Last month, Education Next released additional findings from their 2016 EdNext Poll, a national public opinion survey conducted from May 6 to June 13 of last year. The newly released data focus on parents’ satisfaction with various features of the schools their children attend, such as teacher quality, school discipline, and safety. More specifically, the analysis compares parents’ responses by school sector—traditional public, private, and charter schools—to look for differences in the satisfaction among parents nationwide, making it the first of its kind to do so across all three sectors.

The results reveal that charter school parents tend to be more satisfied with most aspects of their schools than traditional district school parents, yet less satisfied than private school parents. This trend was evident in matters such as teacher quality, school discipline, safety, teaching of values, and achievement expectations for students. On average, charter school parents reported being more satisfied than district school parents in these five categories by 13 percentage points and less satisfied than private school parents by an average of 12 percentage points.

When asked about problems in their children’s schools, few parents reported seeing any major shortcomings. The issue that received the most amount of concern...

This twenty-first edition of Quality Counts from Education Week builds on past annual installments to look at the state of K–12 education in the U.S. at the beginning of 2017. With a changing of the guard at the White House and the Department of Education, this year’s report focuses on the challenges faced by state and district leaders to ensure that the provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) will be met by the beginning of the 2017–18 school year.

Though ESSA affords state and district leaders greater flexibility, the business of crafting a more nuanced accountability system that effectively balances contentious areas such as teacher evaluation with other indicators of school quality is not straightforward. This report serves as the latest opportunity to gauge the success of efforts undertaken so far, and to guide state and district leaders on where to focus their energies over the coming year.

To determine the quality of U.S. K–12 education, authors looked at thirty-nine distinct indicators based on analyses of state and federal data to determine a letter-grade ranking for each state and the nation as a whole. These were divided into three research indices: 1) chance-for-success, which includes indicators from...

A new report from the Education Commission of the States looks at the quality of K–12 civic education requirements in all fifty states. While each requires its students to participate in some form of social studies or civics education, the scope and depth of these requirements vary greatly.

Reviewers used seven indicators to analyze each state’s approach to civic education. These indicators include graduation requirements, standards, curriculum, assessments and accountability systems, and statutes. The purpose is not to rank or critique the civic education programs in each state. Rather the report is meant to be informational and highlight general trends in civics education so as to help states learn from the practices and policies of others and improve their own civics education criteria.

The report found that every state addresses civic education in some form within a state statute. Typically this is accomplished in one of two ways: States either enumerate specific civics course requirements for students, or they outline the desired outcomes of a civics education and then leave it up to the individual districts to determine how to reach these outcomes.

Pennsylvania stands out among other states in this indicator and includes both methods within its statute, listing...

Over the last several years, I’ve spent a fair amount of time defending the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in my role as a senior fellow with the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education-policy think tank in Washington, D.C. Now, given president-elect Trump’s pledge to “end Common Core,” which he terms “a disaster,” I expect many more opportunities to defend high standards, at least for the foreseeable future. All that said, while I support the standards, I’m not a cheerleader for them. I could no sooner imagine summoning up a love for (or hatred of) Common Core than for, say, electrical codes or auto-safety standards. I reserve my heated passions for literature, history, and civic education. I will eagerly engage in pitched battles over what students should know, read, and grapple with, but standards? They are dry, dull, and unlovely things.

To be upset by academic standards is to invest them with a power they neither have nor deserve. In my five years of teaching fifth graders, I never—not even once—reached for English language arts standards when deciding what to teach. I would wager that when I. M. Pei was commissioned to design the Louvre Pyramid, his first move was...

The one-week delay in Betsy DeVos’s confirmation hearing gives all of us extra time to speculate about her position on this or that wrinkle in federal education policy, and for the politicos to practice their attacks and counter-attacks. All in all, it’s quite a spectacle.

But one useful outcome of this process is already apparent: It has surfaced an important debate about the appropriate contours of school-choice policy. As I argued last month, my sense is that the differences within education reform’s big tent aren’t as significant as the commentary might let on. We all support giving parents the power to choose schools other than those assigned to children by their local district; the question is how wide their range of choices should be.

It also appears to me that some of the differences of opinion come from an out-of-date understanding of various choice mechanisms. Most significantly, some of our friends—as well as our foes—have an iPod-era view of vouchers that needs to be brought into the Uber-age.

I’m referring to the oft-cited misconception, most recently repeated by Senator Elizabeth Warren, that voucher schools are “unaccountable.”

That may have been the case decades ago, when vouchers first...

I believe in giving people chances, whether they are my three crazy boys, my wonderful but imperfect husband, my troubled former students at an inner-city school, or the controversial new nominee for Secretary of Education—whose confirmation hearing next week should be watched closely by everyone who has a stake in U.S. education.

A quick scan of headlines and Twitter can leave one believing that she is either the one and only figure in America hell-bent on destroying public education altogether or the best thing to ever happen to U.S. schools. Yet neither extreme adds anything useful to the discussion, and both are premature.

On the former side are Democrats, union leaders, and anti-reform voices, who’ve particularly bemoaned that she herself is not the product of public schools, has never taught in a public school, and her own children didn’t attend public school.

There was a time I would have agreed with this critique. I still remember an argument I had in a San Diego bar more than ten years ago. I was a twenty-eight-year-old high school teacher, appalled by what I saw as the hypocrisy of members of Congress and even our presidents for not sending their own children...

By Charles Sahm

One of the odd features of education policy is that while a plethora of research exists on the effects of systemic reforms (e.g., class size, charter schools, teacher, and school accountability mechanisms), on student achievement there is very little data on whether curriculum—what kids are actually being taught—makes a difference. As the Urban Institute's Matthew Chingos notes: "It's as if the medical profession worried about the administration of hospitals and patient insurance but paid no attention to the treatments that doctors give their patients."

Slowly, however, the notion that curriculum counts is beginning to gain traction. At a recent Hopkins/Hunter forum (a collaboration between the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy and Hunter College), Harvard professor Thomas Kane discussed a recent five-state study he oversaw that showed high-quality instructional materials produced a larger effect than having an experienced teacher versus a novice teacher. Kane plans to follow up with a national study in 2017. Other researchers, such as the Urban Institute's Chingos and the University of Southern California's Morgan Polikoff, are conducting studies on curricular effectiveness, but states don't make it easy: Most states don't collect information regarding which instructional materials schools are using.


In education reform’s post-election landscape, long-dormant fault lines have slipped, opening huge chasms of belief as former allies run to their respective partisan or issue-based corners.

Accountability, one of the deepest of those fault lines, seems to have become a totemic stop sign among reformers who find their political anchor in the Democratic Party. Many such folks now brandish accountability as their sine qua non, despite possessing neither the political or policy wherewithal to stop, or slow, potential change at the federal level or in two thirds of America’s statehouses.

There is, however, a problem with re-enacting Gandalf’s fight with the Balrog, shouting, “You shall not pass!” Here and on this issue, the ensuing fall may be similar. The fight over accountability isn’t actually in front of us—it’s behind us, and it’s been lost already. More specifically, it was sold out in bipartisan fashion and returned to the states from D.C. in as fractured a fashion as possible.

I've been a fierce supporter of the No Child Left Behind accountability framework, but it wasn’t hard to see the cracks in the bulwark. Most noticeably, the confluence of Republicans (shunning federal overreach), self-interested teachers unions (opposing teacher evaluation), and...

Last month, I explained why 2016 was “The Year We Came Apart”—both the nation, and the education reform movement. Now, rejuvenated by the holiday break, let me suggest that 2017 can be the year we come back together again.

No Pollyanna, I. On virtually every issue, Americans remained sharply divided. We won’t magically find new middle ground in contentious areas like abortion, Obamacare, taxes, climate change, or much else. Within education reform’s big tent, disagreement is also here to stay. We’ll continue vigorously to debate one another on matters big and small—about the appropriate role of standards and testing; the pros and cons of various approaches to accountability; how much deference to show parents versus oversight agencies when it comes to judging school quality; and on and on.

Nor should we ignore the threat that the Trump presidency may pose to our democratic norms and values. If his authoritarian impulses turn into authoritarian actions—rounding up law-abiding immigrants, discriminating against people on the basis of religion—we must stand up to him and push back.

So the sort of “coming together” I envision is not about glossing over real disagreements or rolling over when faced with a bully. It’s about using...

Dual enrollment is on a roll. Enabling high school students to take college courses for college credit while still enrolled in high school is intended by its advocates to help solve multiple problems that plague American education. These include:

  • The boredom of high school students who have completed their requirements for graduation and are coasting as they wait for their diplomas.
  • The desire of advanced students to pursue subjects that interest them in greater depth than their high school course offerings allow.
  • The need for high school pupils to get a sense of what college classes are actually like.
  • The inability of many school systems to afford, on their own, or offer a rich array of advanced courses.
  • The yearning by many high school students to get a head start on college, save some time and money when they get there, and perhaps avoid dull entry-level courses.
  • The push by policymakers to boost academic performance, get more kids into and through college—and save some tax dollars by minimizing course duplication and, perhaps, student remediation.
  • The appetite of colleges themselves to maximize enrollments and revenues, both by teaching some students who haven’t yet matriculated and by recruiting more of those
  • ...