Filter By:
Date
Topic
- Economic Policy (3) Apply Economic Policy filter
- Energy, Science & Technology (1) Apply Energy, Science & Technology filter
- Foreign Affairs & National Security (4) Apply Foreign Affairs & National Security filter
- Health Care (1) Apply Health Care filter
- History (7) Apply History filter
- Law (5) Apply Law filter
- US Politics (8) Apply US Politics filter
- Values & Social Policy (15) Apply Values & Social Policy filter
Type
Search
James Ceaser is the Harry F. Byrd Professor of Politics at the University of Virginia, director of the Program for Constitutionalism and Democracy, and was a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. He is the author of several books on American politics and American political thought, including...
The Promise of Choice
Clint Bolick on the fight to transform America’s schools.
An Echo, Not a Choice
Vouchers repeat the error of public education
Progress v. Progressive Education
Jon Jewett on Left Back: A Century of Failed School Reform by Diane Ravitch and When Schools Compete: A Cautionary Tale by Edward B. Fiske and Helen F. Ladd
The Schools They Deserve
Howard Gardner and the remaking of elite education
Doing It Wrong and Doing It Right: Education in Latin America and Asia
Forty years ago Asia and Latin America were at similar levels of economic development. This is no longer true, however, for reforming East and Southeast Asian countries, periodic problems notwithstanding, have made long strides toward the developed world. Meanwhile, most of Latin America, after the reform euphoria of the 1990s, is passing through yet another of its periodic crises. Serious economic development in much of Asia has reduced poverty and inequality; in Latin America sustained economic growth and effective institution building have rarely occurred, and the region is falling ever farther behind the rest of the developing world. One critical factor in Asia’s success has been its universal, increasingly high-quality education systems, particularly at the primary and secondary levels, that have enabled most people to promote their own well-being and contribute to national development. The high quality of Asian education is evident in international testing that finds reforming Asian countries at the head of the class. Latin Americans, in contrast, when they even dare to participate in such testing, come out at or near the bottom. Why the difference? Because although both regions began with rigid, elitist traditional ideas and institutions, Latin Americans have been much less willing or able or both to adapt and transform their past in order to participate more productively in the modern world. Latin American leaders have not chosen to undertake deep and lasting reform, and the Latin American people, to the degree that they have any voice in the matter, have not demanded such changes. It is in U.S. interests to support education reform in Latin America because doing so will promote development and stability there and thus more productive relations between north and south. But we should do so only when the region’s leaders demonstrate the will to undertake substantive change and commit the resources to make it happen.
How Do We Choose Proper Performance Measures for Prisons?
What if Faith-Based Prison Programs Just Attract Better Prisoners?
Free At Last
Black Americans sign up for school choice
Vouchers and Test Scores
What the numbers show
TOUGH CHOICES: Vouchers and the Supreme Court
In the summer of 2002, the Supreme Court will announce its decision on a Cleveland school voucher case that many are calling the most important case on educational opportunities since Brown v. the Board of Education in 1954. In the Cleveland vouchers program, 96 percent of the participating children use government-funded tuition vouchers to attend religious schools. Is such an arrangement constitutional, or does it violate the establishment clause of the First Amendment, which has served as the constitutional basis for the separation of church and state? Just how should the Supreme Court rule, and what effect will its ruling have on the future of vouchers in the United States?
Bilingual Education: A Critique
Bilingual education has been a subject of national debate since the 1960s. This essay traces the evolution of that debate from its origin in the Civil Rights Act (1964) and the Bilingual Education Act (1968), which decreed that a child should be instructed in his or her native tongue for a transitional year while she or he learned English but was to transfer to an all-English classroom as fast as possible. These prescriptions were ignored by bilingual enthusiasts; English was neglected, and Spanish language and cultural maintenance became the norm.
Bilingual education was said to be essential for the purposes of gaining a new sense of pride for the Hispanics and to resist Americanization. The Lau v. Nichols (1974) decision stands out as a landmark on the road to bilingual education for those unable to speak English: bilingual education moved away from a transitional year to a multiyear plan to teach children first in their home language, if it was not English, before teaching them in English. This facilitation theory imprisoned Spanish speakers in classrooms where essentially only Spanish was taught, and bilingual education became Spanish cultural maintenance with English limited to thirty minutes a day. The essay discusses the pros and cons of bilingual education.
Criticism of bilingual education has grown as parents and numerous objective analyses have shown it was ineffective, kept students too long in Spanish-only classes, and slowed the learning of English and assimilation into American society. High dropout rates for Latino students, low graduation rates from high schools and colleges have imprisoned Spanish speakers at the bottom of the economic and educational ladder in the United States.
This revolt, the defects of bilingual education, and the changes needed to restore English for the Children are covered in the essay. The implications of Proposition 227 abolishing bilingual education in California are also discussed.
Choice and Federalism: Defining the Federal Role in Education
In Choice and Federalism: Defining the Federal Role in Education, the Koret Task Force on K–12 Education recommends that Washington limit its education role to what it can do best: encouraging states to create level playing fields that expand school options and competit
Pages
- « first
- ‹ previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4

