President Donald Trump on Wednesday ordered a review of the federal government’s control over education policies and regulations. It is the president’s latest attempt to grant more flexibility over education policy to the states, a position his Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos, shares.

Wednesday’s executive action instructs DeVos–an advocate for school choice–to conduct a review of the Department of Education’s regulations and guidance documents. Within 300 days, her findings will be published in a public report.

“For too long, the federal government has imposed its will on state and local governments,” Trump, whose 100th day in office is on Saturday, said at a press conference on Wednesday. “The result has been education that spends more, and achieves far, far, far less.”

The purpose of the order is “to protect and preserve State and local control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, and personnel of educational institutions, schools, and school systems, consistent with applicable law.” According to an Education Department official, the review will concentrate on K-12 institutions.

DeVos is a staunch backer of school vouchers, charter schools, and private education institutions. Her critics worry she will funnel resources away from public schools–many of which already suffer from a lack of funding–to vouchers and other avenues for boosting school choice.

In an interview with The New York Times, DeVos, who also opposes the Common Core curriculum, called Trump’s executive action a “welcomed opportunity.” The order, she said, is “a clear mandate to take that real hard look at what we’ve been doing at the department level that we shouldn’t be doing, and what ways we have overreached.” She added: “And when it comes to education, decisions made at local levels and at state levels are the best ones.”

But not everyone thinks diminishing the federal government’s role in education is for the best. In a statement, Wade Henderson, president and CEO of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, called the order “dangerous and wrongheaded.” Henderson added: “State and local primacy without federal oversight in America’s schools has never worked for all children and will not work now.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Trump Orders Betsy DeVos to Review DOE Regulations appeared first on Law Street.

Common Core State Standards have been a matter of controversy for a few years now, garnering opposition from both sides of the aisle. Common Core in some ways saw its inception in the George W. Bush era and serves as a predecessor to the No Child Left Behind Act. But what exactly is Common Core, why was it launched, and what is the opposition? Read on to find out.

What is Common Core?

The Common Core State Standards “aim to raise student achievement by standardizing what’s taught in schools across the United States.” They include a particular focus on language arts and mathematics. The objective is to universally prepare students from Kindergarten to high school to be successful for entry-level college courses or to enter the workforce. It lays out what students should know and be able to do by the end of each specific grade. The standards are results driven, but the methods used to achieve the set results are chosen by local teachers and facilities.

The History Behind Common Core

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was first signed into law by President Bush in January 2002. The next decade was spent revising the law’s requirements and attempting to create more successful “adequate yearly progress” reports. However, people quickly realized that NCLB was in need of serious reform itself. In November 2007, state chiefs first brainstormed Common Core standards at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) Annual Policy Forum. The following year, the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA), CCSSO, and education nonprofit Achieve released Benchingmarking for Success: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World-Class Education. In it they recommended the common standards. In April 2009, the NGA and CCSSO officially invited states to commit to the Common Core standards, and by June 49 states and territories announced commitments. After public feedback, a final draft was released in June 2010.

The NGA and CCSSO  led the development of the standards and actively advocated for their implementation. They also sought input from teachers, parents, school administrators, and various state leaders in “how the standards are taught, the curriculum developed, and the materials used to support teachers.” Implementation, however, is completely up to the states. Once a state adopts the Common Core standards, it is delegated to local teachers, principals, and superintendents to introduce the standards into school curriculum.

 Why was the Common Core program started?

It has long been a bipartisan view that the U.S. needs education reform. Common Core was started to allow high school graduates to be competitive in college, but also in “the rapidly changing American job market and the high tech, information-based global economy.” It is widely believed that U.S. students are falling behind their counterparts in other countries. Standardized tests in countries like China and Singapore have advanced well beyond the U.S. over the last few decades. Bill Gates, a heavy investor in the Common Core, advocated,

Our nation is one step closer to supporting effective teaching in every classroom, charting a path to college and careers for all students, and developing the tools to help all children stay motivated and engaged in their own education. The more states that adopt these college and career based standards, the closer we will be to sharing innovation across state borders and becoming more competitive as a country.

In Gate’s interview, he repeatedly noted that the standards are not based on curriculum. They are “solely” milestones for where the students should be at each grade level.

How much does Common Core cost?

The cost for implementing Common Core will vary from state to state, but will undoubtedly be expensive. Training teachers and buying new materials will take a substantial amount of money. In 2011, California estimated that replacing its current standardized tests with Common Core standards would cost taxpayers approximately $1.6 billion. In Texas, the estimate is upward of $3 billion dollars.

According to the Common Core Initiative however, the implementation will allow for states to eventually save on resources, materials, and “cross-state opportunities that come from sharing consistent standards.” The cost-benefit ratio should end favorably. As of 2014, 43 states, Washington D.C., Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the Virgin Islands adopted the Common Core.

What are some characteristics of Common Core?

English and Language Arts

Generally, the standards call for “regular practice with complex texts and their academic language.” They demand a steady increase in complexity and progressive reading comprehension. There is to be an emphasis on academic vocabulary, focusing on meaning, nuances, and range. There isn’t a required reading list; however, categories of literature are required. Examples include classic myths, foundational U.S. documents, works of Shakespeare, and staples of American literature.

Students should know how to provide evidence from the text when forming analyses and arguments at different levels. The standards call for text-dependent questions on assessments as opposed to questions based on student experiences and/or opinions. The objective is for students to be able to effectively inform and persuade, and for these skills to become stronger as students move up in grade levels.

There is also a larger focus on nonfiction. For grades K-5, there is a 50/50 ratio between informational (history, social sciences, etc.) and literary texts. In grades six through 12 there is substantially increased attention to literary nonfiction.

Mathematics             

In mathematics, the standards call for a “greater focus on fewer topics.” The standards aim to narrow and deepen lessons on concepts, skills, and problemsolving depending on grade level. For example, K-2 will focus on addition and subtraction, while grades three through five will focus on multiplication and division of whole numbers and fractions.

There is an overriding theme across grades of linking topics and thinking. A standard at any grade level is designed to build upon the standard of the previous grade and act as an extension. This consistently reinforces major topics, which are used to support grade-level word problems that need mathematical applications to solve.

Finally, the mathematics standards aim to pursue conceptual understanding, procedural skills and fluency, and application with equal force. The idea is to deepen the understanding of concepts as opposed to memorizing rules. If the building blocks of complex math concepts are completely understood by students, that will eliminate degrees of future difficulty. Speed and accuracy are both to held in high importance.

What are the arguments against Common Core?

The goals of the Common Core seem to have U.S. students’ best interests at heart. So why is there so much opposition? Here’s a look at some of main challenges.

National Standards

First, some argue that the name “Common Core State Standards” is misleading. Since they have been adopted by 43 states, they are truly national standards. Detractors worry that states didn’t necessarily adopt the Common Core by choice, but were strong-armed by conditions ascribed by federal Race to the Top grants and the No Child Left Behind programs. Prior to the implementation of Common Core, all 50 states–whether on board or not–adopted NCLB or revised standards under the threat of losing federal funding.

More of the Same

Many see the Common Core as round two of No Child Left Behind. NCLB failed in both “raising academic performance and narrowing gaps in opportunity and outcomes.” This propagated the notion that American schools need to be fixed. Test results from NCLB did not meet expectations. After the first ten years, more than 50 percent of the nation’s schools were categorized as failing. Many of these same schools never received the support or resources necessary to stand a chance. In the same respect, will all schools be supplied with the needed computers required to take the Common Core tests?

Too Curriculum Based 

There are also worries that Common Core has become more curriculum based than originally intended. In the video below, a seven-year public school teacher discusses why the Common Core is not good for kids and dictates curriculum. She argues, “when the standards are tested that’s what you are going to spend your time on…[there is] no room to teach anything else.”  Her job security is based on meeting the standards. As a result, she’s concerned that the standards must be taught 100 percent of the time, and don’t allow flexibility or creativity.

She continues to argue that the material is not condensed, using the 93 elements of the third grade reading standard as an example. Her largest problem with Common Core is its age appropriateness. Although she advocates pushing students, she doesn’t believe seven year olds should be expected to master the difference between an adjective and an adverb. She labels the standards as a  “race to the middle” with “mediocre teaching.” Using a uniform approach, the faster learners are bored, while the slower learners are under immense pressure.

There is plenty of concern on the length and difficulty of the assessments as well. In the first round of distribution of the Common Core tests in New York, students, parents, and teachers strongly voiced their concerns. Many students felt immense pressure and were scared of failing, and teachers complained about the atmosphere the tests created.

Opting Out

Some children have started to opt out of the tests, often with parental support. The “opt out movement” has grown in popularity–thousands of students nationwide have chosen this route. Opt-outs protest the Common Core standards and the overemphasis on testing in public schools. There is even a National United Opt Out group comprised of parents, educators, students, and social activists. The legality of opting out seems to be a gray area, varying from state to state. In an extreme case, the Illinois State Board of Education sent a letter stating students opting out would be breaking the law and teachers refusing to administer the test would face legal consequences.

There are a variety of other arguments as well. One other concern is that corporate businesses are behind the standards to create a marketplace for Common Core resources. Others argue that electives like music and art will be sidelined. Finally, many teachers and parents don’t approve of the “one-size fits all” approach to teaching children.

Conclusion

It’s hard to say what is in store for U.S. education reform. We do need a change, but is Common Core the right one? There aren’t any studies regarding Common Core’s success to fall back on. Only time will tell. There are convincing arguments on both sides. Ultimately, everyone involved wants the same thing: U.S. students to be as educated and prepared for the world as possible.

Resources

Primary

Common Core State Standards Initiative: About the Standards

CCSSO: National Governors Association and State Education Chiefs Launch Common State Academic Standards

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind

Additional

Washington Post: The Common Core’s Fundamental Trouble

EdWeek: Ensuring U.S. Students Receive a World Class Education

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting for Common Core

Truth in American Education: State Costs for Adopting and Implementing the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: The History of the Common Core State Standards

U.S. News & World Report: Opt-Out Movement About More Then Test, Advocates Say

U.S. News & World Report: Who is Fighting Against the Common Core

Why Science: A Historical Timeline of No Child Left Behind

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Common Core: A Solution to America’s Education Problems? appeared first on Law Street.

In an exceedingly odd move, a legislative committee in Oklahoma voted this week to eliminate Advanced Placement U.S. History classes. This decision is part of a large, equally bizarre move to get rid of AP classes altogether across the state. Furthermore, the move away from AP U.S. History (APUSH) in Oklahoma is a facet of a much larger debate over what parts of American history we should be teaching our children.

The legislators who pushed for this change in claim that the APUSH curriculum only teaches “what is bad about America.” They also argue that it’s a revisionist view of history. Representative Dan Fish, who introduced the bill, also argues that it doesn’t fairly include a Christian perspective or teach “American exceptionalism.”

Before you think this view is coming from a few crazy crackpots, it’s important to point out that the Republican National Committee itself has weighed in on the debate. Last summer it released a resolution slamming the APUSH curriculum. According to the RNC, the recently revised APUSH guidelines: “reflect a radically revisionist view of American history that emphasizes negative aspects of our nation’s history while omitting or minimizing positive aspects.”

I’m sure some of you are wondering how people can quibble over history–after all, aren’t most facts undisputed? Well, it’s pretty much universally accepted that history can be taught from different perspectives and through various lenses–take the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II, for example. One perspective may teach that those bombings, while yielding tragic results, stopped the war and prevented further deaths through protracted fighting. Another perspective could argue that regardless of why the bombs were deployed, the mass destruction of civilians is unacceptable. While neither of these perspectives is necessarily wrong–they do each adhere to the facts of those historical events–they by nature tell different narratives.

So that leaves us with a conundrum–there’s no real right or wrong answer to how we should teach our history. Clearly, some people in Oklahoma disagree with how it’s being taught there, and while I can’t emphasize how much I disagree with their concerns, they are still allowed to have those concerns.

Like I mentioned above, there’s also a bigger debate brewing over the applicability of AP classes in general. They’re standardized nationwide–although of course only students who sign up for the elite classes take them. They are also mostly uniformly accepted by different universities, although they’re applied to university curriculum requirements on a case-by-case basis. Oklahoma lawmakers are trying to do away with those as a whole, too. Another representative, Sally Kern, claims that AP classes violate a law passed in Oklahoma last year that eliminates Common Core standards.

While I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise that states should be able to dictate what their students learn, I think that AP courses fall into a whole different category. First of all, they’re not universally prescribed; each student makes the choice about what class he or she wants to take. Most colleges do view them favorably, and again, they can be used to obtain certain college credits. Robbing Oklahoma’s students of that opportunity just because you don’t agree with the perspective from which the history curriculum is taught seems petty and short-sighted.

History will never be one sizes fits all, and I think that students should have every opportunity to learn about the important events in our nation’s history from as many view points as possible. That being said, with the inability to learn from our APUSH curriculum, Oklahoma’s students have just been robbed as one of those perspectives.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will AP History Become a Thing of the Past in Oklahoma? appeared first on Law Street.

I have sort of hazy memories of taking the Connecticut Mastery Tests when I was in middle school. They sucked. They were boring, and annoying, and I always got mad that my name never fit into that part where you have to bubble in the letters. So if anyone ever needs to see my 6th grade test scores, or whatever, they’re under “Annelie” Mahoney.

But what I remember most vividly is that we all were required to take those tests. They were normal, they happened every couple of years, and then we got over them. I never once heard the phrase ‘opt-out,’ even though I’m sure there were a handful of kids who didn’t take them. This isn’t a tirade about things “back in my day” because I took the CMTs about ten years ago, but I do feel like an old grump wondering how so many things have changed in just that short decade.

A constant debate in education over the past couple years revolves around something called “Common Core,” which does add some more tests to the curriculum. The intent of Common Core is to standardize education a bit more, so that students around the country have some of the same requirements. The goal is to make sure that a student in Mississippi learns the same basic tenants of history, English, and critical thinking as a student in Rhode Island or Hawaii. So far, 44 states have adopted the standards, which were often supported by state governors and legislatures. But a lot of parents are pushing back, demanding that their children not be required to take state testing.

And there are a lot of voices in the debate, but they seem to come mostly from a few different categories of people — parents, teachers, and politicians. I’ve yet to see a piece by someone who actually remembers being in middle school, or taking those tests. So as someone who actually took high school state tests as little as six years ago, here are the things that have stuck out to me in this debate.

3. I don’t think Common Core is a conspiracy. 

There are a lot of conspiracy theories about Common Core, which I will arrange in descending levels of hilarity.

• The Common Core standards were created by President Obama. This is false. The standards have been worked on for years. In fact, the development started during President Bush’s presidency.

Common Core will indoctrinate children to be mindless-leftist-socialist-gay-Muslim-atheist-robots. No joke guys. That’s what some opposition is saying, like perennial crazy man Glen Beck, or Tea Party darling Elois Zeanah.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELqEGx46IiwBest part of that video is definitely when she makes a reference to the novel “1994.” It’s actually called 1984. And that, Ms. Zeanah, is why some of us want the young people of this country to have a better education.

• But hands down, my favorite conspiracy theory is this one: Common Core will make your child pee their pants. No, this is not my attempt at a lame post-April Fools joke. That’s a legit Daily Caller headline. The article claims that an elementary school in Chicago is making teachers implement new draconian policies that involve bringing their classes to the bathroom at the same time at the end of a period. Ok guys, have you EVER set foot in a public school? When I was in high school, you had to sign out to use the bathroom in most of my classes. That’s right, as a 17-year-old, with a license, and a job, and some modicum of personal responsibility, I had to alert the school when I used the restroom. Public schools have always been weird about bathroom breaks. This is not a conspiracy. This is not new. As a former public school student, I didn’t even bat an eyelash.

2. Parents who are opting their children out of the tests are treating the symptoms rather than the problems. 

One of the biggest arguments against Common Core is that it means that teachers teach too much to the test, as opposed to actually teaching substantive material. Which is a fair complaint, but opting your children out of the test does literally nothing to solve that problem. Common Core standards were put into place because the United States is failing at education. Compared to other developed countries, we spend more money on education, but consistently lag in scores. Common Core is an attempt to ameliorate that. Does that mean that the new standards are good or perfect or don’t deserve a whole ton of revision? No. But they’re a step toward trying to solve a pressing problem. We quite obviously don’t know how to get the United States back on track education-wise. That’s why we work toward a solution using analysis and critical thinking. And why we measure our progress through testing.

I truly hope that all these parents who are opting their kids out are attempting to be involved in the reform process. They should run for office, or lobby their politicians, or whatever, but they shouldn’t just opt their kids out and then stand idly by. Because that’s treating the symptom of the problem instead of dealing with the fact that our schools are failing our students.

1. Crappy, stressful situations are a part of life. 

There are some very legitimate reasons, such as medical issues, that parents are opting their children out of the tests. But one of the other major reasons is that they cause undue stress for students.

I have a problem with this. Tests are unpleasant, yes. They are stressful, ok. They are unfair, sure. But you know what can also be unpleasant, stressful, and unfair? Pretty much everything in life. I have a problem with parents opting their children out because their kids are stressed, because that’s a bad lesson to learn. We don’t get to choose not to do things because they’re stressful.

You know what stresses me out to no end? Parking. I’m a fine driver, but I’m a spectacularly horrible parker.

My deepest fear.

But just because parking gives me anxiety doesn’t mean I can just leave my car willy-nilly in the middle of the parking lot. I can’t opt out of parking.

Now I’m not suggesting that we allow children to walk around stressed out of their minds. That’s cruel and ridiculous. But I do think that there is merit in teaching children how to manage the stress, as opposed to getting rid of the stressful situation altogether. There are thousands of techniques out there to help people deal with stress. I think there’s more merit in teaching a child how to deal with stress than teaching that if something stresses them out, they can make it go away. Because unfortunately, that will make for a cruel awakening when they grow up. I think that the way that the exams are presented could also help mitigate stress — if parents and teachers stopped making such a big deal out of them, maybe the kids would too.

I don’t think there’s any sort of easy fix to the education problems in our country. Common Core might be a step in the right direction, or it might not be. But if we keep harping on conspiracy issues, treating symptoms instead of problems, and not getting to the root of the issue, it won’t matter if Common Core is better. We need to work together to make sure that our children are as well prepared as possible for every part of life, and until we accept that, we’re going to have those education problems in the US.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brittney Bush Bollay via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Can Everyone Calm Down About Common Core? appeared first on Law Street.

The morning of January 23, 2014, I had the privilege to attend an event at the Center for American Progress. It was called, “The Changing Role of Teachers Unions: Ensuring High Quality Public Education for America’s Students.”

There were introductory remarks from CAP’s President, Neera Tanden, a keynote Presentation from Dennis Van Roekel, the President of the National Education Association, and then a panel discussion involving Mr. Van Roekel; Richard Lee Colvin, Senior Associate at Cross & Joftus; Elena Silva, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; Paul Toner, President of the Massachusetts Teachers Association; and Tammy Wawro, President of the Iowa State Education Association. The discussion was moderated by Carmel Martin from the CAP.

The overall theme of the discussion was how the NEA is trying to transform its function from an organization that focuses on mostly collective bargaining and lobbying functions, to one that also plays a large part in policy, advocacy, and professional development. They want to provide teachers with the ability to collaborate and control the direction of their profession by advocating a new student-centered approach.

During his keynote, Dennis Van Roekel used a metaphor for the NEA’s goals that continued throughout the symposium. He described how the American education system is very good at creating “campfires,” but as any good Boy or Girl Scout can tell you, a perfect campfire just stays burning in the place where you put it; it doesn’t spread. He described how the new goal of the NEA and the American Education system should be to create brushfires–fires that spread through connections, improved training, and leadership development.

The panel dealt with a number of questions about how these new priorities would be implemented. Both of the on-the-ground state representatives, Toner and Wawro,  highlighted how teachers are on board with many policy changes, including Common Core, different types of teacher evaluations, and more leadership training, but are overwhelmed by how quickly they’re happening. They both emphasized that it’s going to take time to make it work, but everyone is optimistic. There was also a large emphasis on the partnerships that can be formed between teachers, the NEA, and other organizations, such as an organization called Teach Plus, a national non-profit that helps urban teachers.

There was some concern about how this will all work. Silva pointed out that much of what is happening right now is experimentation. But it’s very high risk experimentation, as it happens in the real world. If things go wrong in a school where something new is being tried out, it could harm the students. Schools, and the NEA, could get in a lot of trouble if any changes do fail. But it seems that the potential for failure seems better than the subsistence existence that many schools are in right now. After all, as Van Roekel pointed out, high school graduation rate is only about 75%, and it’s even lower in inner-city schools. Experimentation needs to happen, but Silva is right, it is dangerous, and schools need to be ready to make quick changes if necessary.

I found the part of the talk that dealt with the changing efforts of NEA to be interesting and informative, but I was actually even more interested in a section of the discussion that diverged a bit. One of the introductory points that Van Roekel used was the fact that we need to make sure that our teachers are qualified and ready to teach from day one. He gave the example of going to the emergency room–upon arrival, no one would think to ask if their doctor was licensed. Van Roekel wants it to be the same in the classroom–every teacher is licensed and ready to teach starting on the first day they walk into a school. There was some debate on this subject, as Silva pointed out that doctors aren’t necessarily ready to work on patients beginning the first day, but that its rather a learning process over a number of years.

This led to a fascinating conversation about recruitment. In order for our teachers to be ready to teach from the beginning and qualified, they need to be the right people for the jobs. But there are significantly less people going into the teaching profession. Van Roekel partly attributed this to the fact that in past decades, excellent women and minority students went into teaching because it was one of the only things they could do. But as opportunities widened, less people are choosing to teach.

Besides increased equality, the panel’s best guess for this phenomenon is that less people are going into the teaching profession because they are not encouraged to do so. Toner said that when he first went into teaching, he saw some of his old teachers, who asked him what he was doing. He told them he was a teacher, and they expressed disappointment, telling him he was too smart for that. I’ve had friends who’ve decided to take on teaching majors and have received similar reactions from their friends and family. The truth of the matter is that teaching is no longer respected the way it was in the past, and many intelligent young people are steered away because they are convinced that they would make more money in another field. The idiom, “those who can, do; those who can’t, teach,” is still alive and well. This of course, isn’t to say that the individuals who are entering the education field do not deserve our applause, support, and thanks. The problem is that there’s just less of them, especially as baby boomers start to retire.

Teaching is no longer being viewed as worth it, which is really sad. I attended public school almost my entire life, and many of the teachers I had were the most wonderful, intelligent, thoughtful, and engaging individuals with whom I have ever had the privilege to spend time. They absolutely shaped my life, and I feel so incredibly fortunate to have had access to a public school like that. The teaching profession does need to change, if only to ensure that such great people do continue to enter the field, and I applaud the NEA, CAP, and other organizations’ attempts to do so. Let’s hope they do turn those campfires into brushfires.

Thanks to the Center for American Progress for their great work on this event.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Center for Teaching Vanderbilt University via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A New Role for the NEA: Turning Campfires into Brushfires appeared first on Law Street.