education.

This isn't to say that these officials don't care about these children, but that they are disinterested in taking on the tough work needed to overhaul districts and schools in order provide kids with the schools they deserve — which includes challenging the soft bigotry of low expectations for poor and minority kids held by far too many adults working in American public education in Virginia and the rest of the nation, and the affiliates of the National Education Association which has succeeded for so long in keeping the Old Dominion's status quo quite ante.

But the administration approved efforts by other states, including Tennessee and Michigan, to define proficiency down for poor and minority children.

Then there was Virginia, which was granted a waiver in June 2012 by the Obama Administration in spite of its longstanding unwillingness to embrace systemic reform as well as address the low quality of teaching and curricula provided to poor and minority children.

Due to the requirement under the federal No Child Left Behind Act that each state's Title I plan must describe «the specific steps that the state education agency will take to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers and the measures that the state education agency will use to evaluate and publicly report the progress,» TEA formed a stakeholder group, upon which TCTA served, to develop its State Educator Equity Plan.

In the wake of the Supreme Court's hostility to race - conscious integration and in recognition of the disproportionate number of minority, and especially black, children from poor families, localities have adopted plans to integrate schools by income instead of race.

Emboldened by a California case overturning tenure on the grounds that it sticks too many poor and minority children with bad teachers, New York City parents are preparing to sue.

Under the guidance, each state must submit to the department a plan that ensures «poor and minority children are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers.»

By deciding to roll back the college - preparatory standards, politicians in the Show - Me State have shown in deed that they have no concern for the futures of children, especially those from poor and minority backgrounds who will soon make up a majority of students in traditional public schools.

But far too many poor and minority children are subjected by far too many instructional professionals to educational abuse and neglect.

The students who are the most let down by the present state of affairs, however, are the high - potential children from poor and minority backgrounds whose gifts are badly neglected in today's education system.

By standing pat, Virginia has all but assured that its children, especially those from poor and minority backgrounds, will continue getting an education unfit for their futures.

From the so - called gifted - and - talented programs that end up doing little to improve student achievement (and actually do more damage to all kids by continuing the rationing of education at the heart of the education crisis), to the evidence that suburban districts are hardly the bastions of high - quality education they proclaim themselves to be (and often, serve middle class white children as badly as those from poor and minority households), it is clear that the educational neglect and malpractice endemic within the nation's super-clusters of failure and mediocrity isn't just a problem for other people's children.

Yet far too many children, especially those from poor and minority families, are placed at risk by school practices that are based on a sorting paradigm in which some students receive high - expectations instruction while the rest are relegated to lower quality education and lower quality futures.

The Trump Administration's proposed $ 250 million increase in funding for the federal Charter School Fund (as well as another $ 1 billion in Title I funds devoted to expanding intra-district choice for low - income children) is offset by the elimination of $ 2.2 billion in funding for Americorps, the program that helps districts provide poor and minority children with Teach for America recruits proven to improve their academic achievement.