Some longitudinal research has suggested that this type of parenting style may result in more favorable outcomes
for poor and minority children (Deater - Deckard & Dodge, 1997; Steinberg et al., 1992).
It also means that teachers who are improving the quality of education
for poor and minority children will also end up being deported, harming the futures of the children they serve.
As Data Quality Campaign correctly notes, policymakers realized that shining a light on student achievement, especially
for poor and minority children, would help in holding states and districts accountable.
If we become a country that rejects facts and analyses that do not support our political positions, sees research independently conducted and reviewed as dangerous, treats public education as only one — and one of the least desirable — ways to educate our children, makes it even harder than it is now
for poor and minority children to get a college education, then, in my view, our days are numbered.
ALEC initially pitched vouchers as a civil rights ticket
for poor and minority children, and for foster children or special needs children.
The benefits have not just come
for poor and minority children.
With their increased authority from NCLB, Williams encourages states to adopt an «attitude of urgency» when addressing education reform
for poor and minority children.
More - importantly, because the quality of teaching varies more within schools (from classroom to classroom) than among them, the racial myopia of teachers (and their low expectations
for the poor and minority children in their care) are matters that have to be addressed in order to help all children succeed.
3) School vouchers lead to a better education
for poor and minority children.
Secondly, they would have to really accept measuring the performance of districts and those who work in schools in improving achievement
for poor and minority children (and no merely talk about disaggregation of «multiple measures».)
We have a moral obligation to be precise about what the problems in American education are — like subpar schools
for poor and minority children — and to resist heroic ideas about what would solve them, if those ideas don't demonstrably do that.
But the administration approved efforts by other states, including Tennessee and Michigan, to define proficiency down
for poor and minority children.
This sort of backward thinking echo back to the days before the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, when education policymakers and practitioners preferred to ignore the racialist policies that often made American public education a way - station to poverty and prison
for poor and minority children.
Former Congressman and current Teach Plus board member George Miller said in that statement, «
For poor and minority children, there's a real urgency that the state address inequities of LIFO, tenure, and dismissal policies.
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.
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 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.
That skepticism should grow after looking closely at the individual state targets set for districts and schools to improve student achievement, especially
for poor and minority children.
The school reform movement must also embrace explicit and constant advocacy
for poor and minority children and their communities as a critical component in advancing the transformation of American public education.
Two weeks later, the senators settled on a complicated formula that required states to calculate an overall performance grade for a school based on several factors, including improving test scores
for poor and minority children.
When the group got its start in the mid-1990s, achievement
for poor and minority children was lagging, and the education policy community largely ignored their needs.
It is part history, detailing the unexpectedly collaborative relationships that were instrumental in the expansion of these top public schools and part forward - looking; it's a story about the visionaries who reinvented American education
for poor and minority children and are now reinventing it again.
Bush had made «accountability» a cornerstone of his education platform, using his stated goal of ensuring equity
for poor and minority children as a way of bolstering his credentials as a moderate.
Present evidence suggests that a voucher plan would probably be better
for poor and minority children, increase integration, strengthen the family, better respect societal pluralism, renew moral values and cost less.
At the very least, therefore, schools
for poor and minority children should have as much funding per student, as many qualified teachers and as good physical facilities as other schools.
Not exact matches
Together these leaders — long identified with the struggle
for racial
and economic justice — demand a test of vouchers with one basic criterion in mind: «Do public scholarships help or hurt our
poorest children and the
children of ethnic
minorities?
These men
and women have fought
for the abolition of slavery (Wilberforce), established orphanages
for abandoned
children (Mueller), advanced civil rights
for racial
minorities (King), fought against HIV / AIDS (Koop), provided human touch, restored dignity,
and shelter
for the
poor (Mother Teresa), created places of belonging
and contribution
for people with disabilities
and special needs (Tada),
and fought against the sex trade
and human trafficking (Caine).
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).
In the middle of the last decade, in urban communities across America, middle - class
and upper - middle - class parents started sending their
children to public schools again — schools that
for decades had overwhelmingly served
poor and (
and overwhelmingly
minority) populations.
Though Jacob's school had won a national award
for its work with
poor and minority children and the principal was kind to Veronica
and Jacob, Veronica had a nagging feeling that something was not right.
Civil - rights advocates were initially skeptical, but many saw the potential power of a reform movement that would not brook separate
and lower expectations
for poor children, immigrants, or racial
minorities.
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.
This need
for cultures that reaffirm the self - worth of
poor and minority children (
and ultimately, allow
for them
and their communities gain the knowledge needed to determine their own destinies) is why historically black colleges
and universities, along with other
minority - serving higher ed institutions, still exist.
Mr. Klein began to use test scores to measure schools» performance,
and joined with the Rev. Al Sharpton in forming the Education Equality Project in 2008 to promote good instruction
and education reform
for minority and poor children.
The proposed reforms, outside
and inside schools — to reduce the test - score gap between whites
and poor minorities; to help
poor minority families increase their income through steady work at livable wages
and then their
children's test scores will improve; to establish research - proven reading programs
for every single,
poor, or
minority child; to give each kid a laptop computer — are endless
and uncertain in their outcomes.
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.
What Kline essentially proposes to do is allow states
and districts to spend federal education subsidies as they see fit without being accountable
for providing all
children — including those from
poor and minority backgrounds — with high - quality teaching
and comprehensive college - preparatory curricula.
Because the purpose of Title 1 is to provide additional support
for children from
poor and minority backgrounds, any use of the subsidies
for general school operations (including
for kids from the middle class) is a violation of federal law.
This includes 20,000 teachers, including some 1,000 teachers working in traditional public
and public charter schools thanks to Teach
for America, who are helping
poor and minority children gain the knowledge they need
for lifelong success.
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.
And this is as true for children in our suburban schools — where one out of every four fourth - graders are functionally illiterate — as it is for our poorest and minority kids in urban and rural communiti
And this is as true
for children in our suburban schools — where one out of every four fourth - graders are functionally illiterate — as it is
for our
poorest and minority kids in urban and rural communiti
and minority kids in urban
and rural communiti
and rural communities.
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.
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.
I fear your advisors, especially those allied with the teachers unions, have convinced you that pulling back on your previous support of charter schools is a «gimmie,» a political move that costs you nothing... (R) apidly expanding charters offer many
poor and minority children their best chance of emerging from K - 12 schools ready
for a job or further education.
No
Child accountability was particularly helpful
for poor and minority kids.
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.
After several congressional leaders — most notably Rep. Barbara Lee of California — roasted U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos
for continuing to weaken the department's Office
for Civil Rights
and effectively abandoning the federal role in protecting the civil rights of
poor and minority children, Harris essentially encouraged DeVos (along with the planned commission on school safety over which she will be chairing) to toss the school discipline reform measure into the ashbin.