Sentences with phrase «for poor minority children»

He does not think school choice will do much, as many believe, for poor minority children.

Not exact matches

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

«We are very disappointed that the union will continue its effort to evict more than 90,000 poor, mostly minority children from schools that are working for them.

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 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.

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.

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.

While U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan did his best to spin the administration's efforts as a solution for No Child's supposedly «broken» accountability measures, which he proclaimed, was «misleading» in identifying schools and districts — especially in suburbia — failing to provide high - quality education to poor and minority kids.

IDRA works with school systems, institutions of higher education, and communities across the country to create education that works for all children, particularly those who are minority, poor or limited - English - proficient.

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.

The rules requiring waiver states to submit plans for providing poor and minority children with high - quality teachers was unworkable because it doesn't address the supply problem at the heart of the teacher quality issues facing American public education; the fact that state education departments would have to battle with teachers» union affiliates, suburban districts, and the middle - class white families those districts serve made the entire concept a non-starter.

While Coates doesn't touch on education policy, he essentially makes a strong historical case for why reformers (especially increasingly erstwhile conservatives in the movement) must go back to embracing accountability measures and a strong federal role in education policymaking that, along with other changes in American society, are key to helping children from poor and minority households (as well as their families and communities) attain economic and social equality.

The fact that some organizations even went so far as to push for aspects of the waiver gambit that have led to states defining proficiency down for poor and minority kids has also made them vulnerable to accusations from traditionalists that they care little for children while making it more difficult for allies to support them in other ways.

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.

No one should be surprised that the U.S. Department of Education's new guidance for 41 states to renew the waivers granted to them under the Obama Administration's effort to eviscerate the No Child Left Behind Act and its accountability provisions effectively allows states to get away with continuing their shortchanging of poor and minority children.

This also means expanding opportunities for high - quality education — from greater access to Advanced Placement courses to the expansion of high - quality charter schools — so that children from poor and minority households, especially young black men and women who did the worst on NAEP this year (and have less access to college - preparatory courses in traditional districts) can succeed in school and in life.

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.

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.

But I don't expect much from traditionalists opposed to Common Core; it just confirms my view that they could care less about the futures of poor and minority children (and, for that matter, all children).

He and other reformers will have to make a strong case to families in the grassroots — especially the poor and minority households seeking better opportunities for their children — in order to beat back traditionalist forces.