Sentences with phrase «federal education policy from»

Second, as Patrick McGuinn pointed out in a 2010 American Enterprise Institute paper, Race to the Top «shifted the focus of federal education policy from the [state] laggards to the leaders.»

Veteran Washington education operative Christopher Cross chronicles the making of federal education policy from the Truman administration to the present.

Not exact matches

New Federal Education Law Gives State Policymakers Chance to Improve Opportunity for All Students — But Risks Retreat from High Standards and Meaningful AccountabilityNew York, NY — A dozen major civil rights, education, parent, and business organizations from across New York State released a policy brief today thatEducation Law Gives State Policymakers Chance to Improve Opportunity for All Students — But Risks Retreat from High Standards and Meaningful AccountabilityNew York, NY — A dozen major civil rights, education, parent, and business organizations from across New York State released a policy brief today thateducation, parent, and business organizations from across New York State released a policy brief today that makes...

In my judgment, that kind of leadership will require a comprehensive and sustained effort from both our public and private sectors — including a robust investment in education (especially the STEM fields), a federal commitment to research and development, a renewed emphasis on next generation manufacturing, translating federally funded breakthroughs to commercial applications in the private sector, an immigration policy that enables us to recruit and retain the best and brightest scientists from around the world, and appropriate tax, regulatory, and legal policy.

You can also read our latest forum on the Obama - era directives from the federal education and justice departments, which asked schools to modify disciplinary policies in response to concerns about disproportionate suspension rates.

Students with disabilities are served by a system of policy and practice that extends from expansive federal laws such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) all the way down to the interactions between a single special education teacher and a single student within one cEducation Act (IDEA) all the way down to the interactions between a single special education teacher and a single student within one ceducation teacher and a single student within one classroom.

To find out, we at the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance have asked nationally representative cross-sections of parents, teachers, and the general public (as part of the ninth annual Education Next survey, conducted in May and June of this year) whether they support or oppose «federal policies that prevent schools from expelling or suspending black and Hispanic students at higher rates than other students.»

The 2,308 students in the OSP study make it the largest school voucher evaluation in the U.S., making the achievement results even more compelling when compared to results from other, similar experimental evaluations of education policies undertaken by the federal government.

While serving as an education - policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation, Ms. Gardner wrote that federal special - education laws «have selfishly drained resources from the normal school population.»

The reality is that these kinds of national results are so far removed from the regulatory minutiae of federal education policy, and the meaning of these test results can be so opaque, that everyone would be well - served if they spent less time claiming this or that test result or graduation rate proved that a grand federal agenda was the right one.

[10] Yet three federal statutes prohibit the Education Department from making policy on curriculum.

The consistency of patterns highlights a key tension facing education advocates seeking to use federal policy to advance their goals: Any benefits from federal involvement may come at the cost of heightened partisan polarization.

But as we've learned from roughly a quarter - century of experience with state - level school choice programs and federal higher education policy, any connection to the federal government can have unintended consequences for choice, including incentivizing government control of the schools to which public money flows.

It's true that federal K - 12 education policy is settled at the moment from a congressional standpoint, but it's far from settled at the presidential level.

The Justice and Education departments still have not determined how to address existing desegregation cases — and whether or where to bring new ones — and have received little guidance from the White House in crafting civil - rights policy, the Citizens» Commission on Civil Rights, a bipartisan panel of former federal civil - rights officials and other advocates, says in a report released last week.

Yet three federal statutes prohibit the Education Department from making policy on curriculum.

Recently adopted policies requiring federal contractors to provide fingerprints and background information to the Department of Education and other agencies are generating mixed reactions from the education research community, ranging from grumbling acceptance to outright Education and other agencies are generating mixed reactions from the education research community, ranging from grumbling acceptance to outright education research community, ranging from grumbling acceptance to outright defiance.

Those who follow federal education policy or work on education at the state level are well aware of a few big changes wrought by the Trump team (with some help from Congress) in its first hundred days, including wiping out the late Obama ESSA accountability regs and easing off on bathroom access rules.

Finding that «local policy prerogatives and dire financial conditions trumped federal pleas for reform and led to the spending of massive amounts of aid on preserving the status quo and protecting existing jobs and programs,» Smarick urges policymakers to heed the lessons learned from that experience and to focus on reducing the gulf between reforms promised and reforms delivered when it comes to the Department of Education's $ 4.35 billion Race to the Top fund.

From A Nation at Risk to No Child Left Behind: National Education Goals and the Creation of Federal Education Policy.

A new report from the Washington - based Center on Education Policy tracks how four states taking part in a federal pilot program are using their added flexibility under the No Child Left Behind Act.

The fact that this sector is already integrated into the broader higher education system, through federal aid and some state aid programs, suggests that these policy levers might be used to better leverage the private sector to further policymakers» goals, such as increasing educational attainment overall and for students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Beyond the school environment, federal and state government departments need advice from education experts for designing education policy and reform.

Reflecting the impact of broader federal education policy, the research focus for school technology has shifted from experimentation to effectiveness.

The draft report, which was commissioned by the Federal Government in March, says that better education outcomes will result from the ability to identify and evaluate better policies, programs and teaching practices based on available data.

The marathon campaign in the lead up to July's Federal election has already yielded some indication of what to expect from the major parties with regard to education spend and policy.

Schifter, who spent several years working on Capitol Hill advocating for students with disabilities, teaches a course on federal education policy, and requires students to role play a variety of actors, from politicians to community activists, to better understand how policy becomes law.

As the education blogosphere turns its attention from Secretary Duncan's Race to the Top fund to his Investing in Innovation fund, economist Eric Hanushek offers his take on what federal education policy can and can not accomplish (and what NCLB got right and how it could be improved) in an interview on John Merrow's blog.

The new Every Student Succeeds Act, which takes full effect in the 2017 - 18 school year, rolls back much of the federal government's big footprint in education policy, on everything from testing and teacher quality to low - performing schools.

I consider Mike a friend, but I find it troubling that he and others seem willing to walk away from his good policy ideas simply because the political winds today are less friendly to federal involvement in education policy.

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which goes into full effect in the 2018 — 19 school year, rolled back much of the federal government's big footprint in education policy, on everything from testing and teacher quality to low - performing schools.

The 2016 WPS also featured more than 50 speakers, including several EPFP alumni, sharing their expertise on a diverse range of issues and topics, from the history of federal education policy and the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to media coverage of education and philanthropic influence in educatioeducation policy and the reauthorization of the Higher Education Act to media coverage of education and philanthropic influence in educatioEducation Act to media coverage of education and philanthropic influence in educatioeducation and philanthropic influence in educationeducation policy.

While federal policy from No Child Left Behind, to Race to the Top and the Every Student Succeeds Act defined multi-issue agendas that included elements of the accountability, choice, and equity agendas, within the advocacy sector, «education reform» has never been a unifying framework.

These and other results suggest that some of the most prominent ideas that dominate current policy debates — from supporting vouchers to doubling down on high - stakes tests to cutting federal education funding — are out of step with parents» main concern: They want their children prepared for life after they complete high school.

For at least six years, we at the Fordham Institute have talked about «reform realism» in the context of federal education policy — recommending that Washington's posture should be reform - minded but also realistic about what can be accomplished from the shores of the Potomac (and cognizant of how easy it is for good intentions to go awry).

Because, at least when it comes to education policy, just about everything he wants the federal government to do involves things that can't be done successfully from Washington but that well - led states can and should do: raise academic standards, evaluate teachers, give kids choices, and more.

Despite Mitt Romney's charge that «President Obama's policy response to every education challenge has been more federal spending,» on - budget K - 12 education expenditure has grown during Obama's first term at the slowest pace in two decades (aside from the massive, but unlikely to be repeated, infusions of ARRA and Edujobs).

As the education blogosphere turns its attention from Secretary Duncan's Race to the Top fund to his Investing in Innovation fund, economist Eric Hanushek offers his take on what federal education policy can and can not accomplish.

When the dust settles from the midterm elections, federal lawmakers — the re-elected and losers alike — will head back to Washington for a lame - duck session with a long to - do list that could have broad implications for education policy over the next year.

There is growing policy; fiscal and practical support for prosocial educational and school climate improvement efforts from federal agencies, state departments of education and large and small districts across America.

Principals from across the nation recently traveled to Washington, D.C., to help launch a comprehensive advocacy agenda that elevates the principal's voice in federal education policy.

There is growing policy; fiscal and practical support for prosocial educational and school climate improvement efforts from federal agencies, state departments of education and large and small distri... Read More...

In fact, a growing number of Federal agencies (U.S. Departments of Education and Justice, CDC, SAMHSA and IES), state departments of education (Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and Massachusetts) and large and small districts (from Chicago to Westbrook, Connecticut) are developing school climate policies and / or laws that support students, parents / guardians, school personnel and even community members learning and working together to create safer, more supportive, engaging and flourishing K - 12Education and Justice, CDC, SAMHSA and IES), state departments of education (Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and Massachusetts) and large and small districts (from Chicago to Westbrook, Connecticut) are developing school climate policies and / or laws that support students, parents / guardians, school personnel and even community members learning and working together to create safer, more supportive, engaging and flourishing K - 12education (Connecticut, Georgia, Minnesota and Massachusetts) and large and small districts (from Chicago to Westbrook, Connecticut) are developing school climate policies and / or laws that support students, parents / guardians, school personnel and even community members learning and working together to create safer, more supportive, engaging and flourishing K - 12 schools.

«They've gone from the debate over NCLB in terms of the goals being unrealistic, to saying we're not going to require you to have goals at all,» said Charlie Barone, director of federal policy for Democrats for Education Reform.

A proposed provision that declares that nothing in future education policy would prevent the passage of Parent Trigger laws or other Parent Power efforts would be meaningful if it also proposed a competitive grant program to encourage states to enact such laws; as is, there is nothing in federal law that restricts states from passing Parent Trigger laws or keeps families from using them.

But in the years since A Nation at Risk, the rhetoric of high expectations, accountability, and ensuring that all students - especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds - have an equal opportunity to receive quality education has been accompanied by a series of federal initiatives including Clinton's 1994 re-authorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary School Act, subsequent education «policy summits,» and George H. W. Bush's Goals 2000.

Kline's original goal was to move away from an omnibus approach to federal education policy as represented by No Child and offer up five bills that would essentially revert back to the days before the passage of No Child, when federal dollars were handed out to states without showing any results.

In the process, Obama and Duncan are retreating from the very commitment of federal education policy, articulated through No Child, to set clear goals for improving student achievement in reading and mathematics, to declare to urban, suburban, and rural districts that they could no longer continue to commit educational malpractice against poor and minority children, and to end policies that damn children to low expectations.

It includes materials from the federal content centers, comprehensive centers, and regional educational laboratories, as well as other organizations with expertise in education policy, research, and technical assistance.

From school safety to budget cuts and federal policy, there are many contentious issues in education.