Theories of action for effecting education reform

While it is a considerable over-simplification, I have found it useful to think in terms of four theories of action that I believe dominate the education-reform arena today. I think that two of these theories have some promise. Two of them do not, but we will nevertheless surely continue to use them. In the real world, we commonly find more than one of these theories operating at the same time in a given place. It gets very complicated when you start mixing and matching and coming up with hybrids. On the other hand, that is the real world, and I think we are probably going to discover at the end of the day that a hybrid will work better than any one of these strategies taken alone.Education

Book Review: Public Dollars for Private Schools: The Case of Tuition Tax Credits. Edited by Thomas James and Henry M. Levin.

Book review: Public Dollars for Private Schools: The Case of Tuition Tax Credits. Edited by Thomas James and Henry M. Levin. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1983. Pp. viii, 271. Reviewed by: Chester E. Finn, Jr

Book Review: Public Dollars for Private Schools: The Case of Tuition Tax Credits. Edited by Thomas James and Henry M. Levin.

Book review: Public Dollars for Private Schools: The Case of Tuition Tax Credits. Edited by Thomas James and Henry M. Levin. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1983. Pp. viii, 271. Reviewed by: Chester E. Finn, Jr

ESEA Briefing Book

Political leaders hope to act soon to renew and fix the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, also known as No Child Left Behind). In this important paper, Thomas B. Fordham Institute President Chester E. Finn, Jr. and Executive Vice President Michael J. Petrilli identify 10 big issues that must be resolved in order to get a bill across the finish line, and explore the major options under consideration for each one. Should states be required to adopt academic standards tied to college and career readiness? Should the new law provide greater flexibility to states and districts? These are just a few of the areas discussed. Finn and Petrilli also present their own bold yet "reform realist" solutions for ESEA

Effects of Alcohol on the Acquisition and Expression of Fear Potentiated Startle in Mouse Lines Selectively Bred for High and Low Alcohol Preference

Rationale: Anxiety disorders and alcohol-use disorders frequently co-occur in humans perhaps because alcohol relieves anxiety. Studies in humans and rats indicate that alcohol may have greater anxiolytic effects in organisms with increased genetic propensity for high alcohol consumption. Objectives and Methods: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of moderate doses of alcohol (0.5, 1.0, 1.5 g/kg) on the acquisition and expression of anxiety-related behavior using a fear-potentiated startle (FPS) procedure. Experiments were conducted in two replicate pairs of mouse lines selectively bred for high- (HAP1 and HAP2) and low- (LAP1 and LAP2) alcohol preference; these lines have previously shown a genetic correlation between alcohol preference and FPS (HAP\u3eLAP; Barrenha and Chester 2007). In a control experiment, the effect of diazepam (4.0 mg/kg) on the expression of FPS was tested in HAP2 and LAP2 mice. Results: The 1.5 g/kg alcohol dose moderately decreased the expression of FPS in both HAP lines but not LAP lines. Alcohol had no effect on the acquisition of FPS in any line. Diazepam reduced FPS to a similar extent in both HAP2 and LAP2 mice. Conclusions: HAP mice may be more sensitive to the anxiolytic effects of alcohol than LAP mice when alcohol is given prior to the expression of FPS. These data collected in two pairs of HAP/LAP mouse lines suggest that the anxiolytic response to alcohol in HAP mice may be genetically correlated with their propensity toward high alcohol preference and robust FPS

Single-dose administration and the influence of the timing of the booster dose on immunogenicity and efficacy of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine: a pooled analysis of four randomised trials.

BACKGROUND: The ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (AZD1222) vaccine has been approved for emergency use by the UK regulatory authority, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, with a regimen of two standard doses given with an interval of 4-12 weeks. The planned roll-out in the UK will involve vaccinating people in high-risk categories with their first dose immediately, and delivering the second dose 12 weeks later. Here, we provide both a further prespecified pooled analysis of trials of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and exploratory analyses of the impact on immunogenicity and efficacy of extending the interval between priming and booster doses. In addition, we show the immunogenicity and protection afforded by the first dose, before a booster dose has been offered. METHODS: We present data from three single-blind randomised controlled trials-one phase 1/2 study in the UK (COV001), one phase 2/3 study in the UK (COV002), and a phase 3 study in Brazil (COV003)-and one double-blind phase 1/2 study in South Africa (COV005). As previously described, individuals 18 years and older were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive two standard doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 (5 × 1010 viral particles) or a control vaccine or saline placebo. In the UK trial, a subset of participants received a lower dose (2·2 × 1010 viral particles) of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 for the first dose. The primary outcome was virologically confirmed symptomatic COVID-19 disease, defined as a nucleic acid amplification test (NAAT)-positive swab combined with at least one qualifying symptom (fever ≥37·8°C, cough, shortness of breath, or anosmia or ageusia) more than 14 days after the second dose. Secondary efficacy analyses included cases occuring at least 22 days after the first dose. Antibody responses measured by immunoassay and by pseudovirus neutralisation were exploratory outcomes. All cases of COVID-19 with a NAAT-positive swab were adjudicated for inclusion in the analysis by a masked independent endpoint review committee. The primary analysis included all participants who were SARS-CoV-2 N protein seronegative at baseline, had had at least 14 days of follow-up after the second dose, and had no evidence of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection from NAAT swabs. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose. The four trials are registered at ISRCTN89951424 (COV003) and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606 (COV001), NCT04400838 (COV002), and NCT04444674 (COV005). FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Dec 6, 2020, 24 422 participants were recruited and vaccinated across the four studies, of whom 17 178 were included in the primary analysis (8597 receiving ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 and 8581 receiving control vaccine). The data cutoff for these analyses was Dec 7, 2020. 332 NAAT-positive infections met the primary endpoint of symptomatic infection more than 14 days after the second dose. Overall vaccine efficacy more than 14 days after the second dose was 66·7% (95% CI 57·4-74·0), with 84 (1·0%) cases in the 8597 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 248 (2·9%) in the 8581 participants in the control group. There were no hospital admissions for COVID-19 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group after the initial 21-day exclusion period, and 15 in the control group. 108 (0·9%) of 12 282 participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 127 (1·1%) of 11 962 participants in the control group had serious adverse events. There were seven deaths considered unrelated to vaccination (two in the ChAdOx1 nCov-19 group and five in the control group), including one COVID-19-related death in one participant in the control group. Exploratory analyses showed that vaccine efficacy after a single standard dose of vaccine from day 22 to day 90 after vaccination was 76·0% (59·3-85·9). Our modelling analysis indicated that protection did not wane during this initial 3-month period. Similarly, antibody levels were maintained during this period with minimal waning by day 90 (geometric mean ratio [GMR] 0·66 [95% CI 0·59-0·74]). In the participants who received two standard doses, after the second dose, efficacy was higher in those with a longer prime-boost interval (vaccine efficacy 81·3% [95% CI 60·3-91·2] at ≥12 weeks) than in those with a short interval (vaccine efficacy 55·1% [33·0-69·9] at <6 weeks). These observations are supported by immunogenicity data that showed binding antibody responses more than two-fold higher after an interval of 12 or more weeks compared with an interval of less than 6 weeks in those who were aged 18-55 years (GMR 2·32 [2·01-2·68]). INTERPRETATION: The results of this primary analysis of two doses of ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 were consistent with those seen in the interim analysis of the trials and confirm that the vaccine is efficacious, with results varying by dose interval in exploratory analyses. A 3-month dose interval might have advantages over a programme with a short dose interval for roll-out of a pandemic vaccine to protect the largest number of individuals in the population as early as possible when supplies are scarce, while also improving protection after receiving a second dose. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes of Health Research (NIHR), The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, the Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Book Review: Public Dollars for Private Schools: The Case of Tuition Tax Credits. Edited by Thomas James and Henry M. Levin.

Book review: Public Dollars for Private Schools: The Case of Tuition Tax Credits. Edited by Thomas James and Henry M. Levin. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. 1983. Pp. viii, 271. Reviewed by: Chester E. Finn, Jr

The American High School Graduation Rate: Trends and Levels

This paper applies a unified methodology to multiple data sets to estimate both the levels and trends in U.S. high school graduation rates. We establish that (a) the true rate is substantially lower than widely used measures, (b) it peaked in the early 1970s, © majority-minority differentials are substantial and have not converged for 35 years, (d) lower post-1970 rates are not solely due to increasing immigrant and minority populations, (e) our findings explain part of the slowdown in college attendance and rising college wage premiums, and (f) widening graduation differentials by gender help explain increasing male-female college attendance gaps. © 2010 The President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.