Driven k bromberg pdf english download

Rodriguez, the father of four children enrolled in the Edgewood district, was frustrated that the schools were dramatically underfunded and marred by dilapidated facilities and weak instruction. Sign Up. As part of his suit, Rodriguez joined 15 other parents who sued the state for an inequitable system of financing public schools. Rodriguez , eventually landed in the Supreme Court. The court struck down the case, arguing that education was not a guaranteed, fundamental right under the U.

This is a national problem. Since the s, advocates across the country have filed dozens of school finance lawsuits. That litigation spurred critical conversation and important progress, but many large and pressing problems remain. In nearly half of all states, affluent districts still receive more funding from state and local governments for their schools and students than poorer districts.

Dollars must be at the start of every conversation around equity. Funding is a central component to providing a high-quality education and often leads to improved outcomes. A study found that, between and , states that reformed school finance policies in order to allocate more funding to high-poverty school districts narrowed the achievement gap by an average of one-fifth. But allocating equal funding for every student does not guarantee that all students will have a rigorous educational experience.

This idea is at the heart of this report. The authors argue that the efforts to resolve inequities through the courts or with legislation need to move beyond funding. Furthermore, reforms must focus on both funding levels and equal access to resources shown to be fundamental to a quality education.

True educational equity will require two central reforms. First, there needs to be additional resources—not the same resources—in order to meet the needs of at-risk students. The authors came to these conclusions after examining the remedies implemented at the state level in response to a court order or as a result of political pressure created by state litigation.

Past cases, which have focused on the equity or adequacy of school funding, have increased resources for low-income students but have not consistently ensured that all students have access to a high-quality education. Moreover, in some instances, remedies implemented under these frameworks have led to unintended consequences, including the leveling out of education funding in cases that focus on equity of dollars alone.

Based on an analysis of school finance litigation and research on school funding, the authors found the following:. Historically, the federal government has focused its investment in supporting education and related services on the most at-risk children, and it can uniquely address inequities in per-pupil spending across states. While students within the same school district can receive starkly different levels of funding, the widest variation in per-pupil spending exists across state boundaries.

The school funding debate is as important today as it was in when Rodriguez demanded a better education for his children. Given these findings, the authors recommend principles to guide a new framework for school finance reform: a high-quality finance system.

While the past few decades of state litigation focusing on equity or adequacy have increased awareness of the importance of fiscal equity, policymakers must refine the debate in order to achieve a high-quality education for all students. The authors propose that the following key principles should guide school finance reform at the federal and state levels:. The goals of public education must evolve with the changing world, and today, schools must prepare students for college, career, and civic engagement.

Ensuring educational opportunities is critical to the health of U. A just K public schooling system should meaningfully prepare all students, including the most disadvantaged, for their roles in public service or democratic governance.

Without a robust education system, the armed forces would lack qualified recruits. The strength of the economy is also closely tied to education. Recent studies show that gross domestic product GDP has a strong relationship with educational outcomes. In the s, the majority of jobs were available to individuals with a high school diploma or less. During the recent economic recovery, 95 percent of the jobs created went to workers with postsecondary education or training.

Furthermore, education is one of the best predictors of future income. After 50 years of state school finance litigation and school finance reform, some states have minimized inequities in per-pupil education across districts within state lines. However, significant inequities remain.

Local, state, and federal governments all contribute to overall education funding and perpetuate some of these inequities. As a result, local, state, and federal actors must all work to revamp school funding systems with a focus on quality. States, specifically, will have a central role. The right to an education rests with the state, as articulated in state constitutions, and local and state governments provide the vast majority of school funding.

Meanwhile, the federal government must continue to focus its funding and support on high-poverty schools and address inequities that exist across state lines. Although state constitutions indicate that the right to education rests with the state, schools have historically been primarily funded at the local level.

Specifically, local property taxes had been the main source of funding for public education. Because districts have vastly different property tax bases, the poorest districts raise less money than more affluent districts, creating disparities in per-pupil expenditures.

New analyses disaggregate the allocations of local, state, and federal governments. Data compiled by the Urban Institute show that local education funding across the country is still highly regressive—although it has become slightly more progressive between and Students in poverty continue to receive less funding than their more affluent peers. High-poverty school districts in only four states—Minnesota, Louisiana, Tennessee, and Vermont—receive more local funds per pupil than more affluent districts.

State funding formulas generally compensate for regressive local funding. In 23 states, high-poverty and affluent districts receive about the same amount per pupil in state and local dollars. In four states, the highest-poverty districts receive significantly less per pupil in state and local funding than more affluent districts. And in Illinois, high-poverty districts received 22 percent less per pupil in state and local funds than more affluent districts.

Times have changed dramatically since the Rodriguez decision, and there is deepening consensus that federal government has an important role in supporting the education of students with the greatest needs.

The federal investment in education increases the share of funding allocated to high-poverty districts. These differences are so stark that students in certain states only receive a fraction of funds that students in other states receive. For example, according to a recent study by the Education Law Center, students in Mississippi only receive about 40 percent of the per-pupil funds of New Jersey students, while students in Alabama receive slightly less than 50 percent of the per-pupil funds as students in Connecticut.

While some states have made progress in addressing disparities within states, unequal access still exists within states. At the same time, inequities are greatest across states lines, as per-pupil spending across states varies dramatically. Although school finance advocates and policymakers often compare spending between the poorest and wealthiest districts within a state, the differences in district-level spending across states are far starker. These extreme spending inequities have an impact, and a large body of research suggests that money does matter in education.

When school districts spend money wisely, they have better outcomes, including higher test scores, increased graduation rates, and other improved indicators of student achievement. This has clear implications for the public school system, as students who do not get their fair share of dollars do not get an equal chance to compete with their more advantaged peers. For instance, according to a recent National Bureau of Economic Research NBER study, state fiscal reforms have had a positive impact on student outcomes—particularly among low-income students.

In fact, the study found that spending increases improved high school graduation rates among low-income students and increased their adulthood earnings by 10 percent. Note that, when it comes to policy approaches, foundation plans are most similar to an adequacy framework—a point explored in greater detail below. Another recent NBER study confirmed this idea that fiscal reforms in adequacy cases have led to more progressive funding systems and increased student outcomes.

These reforms also contributed to student gains in reading and mathematics, with the largest increases among low-income students. Relatedly, beginning in , a decline in public spending on education has negatively affected student outcomes.

During the Great Recession, state and district funding for public education declined dramatically. Kirabo Jackson, a professor of human development and social policy at Northwestern University, asserts that the decline in National Assessment of Educational Progress NAEP scores in and is tied to the decline in education spending following the Great Recession.

Inequities go beyond money. Core services, which make a huge difference in instructional quality and student performance, are systematically unavailable to students in low-income schools relative to students in higher-income schools. Put simply, school funding debates must go beyond the raw numbers and evaluate whether students have equitable access to the resources needed for success, including early childhood education, quality teachers, and exposure to challenging curriculum. Early childhood education is a critical tool to level the playing field for students in poverty who generally start school academically behind their more affluent peers.

For example, some studies suggest that, compared with their higher-income peers, low-income students start school with a smaller vocabulary. Yet students in poverty are less likely to attend preschool programs. The effectiveness and experience of teachers also have a pronounced impact on instructional quality. No other in-school factor has as significant an impact on student achievement as the teacher at the front of the room.

In Washington, D. Higher-poverty schools also have fewer experienced teachers and greater teacher turnover. Rigorous curriculum can significantly increase academic outcomes and prepare students for college and the workforce. Fifty-three percent of low-income students graduate high school without college or career preparatory coursework, compared with 44 percent of their affluent peers.

In some states, such as New York, the issue is particularly pressing. Studies by the federal government demonstrate that the unequal access to rigorous courses is a national problem. Data from the school year show that high schools with higher percentages of black and Latino students offer math and science courses at a lower rate relative to all high schools. The difference is greatest in terms of access to advanced mathematics, calculus, and physics.

A study conducted in New York City examined the performance of students who previously struggled academically but were incorrectly placed on an instructional track intended for students with greater mathematical ability, finding that they performed well when placed in a rigorous instructional setting that held them to higher expectations.

However, when placed on a high-achieving track, that same student had a 91 percent chance of completing two such classes. Furthermore, an analysis of the cost of different interventions found that transitioning to higher-quality curriculum provides a higher return on investment than many other reforms—for example, almost 40 times the return of class-size reduction.

Litigation has heightened awareness of the importance of fiscal equity in education and spurred necessary change in states across the country. The U. Rodriguez by arguing that education was not a guaranteed federal right. Some litigants continue to attempt to overturn Rodriguez in order to establish a federal right to education, but until then, many advocates turn to the states.

Numerous state courts have reinforced meaningful provisions in state constitutions and required legislative action to improve educational opportunities for all students. Advocates in various states have taken different approaches to advance equity—some with success and some with unintended outcomes. The following section describes the decision in Rodriguez and examines examples of the different approaches that advocates have used to advance school finance reform within states.

The authors highlight some of the unintended outcomes, as well as the most positive aspects of the remedies, in order to inform a new framework for a potential federal right moving forward. In Rodriguez, the plaintiffs argued that education was a fundamental interest under the U. Constitution because of its vital importance to both the right to vote and freedom of expression. In other words, the plaintiffs contended that education was a constitutional right because a certain level of education is necessary for the proper exercise of these rights.

Yet the Supreme Court decided that public education was not guaranteed by the federal Constitution. Instead, it found that education was an important but voluntary service provided by the government, arguing that while the Constitution does guarantee its citizens the right to vote, it does not guarantee that individuals should be able to exercise this right to the best of their abilities or at their highest potential. The Supreme Court also found that the Texas approach was constitutional because it provided the bare minimum necessary.

Brennan Jr. Nature ;—7. Int Immunopharmacol ;9 7—8 — The tumour microenviron- cell-dependent tumour angiogenesis. Werb Z, et al. Macrophage responses to hypoxia: implications for mous epithelial carcinogenesis. Genes Dev ;— Am J Pathol ;— Microenvironmental regulation of metastasis.

Cancer Cancer ;— Metastasis Rev ;— Macrophage diversity enhances tumor progression and macrophages in combination with myeloid suppressor cells block immune metastasis. Cell ;— Macrophage polarization: Enhanced invasiveness of breast cancer cell lines upon co-cultivation with tumor-associated macrophages as a paradigm for polarized M2 mononuclear macrophages is due to TNF-alpha dependent up-regulation of matrix metal- phagocytes.

Trends Immunol ;— Carcinogenesis ;25 8 —9. All-trans- tration and its prognostic implications in breast cancer: the relationship with retinoic acid improves differentiation of myeloid cells and immune response VEGF expression and microvessel density. Oncol Rep ;— Opposite counts correlate with tumor progression in colorectal cancer.

Ann Oncol ;18 2 — Arginase, prostaglandins, and in tumour progression: implications for new anticancer therapies. J Pathol myeloid-derived suppressor cells in renal cell carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res ;— J Clin Oncol Increased production of immature myeloid cells in cancer patients: a mech- ;— Clin Cancer advanced thyroid cancer.

Endocr Relat Cancer ;— Res ;— Blood ;— Cancer LAM content is an independent predictor of survival in follicular lymphoma Immunol Immunother ;— Tumor heterogeneity and the biology of cancer invasion and metas- matory immune response. The selective nature of metastasis. Cancer Metastasis Rev lymphoid irradiation: exploring obscure relationships.

Annu Rev Immunol ;— Murine graft-versus-host disease across minor melanoma metastases can originate from the expansion of a single tumor cell. Immunol Cancer Res ;— Rev ;— Br J Cancer ;— J Autoimmun ;— Ann NY Acad Sci ;— Nat Immunol ;— The biology of hypoxia: the role of after successful extravasation and limited survival of early micrometastases. Genes Dev Am J Pathol ;— Hypoxia: a key regulator of angiogenesis in cancer.

Cancer environment on extracellular matrix degradative activity and metastasis of Metastasis Rev ;— J Natl Cancer Inst ;82 24 —8. Cancer Cell ;— Nat Cell Biol ;— Nat Genet ;— The distribution of secondary growths in cancer of the breast. The Phosphodiesterase-5 inhibition augments endogenous antitumor immu- Lancet ;—3. A distinct macrophage pop- ;— PLoS One ;4:e J Clin Oncol ;— Sunitinib Sci USA ;— J Exp Med ates reversal of myeloid-derived suppressor cell accumulation in renal cell ; 11 — Myeloid progenitor cells mediate immune sup- [77] Talmadge JE.

Pathways mediating the expansion and immunosuppressive pression in patients with head and neck cancers. Int J Immunopharmacol activity of myeloid-derived suppressor cells and their relevance to cancer ;— Clin Cancer Res ;—8. GM-CSF-secreting melanoma vaccines. Myeloid-derived suppressor cells as regulators of ;— Tumors factor. J Clin Invest ;— JM, et al. G-CSF-treated granulocytes inhibit acute graft-versus-host disease.

Antibodies to colony-stimulating factors induced T regulatory cells and T-cell anergy in tumor-bearing host. Cancer block Lewis lung carcinoma cell stimulation of immune-suppressive bone Res ;— Cancer Immunol Immunother ;— Immunol Res ;— Vascular endothelial growth fac- et al. Prognostic factors analysis of 17, melanoma patients: validation of tor in human colon cancer: biology and therapeutic implications. Oncologist the American Joint Committee on Cancer melanoma staging system.

J Clin ;5 Suppl. Oncol ;— Cancer ;— Clin Exp Metastasis ;— Nat Med ;— Relationship between the T cells increases during the progression of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma expression of vascular endothelial growth factor and the density of dendritic and its premalignant lesions. Br J Cancer ;—7. Gastroenterology ;— Vaccination survival in patients undergoing curative surgery for renal cell cancer.

Br J of metastatic melanoma patients with autologous tumor-derived heat shock Cancer ;—8. Suboptimal activation of melanoma renal cell carcinoma. Clinical and interactions. J Exp Med ;—7. Predominant a population-based study in Sweden. J et al. Intratumoral T cells, recurrence, and survival in epithelial ovarian cancer.

Teachers are underpaid and undervalued. Currently, too many teachers must learn on the job, sometimes without much support. It does not have to be this way. In other careers, such as medicine and law, high expectations and selective and intensive training work together to create a profession that is highly respected and highly compensated. As has been true in other fields, unions should and must be a component of efforts to modernize the profession, particularly since research suggests that their negotiating power may be associated with not only higher salaries but also reduced teacher turnover and boosted student achievement.

Unfortunately, teachers are notoriously underpaid. Moreover, the teaching profession is not highly selective, nor is it doing enough to recruit more diversity to the field. And yet, in recent years, expectations for teachers have risen.

The job now requires getting all students—not just a small percentage, as was the status quo a generation ago—ready for college and career, which means that students need to meet challenging standards each year. All of this is not lost on young people or their parents. For the first time, a majority of parents say that they do not want their kids to become teachers.

If states and school districts raised teacher pay to match that of other professions, provided training to help teachers meet the needs of the changing student population, and increased the selectivity of the teaching profession, the national narrative about and respect for the teaching profession would shift.

A comprehensive policy agenda to achieve this goal should be multifaceted and must ensure that teachers are given the necessary training and resources to meet a higher bar. Following the Great Recession in , most states responded to revenue drops by making large cuts to their education budgets.

Research shows that money matters in education. Student scores on the NAEP are correlated with cumulative per-pupil spending. Funding affects every aspect of an excellent, well-rounded education. More money means available funds for smaller class sizes, 77 more rigorous course offerings, 78 and additional support staff, such as mental health professionals, 79 all of which have important consequences for student success and well-being.

And these school features are especially important for students living in areas of concentrated poverty who may need additional support. For example, class size reduction typically has the largest positive effects for students who are Black or from families with low incomes.

Unfortunately, there are both racial and socio-economic disparities in investment and opportunities. Between and , states that passed more equitable school finance reforms saw decreased gaps in NAEP scores between low-income and wealthier districts. Federal investment in education currently covers approximately 8 percent of public school revenues, and the amount of funding provided has not kept up with inflation over the past decade. Title I is the primary federal funding source for schools and school districts with high percentages of students from families with low-incomes.

To inform this approach, the federal government should appoint a commission to determine a specific set of critical education resources that are typically present in privileged communities but missing from historically disadvantaged schools and districts. These resources could include guidance counselors, school nurses, mental health professionals, art and music classes, or extracurricular enrichment opportunities—which would become available to all U. In exchange for new federal funding, states would need to ensure that districts serving high percentages of students from families with low incomes are providing the resources determined necessary by the aforementioned commission.

States would also need to make changes to support these district efforts, such as adjusting state funding formulas to be more equitable. Yet high-quality charter schools have been a critical strategy to increase opportunity and create more good seats for students.

At the same time, some of the critiques of the charter sector do have merit. CAP has long argued that there is a progressive case for charters focused on growing and learning from successful models while addressing gaps in charter policy, such as the many problems with for-profit, virtual charter schools.

There are currently slightly more than 7, charter schools across 44 states and Washington, D. This growth has not been without controversy and opposition. A review of charter school research reveals that many studies have found both negative and positive effects on student outcomes.

In successful charter schools, there are significant effects on both short-term student outcomes—such as test scores 94 —and long-term outcomes, including graduation, college enrollment, and college persistence. In Boston, for example, a study found that one year in a charter school erases a third of the racial achievement gap.

In too many places across the country, there are not enough good seats in schools, especially for Black, Latinx, and Native American students, as well as students from families with low incomes. A strong charter sector is a critical component to expanding the number of good public school seats, and high-quality charter schools are a valuable strategy to address that problem.

But the growth of charter schools should not be an end in itself. A new administration should take a nuanced approach to charters that includes both the expansion of good school options and the coordination across the traditional district and charter sectors to avoid potentially negative impacts. This approach should include three key components.

First, it should include strong authorizing and accountability policies for charter schools as well as efforts to proactively address the shortfalls of the sector. These efforts should include solutions for pain points, such as issues related to backfilling enrollment during the school year, providing service to students with disabilities, and maintaining transparency in financial operations—to name a few.

Second, the approach should apply a race equity lens to public school choice policies generally and charter schools specifically, with a focus on equitably expanding access to opportunities for underserved students. This means that decisions on where to locate schools and programs and how to make enrollment decisions—for example, boundaries, admissions requirements, and lottery rules—should be analyzed with a race equity lens. Third, this approach should include a balanced assessment of potential charter growth and the impact on traditional districts.

This assessment should always focus on how to increase the number of good seats for students but may imply different specific recommendations in different places and circumstances.

The current U. K educational system should be an engine of opportunity that creates pathways to college, family-sustaining jobs, and the middle class for every student. While this is true for some, it is far from true for all.

If America is ever to have a public school system that provides equitable access to these opportunities, everyone—parents, educators, policymakers, researchers, and advocates—must wrestle with hard truths. Making progress toward the goal of shared prosperity means looking at policies very explicitly through the lens of race and income equity.

This work is critical to breaking down systematic, structural, and institutional barriers to opportunity. Future presidential administrations must have a clear vision for policies that will benefit all Americans and provide pathways to opportunities.