Politics K-12 reports on the Administration’s pushback on tutoring. I’m not sure how a blanket ban makes any more sense than a blanket requirement to provide tutoring. Provider quality is very mixed and states generally do a lousy job screening and certifying providers. Seems like fixing those problems are a better use of effort than fighting over this.
I want to believe! David Kirp turns in a long op-ed in The Times about the benefits of school integration but then concludes with this:
In theory it’s possible to achieve a fair amount of integration by crossing city and suburban boundaries or opening magnet schools attractive to both minority and white students. But the hostile majority on the Supreme Court and the absence of a vocal pro-integration constituency make integration’s revival a near impossibility.
I’m all for it, but, to put it plainly, it’s as likely to snow Hershey’s Kisses as for this to happen at scale given politics, housing patterns, city and town boundaries, and school boundaries. So doesn’t this make those pursuing other strategies to improve school quality for low-income and minority kids, you know, pragmatists? Even within jurisdictions with great racial and economic diversity (and liberal voting records) there is a lot of resistance to just changing school boundaries and enrollment patterns. Meanwhile, many schools that are integrated on paper are much less so within classrooms.
More Promise? If you want to be a peer reviewer for the Promise Neighborhood’s competition, here’s your big chance.