Sentences with phrase «poor child policy»

I must say poor child policy plan.

I have to say this poor child policy plan.

Not exact matches

According to the Growing Gap, a study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, «In 2004, the richest 10 per cent of families raising children earned 82 times more than the poorest 10 per cent — almost triple the ratio of 1976, when they earned 31 times more.»

Our task now is to support the good in Mr. Trump's policies and to resist the bad — and thereby prove to our countrymen that the meaning of «pro-life» begins with the unborn child, but in embracing the poor, the elderly and the immigrant, it never ends there.

By law all children have the right to benefit from certain federal programs, but the voucher system — through which funds can be spent to benefit the school, not just the student — is both unconstitutional and poor public policy.

(I couldn't tell another person asking for some money to feed their children that we cant give them anything (because its policy) when we have 6 plasma screens hanging on our stage — I know the story of the costly perfume etc but I don't think this means that it is OK to have expensive toys and NOT look after the poor).

Furthermore, policies that wittingly or unwittingly entrench mothers as primary carers and fathers as earners have consequences further down the line: when today's happy housewife becomes tomorrow's low skilled lone mum and pension - poor retiree; and today's confident breadwinner becomes tomorrow's angry divorced dad, with a tangential relationship with his children and substantially reduced care from them as he approaches old age.

2 De Cock KM, Fowler MG, Mercier E, de Vincenzi I, Saba J, Hoff E, Alnwick DJ, Rogers M, Shaffer N. Prevention of mother - to - child HIV transmission in resource - poor countries: translating research into policy and practice.

Policies that increase the income of the working poor can improve children's welfare, especially younger children, quite substantially.»

«Poor children now, they're not thin, they're overweight» - @EmilyThornberry defends @UKLabour's free school meals for all policy on #Marr pic.twitter.com/7BZVUzS 9mS

New Labour's Child Trust fund is a significant policy to recapitalize the poor, by using general taxation (which is progressive) to give every child a grant at their birth, a bigger grant too poor kids, and an opportunity to save intChild Trust fund is a significant policy to recapitalize the poor, by using general taxation (which is progressive) to give every child a grant at their birth, a bigger grant too poor kids, and an opportunity to save intchild a grant at their birth, a bigger grant too poor kids, and an opportunity to save into it.

It was also being stressed that Hughes will have the power to make policy recommendations for what should replace the abolished # 560m education maintenance allowance aimed at helping poor children into further education.

Speaking about promoting education among children, policy analysts have criticised the APC - led government for the «poor» implementation of its education policies for children, especially its school feeding programme.

Moreover, the Lib Dems on their own admission have shifted rightward, with crypto - Thatcherite policies - such as abolishing the New Deal (which has brought 1 million into work) and the Child Trust Fund (to give poor youngsters an asset for their adult lives), and promoting privatisation of health services.

«To give young children a fair chance of life success, we need to strengthen basic safety net policies, including Temporary Aid to Needy Families (TANF), expand Medicaid across all states so that parents will not be left in poor health without health coverage, and invest in programs that have proven effective in helping families overcome adversities so their children can thrive.»

Policies that increase the income of the working poor can improve children's welfare, especially younger children, quite substantially.»

In the coming weeks, hundreds of new leaders will take the helm at agencies responsible for implementing policies that touch the lives of poor children and affect their odds of success in life.

A South Carolina judge's ruling that the state must provide more educational opportunities for young children in poor and rural areas is setting the stage for an extensive legislative and policy debate on K - 12 schools in the Palmetto State.

Margaret Blood: In the absence of a public policy commitment, we've allowed the market to take over and provide very high - quality services to a limited number of wealthy children and, for the most part, less - than - quality services to poor children, with lots of kids stuck in between.

The second, almost never publicly enunciated, but effectively at work wherever funding policy is made, is that we do not wish to pay for the education of our poorer neighbors» children...

«By guaranteeing many more of our poorest children a hot meal every lunchtime during term time, the policy ensures substantial numbers of children need no longer struggle to concentrate on an empty stomach.»

One of the primary goals of the Baltimore - based Abell Foundation, where I am a senior policy analyst, is to improve the public schools that serve poor children.

This California - centric volume contends that many middle - class families live under the illusion that their kids» schools are swell and that it's only poor families whose children are trapped in bad schools and therefore need charters, vouchers, open enrollment plans, and other policies and programs designed to afford them access to better options.

«Although generically described as «school reform,»» he writes in Shame, «most of these practices and policies are targeted at poor children of color,» failing to explain why reform should not be directed at the lowest - performing schools.

, «most of these practices and policies are targeted at poor children of color,» failing to explain why reform should not be directed at the lowest - performing schools.

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.

Just as Trump's flunkies exert political pressure to halt access to healthcare (or immigration or policies to address climate change), so NJEA exerts political pressure — as well as its deep pockets — to stave off the continued enrollment of children, mostly poor and of color, in high - quality alternative public schools.

Add in certification rules that keep mid-career professionals with strong math and science skills out of teaching, near - lifetime employment policies and discipline processes that keep laggard and criminally - abusive teachers in the profession, and practices that all but ensure that low - quality teachers are teaching the poorest children, and shoddy teacher training perpetuates the nation's educational caste system.

The intention is to remember that we're talking about complicated issues, and that children are the ones either helped or hurt when adults make either wise or poor policy choices.

The Policy Exchange said rather than castigating parents who did their best for their children, the focus must be improving teaching in poorer areas.

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.

On top of the anti-immigrant and refugee policies, the latest budget proposals from the administration and Congress have the potential to severely cut services to those who are the poorest among us — the homeless, frail homebound seniors, people with disabilities, poor children in after school programs.

Having high concentrations of poor children in the same schools makes no academic sense, says the Economic Policy Institute's Rothstein.

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.

TFA, suitably representative of the liberal education reform more generally, underwrites, intentionally or not, the conservative assumptions of the education reform movement: that teacher's unions serve as barriers to quality education; that testing is the best way to assess quality education; that educating poor children is best done by institutionalizing them; that meritocracy is an end - in - itself; that social class is an unimportant variable in education reform; that education policy is best made by evading politics proper; and that faith in public school teachers is misplaced.

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.

Sean Worth from the think - tank Policy Exchange, who was formerly a special adviser to David Cameron, has told BBC News: «The evidence shows that grammar schools do work, but they under - represent the poorest children.»

Education policy analyst Diane Ravitch describes Rocketship charters as «schools for poor 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.

Sally Copley, head of UK policy at Save the Children, said: «It's simply wrong that, at every stage of schooling, the poorest children do worse and make less progress than their better - off claChildren, said: «It's simply wrong that, at every stage of schooling, the poorest children do worse and make less progress than their better - off clachildren do worse and make less progress than their better - off classmates.

Shadow Childrens and Education Secretary Ed Balls said, if the government was serious about academies serving children from poorer backgrounds, it would have continued with Labour's previous policy.

That it means pushing for a rollback of federal education policy that have helped black and brown children as well as a return to the bad old days when states and districts were allowed to ignore their obligations to poor and minority children doesn't factor into any of their thinking.

Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute lists dozens of reasons why this is so, from the more frequent illness and stress poor students suffer, to the fact that they don't hear the large vocabularies that middle - class children hear at home.

Accordingly, right - wing think tanks like the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, the Heartland Institute and the Acton Institute have in recent years published screeds denouncing «the command and control mentality» of «government schools» that are «prisons for poor children.»

The Children's Defense Fund has been highlighting the disparate impact of school discipline policies on children of color and poor children since the publication of our 1975 report, School Suspensions: Are They Helping CChildren's Defense Fund has been highlighting the disparate impact of school discipline policies on children of color and poor children since the publication of our 1975 report, School Suspensions: Are They Helping Cchildren of color and poor children since the publication of our 1975 report, School Suspensions: Are They Helping Cchildren since the publication of our 1975 report, School Suspensions: Are They Helping ChildrenChildren?

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.

The National Education Policy Center has an extensive track record of finding fault with any and all research in support of the idea that poor and minority children in Milwaukee, and elsewhere, deserve the opportunity to choose their own school.

Supt. John Deasy and the board have together brought an unrelenting focus on poor children of color and there has been much progress as a result of his leadership including increased graduation and attendance rates, increases in the numbers of African American and Latino students taking Advanced Placement courses and exams, and reduced suspensions along with an overhaul of the school discipline policy.

The consequences — from allowing states to render poor and minority kids invisible altogether through such subterfuges as lumping all of subgroups into a so - called super subgroup category, to ignoring the failures of suburban districts to improve education for all children, to intolerable incoherence in federal education policy — were clear from the beginning.

«If we want to preserve the promise of equal opportunity and social mobility through education, we need to invest in policies that will make children less poor and boost parents» capacity to support their children's education at home.