The Center for American Progress (CAP) continues to buck its so-called “progressive” label with each report and analysis it publishes.
Articles By: Spencer Irvine
Federal speech codes could only be the beginning.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) has put out a scathing report and analysis on the Campus Sexual Violence Elimination (also known as “Campus SaVE”) Act that is up for consideration in both chambers of Congress.
Universities like to think of their lecture series as extensions of the education that students get in their classrooms. Unfortunately, they usually are.
The granting of waivers seems to favor states that have voted for the current administration in the last election, at least for the past decade.
The curriculum of No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top are eerily similar, and have the same result: government vagueness that leaves much to the imagination of applicants for federal funds.
David Rubinstein, a retired University of Illinois at Chicago sociology professor wrote an article which originally appeared in The Weekly Standard that sarcastically thanked Illinois taxpayers for their contribution to his well-funded “cushy life.”
Throughout last week, this writer studied the education policy studies put out by the Center for American Progress (CAP) and by a variety of authors and writers from different educational fields and expertise.
William Slotnik authored the Center for American Progress (CAP) report, titled “Levers for Change: Pathways for State-to-District Assistance in Underperforming School Districts,” that details how states and districts should interact to save struggling public schools and avoid the problems of past interventions.
Jessica Quillin’s report, sponsored by the Center for American Progress (CAP), details the struggles of the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program in light of the passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).