New America’s Steve Burd has a very informative post on the potential for Pell grant funding levels to create an early test of incoming conservatives’ resolve to cut spending. While much of the post-election edu-discussion (including more insightful commentary from two Andrews—Kelly and Rotherham) has focused on K-12 and implications for ESEA/NCLB reauth, in the near term, the biggest impacts are likely to be around student aid and higher ed, because the nature of the policies and politics means there’s just a more constant stream of action around higher ed issues than K-12, and because of the money involved.
A thoughtful and historically informed “Nashville Scene” review (via Paul Tough) of “Waiting for ‘Superman’” warns that the movie’s effectiveness in creating sense of outrage in viewers may actually undermine efforts to spur meaningful public action on the underlying issues. (That’s been a big concern of mine, too.)
Totally second Linda Perlstein on the difference between flat funding and “cuts.”
Also seconded: When advocates claim single gender experiments are working, Richard Whitmire says, show me the evidence.
New IES report on the relative effectiveness of four popular early elementary math curricula shows that curriculum matters, but doesn’t give clear wins to either ideological camp in the math curriculum wars.
The opinions expressed in Sara Mead’s Policy Notebook are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.