THIS IS THE PROBLEM
 |
I love Jesus Navas |
On Twitter, I posted the following:
2 guaranteed reforms reformers refuse to do: 1) give children books 2) give poor children’s parents money.
Both of these are supported by solid research—the need for access to books and choice reading by decades of research in literacy and the second point is powerfully supported by a recent study from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation:
The impact of increases in income on cognitive development appears roughly comparable with that of spending similar amounts on school [emphasis added] or early education programmes. Increasing household income could substantially reduce differences in schooling outcomes, while also improving wider aspects of children’s well-being.
Yet, here is a response I received:
I’m afraid some poor children’s parents do not spend money wisely.
And the person’s Twitter profile begins with “I love Jesus!”
This is the problem.
The default assumption in the U.S. about people in poverty is paralyzed by stereotypes and blind to the inverse of this person’s fear: In a world in which childhood poverty in the U.S. exceeds 20% and the new majority in public schools is
For the Record: Should We Trust Advocates of “No Excuses”?
For the Record: Should We Trust Advocates of “No Excuses”?
The short answer is, No. When “The Softer Side of ‘No Excuses’” was published at Education Next, I posted a comment* and then emailed one of the authors, Robert (Bob) Maranto, an endowed chair in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. My initial email stated directly that one implication in the article is blatantly untrue and essentially nasty: Like all charter schools,