Sentences with phrase «poor minority children in»

To this end, he bullies poor minority children in a way that would be totally unacceptable if his charges were middle class and «white.»

«The Attorney General will have to explain to the American people why he believes poor minority children in Louisiana should be held back.»

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?

He has observed that the marginalization of women, racial / ethnic / minorities, Dalits, the poor, children, elderly and the sick, in short the majority of the people the world over, has escalated with the spread of the forces of globalization.

We seek through the vitality of influence and power to arrest the injustice of others but impose in turn new forms of injustice because we are never as just as we claim to be: parent with child, children with parents, protesters with establishment, majorities with minorities, minorities with majorities, rich nations with poor, and poor nations with rich.

Since minorities, you know — cause of years of prejudice and racism, are more likely to be poor and educated because of lack of educational funding and discrimination in the workforce and society, they're children won't fare much better.

A key reason behind the recent turnaround in breastfeeding among minority mothers in Illinois and particularly in the metropolitan Chicago area, state and local public health leaders say, is a common - sense peer counselor program launched in WIC (Women, Infants and Children program) clinics, which serve women who are poor and nutritionally «at risk.»

«We also know that it disproportionally affects poor and minority children, and children in immigrant families.»

Scientists have chronicled the impact of negative expectations in settings where they occur naturally, such as classrooms that «track» students from early youth and in society's treatment of stigmatized groups such as racial minorities, the poor, the elderly, the homeless, convicts and children with learning disabilities.

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) populationIn 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) populationin 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.

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.

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 peers.

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

Debunking the stereotype that the nation's poorest, most unhealthy, and most undereducated children are members of minority groups living in urban areas, the report says 14.9 million, or one - fourth of, American children living in rural areas face conditions «just as bleak and in some respects even bleaker than their metropolitan counterparts.»

• Show that public charter schools could benefit the students most in need of new opportunities (poor and minority children in big cities).

Finally, pre-packaged programs are overwhelmingly used with poor minority populations, according to Jonathan Kozol, who argues that this practice is characteristic of a «deeply segregated system in which more experienced instructors teach the children of the privileged.»

Marian Wright Edelman has known dark days in her lifelong quest to help poor and minority children.

One wonders if those who brought this suit are willing to press their equality claims to their logical conclusions and challenge the vast array of inequalities poor and minority children might experience in public school systems.

In big cities where poor residents and minorities are concentrated, as many as 80 percent of public school parents say they would send their children to private schools if they could afford the tuition.

If courts can strike down teacher tenure laws as a violation of the rights of poor and minority children (see «Script Doctors,» legal beat, Fall 2014), why not use the results from CCSS assessments to go after the drawing of school boundaries in a way that perpetuates economic school segregation and denies children equal opportunity?

Instead, it has demonized conservatives as insufficiently committed to poor and minority children, in the course of which it went a considerable way to derail the reauthorization process.

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.»

Poor and minority children bring just as many problems to schools here as they do in New Zealand, especially when poverty is concentrated.

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.

«There's much more awareness now in poor and minority communities that they don't want their children hidden from performance standards and accountability,» Miller said.

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.

«The challenged statutes do not inevitably lead to the assignment of more inexperienced teachers to schools serving poor and minority children,» Presiding Justice Roger Boren said in the 3 - 0 ruling.

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.

Philanthropic foundations that support education causes are interested in serving as many poor and minority children as possible; when 30 % to 40 % of a student body is made up of white or affluent students, the school is deemed suspect, as reform - minded foundations see such programs as «wasting» a third of their seats.

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.

This is particularly true in states where most charters serve 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.

Instead, it is about an important lesson reformers should be learning today from Doug Jones» victory yesterday over the notorious Roy Moore in yesterday's Alabama U.S. Senate special election: The need to rally poor and minority communities in advancing systemic reform to help all 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.

Student performance in charter schools was significantly lower than regular nearby schools in just five states with about 30 percent of national charter enrollment, mostly minority children from poor families.

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.

No Child Left Behind, which had strong bipartisan backing when it passed in 2001, was the signature education initiative of George W. Bush, who said the failure of public schools to teach poor students and minorities reflected the «soft bigotry of low expectations.»

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.

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.

The very revelations of how poorly districts and states were doing in improving the achievement of children — especially those from poor and minority backgrounds — since the implementation of No Child 12 years ago have embarrassed states and districts publicly and badly.

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 expectationIn 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 expectationin 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.

The No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 included language requiring states to «ensure that poor and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out - of - field teachers.»

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.

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.

Certainly this means losing key tools in expanding choice, especially against traditional districts and others opposed to allowing poor and minority children to attain high - quality options.

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.

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.