With the Elementary and Secondary Education Act reauthorization looming and Washington’s eyes focused on school turnarounds and the Common Core State Standards, we must listen to the voices of dynamic leaders tackling the challenge of high-quality literacy instruction in the nation’s school districts.

Education leaders often act lazily, blaming union contracts and federal regulation rather than confronting the problems they have the capacity to solve.

For decades, the challenges of school reform in cities like Dallas seemed nearly insuperable. Even as they spent as much or more than nearby suburbs, city schools struggled under the weight of poverty, broken families, turgid bureaucracies, depressing conditions, and low expectations. The result has been dismal performance.

The following report presents the results of research on school boards and their members so as to provide parents, voters, policymakers, advocates, and educators with an informative look at the individuals and bodies charged with governing America's schools.

As school boards and superintendents have been forced to seek new efficiencies and ways to do better with less, many school leaders have found themselves particularly perplexed by the unique challenges of special education. But districts can do better to equip school leaders to better meet student needs while helping policymakers provide targeted support for cost-effective practices.

Over the past decade, a number of remarkable organizations have cropped up that dramatically shape twenty-first century education reform. Joining this influx of groundbreaking, reform-minded organizations is Rice University’s Education Entrepreneurship Program (REEP), housed at the Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business at Rice University.

Normally, we expect to get thanked when giving a few bucks to a good cause. When it comes to K-12 schooling, though, folks giving away millions have been slammed for their trouble.

Steven Brill’s Class Warfare is an immensely readable take on a slice of the “school reform” movement and an intriguing look at some key individuals in that effort. But, as is shown by its treatment of philanthropy, the book is perhaps more revealing for what its author omits—and how its blinkered view can mislead readers on big questions.