Sentences with phrase «on poor and minority children»

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-century.

Not exact matches

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only poor and minority women, this trend doesn't seem to be slowing down, as the stigma of being a single mother has been replaced by the choice by women to have children on their own.

And it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English - language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peeAnd it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English - language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peeand schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English - language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peeand poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peeand minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers.

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

On the supply side, moreover, private schools may find these advantaged parents (and their children) desirable, and may discriminate against poor and minority families.

The suit, filed on behalf of Beatriz Vergara, a Los Angeles high school student, and eight other public school students, claims that the law protects poor - performing teachers assigned to working with low - income, minority children.

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.

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.

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.

Your editor could have spent this morning focusing on news from yesterday's news from Bellwether Education Partners that the state plans proposed as part of implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act show that districts are going to be allowed to perpetuate harm to poor and minority children.

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.

It also made it clear to suburban districts that they could no longer continue to commit educational malpractice against poor and minority children, as well as focused American public education on achieving measurable results instead of damning kids to low expectations.

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.

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.

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.

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 civil rights activists learned after the Morgan ruling, reformers must realize that the federal government must play a strong role on behalf of poor and minority children.

But the fact that the Obama administration granted Virginia a waiver in the first place in spite of its record of obstinacy on systemic reform, along with the fact that many of the 32 other states granted waivers (along with the District of Columbia) have also set low expectations for districts and schools to improve the achievement of the poor and minority kids in their care, has put President Obama in the uncomfortable position of supporting the soft bigotry of low expectations for children — especially those who share his race and skin color.

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.

While civil rights groups and leaders often agree that poor and minority children are more likely to receive a substandard education, they diverge on whether charter schools provide a sound alternative.

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.

Education Trust and a cadre of civil rights groups (including the United Negro College Fund and NAACP) deserve praise for issuing a statement today calling for a reauthorization of No Child that effectively keeps in place the Adequate Yearly Progress provisions that have shined light on the consequences of the nation's education crisis on children from poor and minority households.

Meanwhile Trump's ascent into the White House bodes ill for one of the Obama Administration's most - admirable efforts: Holding districts accountable for overusing out - of - school suspensions and other harsh school discipline that put poor and minority children onto the school - to - prison pipeline, an important issue both on the education and criminal justice reform fronts.

We agree with Senator Corman and most strongly urge the legislature to hold public hearings on the impact that inadequate and inequitable state education funding has on educational opportunities available to poor minority children and on schools» ability to offer all students quality CTE opportunities.

Education policy in recent decades has been focused primarily on ensuring that all children — especially poor and minority children — attain at least a minimum level of academic achievement.

Yet education traditionalists, ivory tower civil rights activists, and dyed - in - the - wool progressives, still stuck on integration as school reform, would rather criticize charters for supposedly perpetuating segregation (even though most urban communities largely consist of one race or class) than embrace a tool for helping poor and minority families give their children opportunities for high - quality education.

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.

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.