Two years ago, I matriculated from one of the most liberal, activist college campuses in the country. In the months leading up to graduation, I fantasized about jumping head-first into a vocation fighting for social justice. I knew that I had a passion for policy and a healthy interest in education issues (my mom is a school teacher). It was as clear to me then as it is now that education is the key to equality of opportunity.

Eager to put my beliefs into action, I landed in the realm of education reform. Over the last few years, I have been fortunate to meet wonks and policy mavens from all walks of life, all of whom hold in their hearts the best interests of students. Having found the perfect union of my interest in education policy and my desire to help make the world a little better, I figured the rest would be smooth sailing. It was not until earlier this year that I noticed the growing chasm that has formed between two reform camps.

Some on the Right (including a few of my colleagues at Fordham) have argued that if the reformers start pandering to liberals, conservatives will feel...

It's been a terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad summer for education reform. After many years of bipartisan support, key elements of the reform agenda—higher standards, better teachers, test-based accountability, parental choice—are starved for oxygen in both the Republican and Democratic party platforms. Earlier this month, the NAACP further upset the apple cart with a call for a moratorium on new charter schools. Not to be outdone, a "platform" released by the Movement for Black Lives (a group of organizations organized by Black Lives Matter) issued a scorched-earth condemnation of every aspect of the reform agenda, which it characterized as "a systematic attack…coordinated by an international education privatization agenda, bankrolled by billionaire philanthropists…and aided by the departments of education at the federal, state, and local level."

Response to this series of stunning attacks and political reversals has been muted. The usual groups have told journalists where and how they disagree with the antis. But there's been no outcry of support for the agenda items under attack, and certainly not from any political leaders, prominent columnists, etc.

This week, by marked contrast, the atmosphere inside the edu-bubble was set alight by—wait for it—John Oliver. The British comedian recorded a "takedown" of charter schools that was...

Dina Brulles and Karen L. Brown

The new school year is on the horizon, and you’re already feeling somewhat apprehensive. You know that transitions are a challenge for your gifted child— whether it’s a new school, a new grade level, a new teacher, or all of the above. You want to make sure that your child’s new teacher understands that your gifted child has learning needs that differ from others. You feel that establishing a close and respectful partnership with your child’s teacher early in the year can ease stress and set a structure for a successful year of learning.

In anticipation of meeting the new teacher, you think about questions you want to ask. You start with the obvious: “Are you aware that my child is gifted? What is your experience teaching gifted children? How do you plan on challenging my child this year?” At the same time, you really don’t want to come across as one of those parents. What’s a parent to do?

Here are five key strategies to form a strong relationship with your gifted child’s teacher:

1. Share information about how your child thinks and feels, along with any specifics that will help the teacher understand your child’s learning needs at school. Respect the process...

A recent American Enterprise Institute study dispels myths about charter schools by comparing them to nearby district schools in a few novel ways.

Author Nat Malkus gathered data on school type, locale, enrollment, proficiency, discipline rates, demographics, and the number of English language learners and special education students they serve. Sources included the National Center for Education Statistics, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights, and EDfacts.

Instead of looking at large groups of charter and districts schools across the country or a state, as charter opponents are wont to do, Malkus compares each charter school to five neighboring district schools that a given charter student might otherwise attend. Obviously, this makes for much more of an apples-to-apples comparison.

A recurring theme throughout virtually all of Malkus’s analyses is the great amount of variance between charter schools. He compares randomly selected district schools, which he terms “reference schools,” to five neighboring district schools, just as he did with the charters. Through the study’s various lenses—school discipline, student enrollment, achievement, or something else—charter schools are repeatedly shown to differ more from one another than district schools do. (There is also more variance between charters than between charter schools and their...

Although recent analyses show that the child poverty rate isn't as high as many people believe, the fact remains that millions of American students attend under-resourced schools. For many of these children, well-resourced schools are geographically close but practically out of reach; high home prices and the scarcity of open enrollment policies make it all but impossible for low-income families to cross district borders for a better education.

Some research shows that low-income children benefit from attending school with better-off peers. Middle- and upper-income children may also benefit from an economically diverse setting. In short, income integration is a win-win for everyone involved. So why do the vast majority of school districts in the United States remain segregated by income? The answer isn’t much of a mystery: Schools are mainly funded by locally raised property taxes, which functionally “give wealthier communities permission to keep their resources away from the neediest schools.”

In order to examine just how isolating school district borders can be for low-income students, a relatively new nonprofit called EdBuild recently examined 33,500 school borders for school districts in 2014 and identified the difference in childhood poverty rates between districts on either side of the boundary line. (For...

A recent study published by Johns Hopkins’s Institute for Education Policy sets out to uncover how many elementary and middle school students are performing one or more years above grade level. The authors undertake this study to challenge the current education policy focus on achieving grade-level proficiency without accounting for students who perform above grade level.

To answer this broad question, the study examines data from state, multi-state, and national level assessment datasets (five in all). At the state level, the authors delve into data from three assessments: Smarter Balanced in Wisconsin and California and the Florida Standards Assessment in grades 3–8.

In evaluating all three state-level datasets against the states’ respective measures of grade-level proficiency, the authors found significant percentages of students scoring at or above grade level in the spring of their current grade level. In Wisconsin, 25–45 percent of students in grades 3–8 scored at or above grade level. For the same set of grades, 11–37 percent of California students scored at or above grade level. Florida features the highest percentage of students performing at or above grade level, at 30–44 percent for ELA (grades 3–9) and mathematics (grades 3–7).

Turning to the Northwest Evaluation Association’s Measures...

A new analysis from the Manhattan Institute’s Scott Winship shows that, measured correctly, the U.S. child poverty rate declined from 13.1 percent in 1996 to 7.8 percent in 2014—a drop of almost two-fifths.

This has huge implications for many policy areas, including education reform, and it’s a development that all parties must wrestle with.

For the teachers’ unions and other traditional education groups, it raises hard questions about their familiar contention that America’s lackluster student achievement is due to poverty—that we must “fix poverty first” before our schools will improve. We haven’t fixed poverty, but we have most certainly decreased it.

It also raises hard questions for reformers about why we haven’t seen greater progress in student outcomes over the past twenty years, considering that these socioeconomic trends should put the wind at our backs. We like to point to achievement gains in the late 1990s and early 2000s, especially for the poorest and lowest-performing students, as evidence that testing and accountability boosted learning.

But what if that was only part of the story?

Let’s excavate a bit deeper. Ramesh Ponnuru has a great overview of Winship’s study at Bloomberg View. Ponnuru writes, “The Census Bureau’s official measurements, it is true,...

The Fordham Institute’s new report, High Stakes for High Achievers: State Accountability in the Age of ESSA, examines whether states' current or planned accountability systems for elementary and middle schools attend to the needs of high-achieving students, as well as how these systems might be redesigned under the Every Student Succeeds Act to better serve all students. It finds that the overwhelming majority of states provide schools with few incentives to focus on their high-achieving students. This is a problem.

Accountability has been a central theme of education reform for almost two decades, driven by the unchallenged central finding of James Coleman’s seminal 1966 study: Although some interventions are demonstrably more effective than others, there’s no direct link between what goes into a school by way of resources and what comes out by way of student learning. Sage policy makers have recognized that trying to micromanage school and district “inputs” is a waste of time. Instead, the prudent course is to (a) clearly state the results that educational institutions ought to produce, (b) assess how satisfactorily those results are being achieved, and then (c) hold schools and school systems to account, with rewards of various sorts for success and...

A robust communications channel for gifted education has taken flight. Designed to illuminate conversations on gifted and talented children and mobilize support for them to reach their potential, The High Flyer is a unique collaboration between the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

Our two organizations unite around common goals: to expand the public’s understanding of the needs of gifted and talented children, to increase public urgency to serve them, and to dispel common myths.

In the Fordham analysis released today, High Stakes for High Achievers, the data makes clear that it’s time for states to focus on gifted students. Among the findings, we’re struck particularly by this sad reality: Only five states treat high-achieving students as a subgroup and separately report their results at the school level.

The National Research Center on Gifted Education found recently that it is virtually impossible for a student who lives in poverty, is an English learner, and belongs to a minority group to be identified and served in a gifted and talented program. Giftedness exists in all populations, and education is the great equalizer. We have a moral obligation to help children who come from disadvantaged...

A new policy paper from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) explores how state education agencies (SEAs) can take advantage of their unique position to foster improved district-charter collaboration.

The authors lament, as did we in a recent report, that district and charter leaders are too often tearing chunks out of one another rather than finding ways to work together. Whether the endgame should be an all-charter system, as in New Orleans, or some kind of side-by-side system, as in Washington, D.C., most cities will have to find a working balance between the two sectors.

The paper makes a series of policy recommendations for how SEAs could facilitate this balance and act on the increased authority granted to them by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). They could, for example, use their unique position to tie financial and accountability incentives to collaboration efforts, provide cover for school districts in places where local politics are toxic, and remove state legal impediments to district-charter collaboration. ESSA also gives states the more flexibility to allot funding, design accountability systems, and adopt other constructive policies (like unified enrollment or facilities sharing) that promote district-charter collaboration.

The authors then point to examples like Florida’s...