This week the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching joins the Sharjah Education Academy’s International Summit on Improvement in Education. Carnegie’s own Tim Knowles, Paul LeMahieu, Tony Bryk, Jojo Manai, and Marytza Gawlik will each present to the Sharjah community about the tools, principles and methods of improvement science,…
Addressing complex educational problems using positive deviance requires detective work. The task: to discover “outliers” who have succeeded under conditions where most others fail; uncover the strategies they use; and design opportunities to share those strategies.
When the Kentucky Department of Education wanted a strategy to significantly increase the number of high school students prepared for college and/or careers, it turned to deliverology, a method used by British Prime Minister Tony Blair to make good on his campaign promises.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke of the fierce urgency of now as an immediate call to action for social justice. The phrase and meaning behind must be thoroughly and thoughtfully applied to educational equity, writes UCLA education professor Louis Gomez.
With the upcoming presidential inauguration and confirmation hearings for the next education secretary, Carnegie Foundation and other scholars are urging the new administration to shift federal education policy to support better school improvement strategies.
Failure can be a learning experience, but only under certain conditions. The work must matter, and there has to be a leader who can manage the costs of failure, understands improvement research, and keeps people focused on finding a solution instead of placing blame.
There’s ample new evidence of successful interventions to increase high school and college graduation rates to prepare students for today’s jobs. But, in this Memo to the President, Carnegie researchers explain what the federal government has to do to help spread this work.
Policy can do a lot to support positive changes, but policy alone isn’t effective in such large, diverse, and complex arenas as education, wrote policy analyst Paul Lingenfelter in comments solicited by the federal Commission on Evidence-Based Policymaking.
What will it take to make effective, lasting, and scalable education improvements? It’s not a silver bullet. Policymakers and practitioners must start working together to design solutions based on research and evidence.
In a recent SSIR article, Srik Gopal and Lisbeth B. Schorr make the case that an uncritical application of the "Moneyball" ideal is a flawed approach that overlooks "the fundamental realities of how complex social change happens."
At the Carnegie Summit, Hahrie Han shared insights from her research on participation and activism. One of the big questions she addressed is, how can we best mobilize people to work toward change together?
In his 2016 Carnegie Summit keynote, Bryan Stevenson reminded us of the power of getting "proximate" to suffering to deepen understanding. This blog post explores how this relates to the first core principle of improvement.
When we look for “bright spots,” we tend to see the tools or practices that we believe contribute to the positive results in certain classrooms, schools, or districts. In this way, we identify the what of improvement; but are we overlooking how these changes came to be?
Studies on the effects of educational programs often focus on “fidelity of implementation.” But this approach often fails to consider the complexity both of the programs themselves and of the demands they place on the contexts in which they are carried out.
In this AEI report, Alan Ginsburg and Carnegie Senior Fellow Mike Smith analyze 27 RCT mathematics curriculum studies contained in the What Works Clearinghouse, and they find serious threats to the usefulness of all 27.