• November 18, 2011

    Sean Reardon, Associate Professor of Sociology at Stanford University says the growing divide between rich and poor in the U.S. will polarize the political process. He adds the Occupy Wall Street protests are an example of this process.

  • November 16, 2011

    As overall income inequality grew in the last four decades, high- and low-income families have become increasingly less likely to live near one another. Mixed income neighborhoods have grown rarer, while affluent and poor neighborhoods have grown much more common. In fact, the share of the population in large and moderate-sized metropolitan areas who live in the poorest and most affluent neighborhoods has more than doubled since 1970, while the share of families living in middle-income neighborhoods dropped from 65 percent to 44 percent.

  • November 15, 2011

    The study, conducted by Stanford University and scheduled for release on Wednesday by the Russell Sage Foundation and Brown University, uses census data to examine family income at the neighborhood level in the country’s 117 biggest metropolitan areas.

  • July 08, 2011

    Doctoral student Heather Hough (BA ’02), Professor Susanna Loeb, and Professor (Research) David Plank at Stanford’s Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA) have been collaborating with the district to document the passage of this policy. Their research has looked at what it took to induce the broader public to open its purse strings, and how the district and the teachers’ union consulted, negotiated, and compromised to determine how those funds were to be used.

  • May 13, 2011

    Thursday afternoon, the School of Education brought together experts in education to answer the question, “Does teacher education have a future?”
    The panel debated nontraditional methods for teacher education emerging from organizations like Teach for America (TFA) and their efficacy compared to the theory-based work of education school.

  • April 25, 2011

    Teachers and principals play the most direct and central role in creating learning opportunities for students in our schools. Indeed, there are striking examples that show the power that exceptional teachers and school leaders have to make a difference for students. This is obvious. This comports with personal experience. We also know this empirically. A weaker math teacher, for example, might get students to learn about a half-year of material; a strong teacher can get the same children to learn a year-and-a-half, or three times as much.

  • April 24, 2011

    Students who receive one-on-one coaching may be more likely to graduate from college, according to a study released from Stanford University’s School of Education.
    The study, published on the Web site of the National Bureau of Economic Research, may be particularly beneficial to colleges struggling to improve graduation and retention rates, says Dr. Eric Bettinger, the Stanford associate professor who co-authored the report with doctoral student Rachel Baker.

  • April 13, 2011

    The widening gaps between Americans of average wealth and well-off Americans, and especially, super-well-off Americans over the last 40 years have now been fully documented and heavily discussed. But it’s not just about money. We are seeing, as well, growing economic, social, geographical, and cultural divisions between Americans of less and more education. Now, Sean Reardon of the Stanford School of Education has described another way that these two developments have increasingly combined to widen social class differences. More and more over the last four decades, affluent parents have leveraged their financial assets into better academic skills for their children. Having those greater skills, in turn, gives their kids an even larger head start in the race for higher education and its financial payoff.

  • March 10, 2011

    Student coaching significantly increases the likelihood that college students will stay in school and graduate, according to a new study released today by researchers at Stanford University School of Education. The study, conducted by Stanford University Associate Professor Eric Bettinger and doctoral student Rachel Baker, reviewed the academic records of more than 13,500 students from eight colleges and universities across the 2003-4 and 2007-8 academic years.

  • January 28, 2011

    Duke professor Charles Clotfelter spoke Thursday at the School of Education about the role of big athletics at American universities. During the talk, presented by the Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA), Clotfelter raised fundamental questions about higher education and the role of athletics at institutions like Stanford. “What are the aims of the great institutions we revere?” asked Clotfelter, an economics, public policy and law professor.

  • January 06, 2011

    Newly appointed state Board of Education member Michael Kirst, an emeritus professor of business administration and education at Stanford University, who served on the state board during Gov. Jerry Brown's first administration, said in a phone interview that he is gearing up for a busy three-year term. Among his top priorities: shifting the way schools are allowed to spend their money and overhauling the state's student testing system.

  • January 05, 2011

    Dr. Michael Kirst, of Stanford, has been appointed to the California State Board of Education. He currently serves as a Professor Emeritus at Stanford University, where he has taught since 1969. Previously, Kirst served on the California State Board of Education under Governor Brown from 1975 to 1982. Kirst also served as the Director of Program Planning for the U.S. Office of Education and was Staff Director for the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on Manpower, Employment, and Poverty from 1967 to 1969.

  • December 15, 2010

    Launched in 2006, the Initiative to Improve K-12 Education has been key to expanding endowed faculty positions and graduate fellowships in the School of Education, spurring multidisciplinary research in educational issues and enhancing programs that allow Stanford to partner with schools and organizations serving youths.
    The interdisciplinary Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA), directed by Susanna Loeb, professor of education, applies scientific methods of analysis to discover what works in our nation’s schools and why. CEPA involves faculty from such disciplines as economics, law, political science, psychology, public policy, sociology and education.

  • December 09, 2010

    On the football field, a talented quarterback often calls the option play, holding off on the decision to run or pass to the last possible moment. This gives him time to survey the field and choose the best option for moving the ball forward. Policymakers have options, too. Given the chance, they can wait and watch before making a key decision. When it comes to testing in California's education system, this is a great time to call the option play. Last summer California – along with 40 other states – adopted the Common Core Standards, academic goals for what students should learn and when they should learn it. These new standards are different but also better than what we have.

  • December 07, 2010

    The public verdict is in and overwhelming: The better the education people get, the stronger the U.S. economy will be, a poll shows. But don't count on folks to support higher taxes to improve schools. Eighty-eight percent say a country's education system has a major effect on its economic health. Nearly as many — 79 percent — say the U.S. economy would improve if all Americans had at least a two-year college degree, according to an Associated Press-Stanford University poll.

  • November 17, 2010

    The evaluation of teachers based on the contribution they make to the learning of their students, value-added, is an increasingly popular but controversial education reform policy. We highlight and try to clarify four areas of confusion about value-added. The first is between value-added information and the uses to which it can be put. One can, for example, be in favor of an evaluation system that includes value-added information without endorsing the release to the public of value-added data on individual teachers. The second is between the consequences for teachers vs. those for students of classifying and misclassifying teachers as effective or ineffective — the interests of students are not always perfectly congruent with those of teachers.