< Back Review of The Unexamined Rise of Therapeutic Education: How Social-Emotional Learning Extends K-12 Education's Reach Into Students' Lives and Expands Teachers' Roles Summary A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute presents concerns regarding how Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) approaches have imposed ideas and techniques from psychology on classroom practices, and thus have shifted the mission of education away from academic instruction. But a review of the report finds misrepresentations of both the definition and the goals of SEL. Publication Date February 20, 2022 Authors Robert Pondiscio; Julia Mahfouz, University of Colorado Denver Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Inaccurately Portrays Social Emotional Learning In Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Biased assumptions and innuendo are employed instead of evidence to describe the role of social emotional learning. EAST LANSING, MI (February 22, 2022) - A recent report from the American Enterprise Institute presents concerns regarding how Social and Emotional Learning (SEL) approaches have imposed ideas and techniques from psychology on classroom practices, and thus have shifted the mission of education away from academic instruction. But a review of the report finds misrepresentations of both the definition and the goals of SEL. Julia Mahfouz of the University of Colorado Denver reviewed The Unexamined Rise of Therapeutic Education: How Social-Emotional Learning Extends K-12 Education's Reach Into Students' Lives and Expands Teachers' Roles and found it to be biased and misleading. The report warns that the rise in SEL has led schools to assume powers and responsibilities beyond their core mission of focusing on academic skills, claiming that teachers are unprepared to take on "therapeutic" responsibilities. In doing so, however, the report ignores the empirical evidence documenting the positive influence that SEL has on students' well-being, academic achievement, and sense of citizenship. Professor Mahfouz explains that the report relies on a misrepresentation of SEL in order to promote misunderstanding and fear about it. The result, she concludes, is a one-sided discussion that does not make an evidence-based contribution and thus is not useful for informing policies. Find the review, by Julia Mahfouz, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Unexamined Rise of Therapeutic Education: How Social-Emotional Learning Extends K-12 Education's Reach Into Students' Lives and Expands Teachers' Roles ,written by Robert Pondiscio and published by the American Enterprise Institute, at: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/The-Unexamined-Rise-of-Therapeutic-Education.pdf?x91208 NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Julia Mahfouz : (814) 441-6656, julia.mahfouz@ucdenver.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back California Class Sizes Matter Summary Smaller class sizes are essential for our public school educators to do their jobs and provide every student with the individual attention they need to succeed. Yet the educator-to-student ratio continues to increase nationwide as educators are continually asked to do more with less. Publication Date May 1, 2025 Authors Great Lakes Center Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Great Lakes Center Policy Brief: Research, Educator Voices Show 'Class Size Matters' Key Takeaway: New Great Lakes Center policy brief exploring the impact of class-size growth in California - the nation's largest state - makes the case for smaller class sizes in supporting educators and students alike. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 2, 2025) - Smaller class sizes are essential for our public school educators to do their jobs and provide every student with the individual attention they need to succeed. Yet the educator-to-student ratio continues to increase nationwide as educators are continually asked to do more with less. In the Great Lake Center's new policy brief, " California Class Sizes Matter: A Review of Research and Educator Voices ," the authors analyze classroom growth trends in California since 1963. Despite the best efforts of some through the decades, California today has the nation's fifth-largest educator-to-student ratio. In a recent survey of California educators statewide, over 75% of those surveyed said overcrowded classrooms are a serious issue at their school. This is despite widespread support for smaller class sizes and more student supports from parents, educators, community members, and students themselves. Smaller class sizes and adequate student supports give educators and students a greater opportunity for the type of individual and smaller group attention needed for students to succeed, the authors conclude. Research has found time and again that even small reductions in the number of students in a classroom can make a big difference in educators' ability to provide more individualized attention, facilitate more learning, and increase students' chances of success. The policy brief includes the voices of the education experts themselves - our teachers - to provide a historical perspective on continued class-size concerns in the Golden State. Each educator included in the brief has an average of more than two decades of teaching experience and has taught in overcrowded classrooms. Importantly, the educators have also taught before and after California's 1996 Class Size Reduction Initiative and throughout the unparalleled classroom challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy brief makes a clear case that class size reductions are essential for student learning, social emotional support, and educator stability. Utilizing the best available research and the real-life experiences of California educators, the policy brief demonstrates how and why class sizes matter. Find "California Class Sizes Matter: A Review of Research and Educator Voices" by the Great Lakes Center at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/California-Class-Size-Matters.pdf. Maddie Fennell, Director Great lakes Center for Education Research and Practice maddie@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Measuring and Understanding Education Advocacy Summary The report looked at the causal influence of organizations for and against education reform in Louisiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina. According to the report, findings indicated that coordination of advocacy groups strengthens their impact on the introduction of policy into the legislative arena, content of legislation, and the votes of members of the legislature. The report also found that the groups’ perceived influence closely tracked outcomes. The report utilized two methodological innovations to measure the impact of advocacy groups on education reform policy: (1) Surveys with Placebo (SwP); and (2) Critical Path Analysis (CPA). Publication Date April 15, 2015 Authors Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, David Stuit, Claire Graves, and Lauren Shaw; Robin Rogers, Queens College, CUNY Sara Goldrick-Rab, University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review cautions against adoption of innovative methods used in education advocacy report EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 16, 2015) – A recent report from the Brooking Institution's Brown Center on Education Policy attempted to examine the influence and approach of education advocacy organizations in three states. The report looked at the causal influence of organizations for and against education reform in Louisiana, Tennessee, and North Carolina. An academic review of the report finds there is a gap between the evidence and the conclusions presented, however, the methods used in the report may be useful in education policy research. Robin Rogers, associate professor of sociology at Queens College and the City University of New York Graduate Center, and Sara Goldrick-Rab, professor of Educational Policy Studies and Sociology at the University of Wisconsin Madison, reviewed Measuring and Understanding Education Advocacy for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to the report, findings indicated that coordination of advocacy groups strengthens their impact on the introduction of policy into the legislative arena, content of legislation, and the votes of members of the legislature. The report also found that the groups' perceived influence closely tracked outcomes. The report utilized two methodological innovations to measure the impact of advocacy groups on education reform policy: (1) Surveys with Placebo (SwP); and (2) Critical Path Analysis (CPA). In their review, Rogers and Goldrick-Rab, find that SwP and CPA may be useful in education policy research, but the methods have limitations that are not acknowledged in the report. Additionally, the reviewers suggest the report is further limited because the research is a small case study, included a low response rate, and were based on advocacy groups' self-reported tactics. Regarding the overall merits of the report, Rogers and Goldrick-Rab state, "this report is useful primarily for understanding the perceptions of education advocacy groups' influence and tactics in the three cases studied." However, in their conclusion, they find "while both SwP and CPA are interesting methods that deserve further development, we caution against their adoption until they are better developed." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Measuring and Understanding Education Advocacy on the web: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2015/03/04-education-advocacy-whitehurst Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Robin Rogers, (347) 989-7869, robin.rogers@qc.cuny.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Rethinking 'Innovation Schools': Strengths and Limitations of AutonomyBased School Improvement Plans in Contexts of Widening Racial Inequality Summary School districts around the country have launched new reform strategies that are designed to expand autonomy for public schools. Often called "Innovation Schools," these state- and local-level plans create more autonomous schools, granting school leaders greater amounts of authority over school operations such as curriculum, budgeting, and hiring, while districts continue to manage services related to teacher payroll and benefits. Publication Date October 26, 2020 Authors Terrenda White and Anna Noble, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Terrenda White : (303) 492-0819, Terrenda.White@colorado.edu Is It Time to Rethink "Innovation Schools"? A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Policy brief explores how autonomy-based reforms might more effectively address systemic inequity in schools. EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 27, 2020) - School districts around the country have launched new reform strategies that are designed to expand autonomy for public schools. Often called "Innovation Schools," these state- and local-level plans create more autonomous schools, granting school leaders greater amounts of authority over school operations such as curriculum, budgeting, and hiring, while districts continue to manage services related to teacher payroll and benefits. Compared to traditional district schools, these autonomous schools operate in ways similar to charter schools that function outside district systems. Important differences exist, however, because autonomous schools are organized within districts, an arrangement that can ideally improve educational quality via autonomy without abandoning structures for democratic participation. Yet this type of autonomy-based school improvement plan still has limitations, as it shifts a host of responsibilities (and often blame) for the education of children from districts to individual schools and school leaders. NEPC released a policy brief today, Rethinking "Innovation Schools": Strengths and Limitations of Autonomy-Based School Improvement Plans in Contexts of Widening Racial Inequality , authored by Terrenda White and Anna Noble of the University of Colorado Boulder. The authors consider two questions about these reforms. First, as systemic inequities persist in the form of deepening poverty, racism, segregation, and unequal funding in schools and in society, what supports and conditions should districts provide to ensure that school leaders and educators are empowered, rather than beleaguered, in their efforts to improve the quality of education for their students? Further, what role should districts play to ensure that decentralized management and decision-making leads to greater democratic participation and community engagement on the part of local stakeholders? Using an equity framework informed by critical theories of race and education policy and the role of districts as institutional actors in advancing achievement and equity in public education, the brief highlights examples of state and district initiatives that rely on school-level autonomy as a primary improvement strategy, focusing on in-district models. The authors summarize the various designs of in-district autonomous schools in different states and districts, their impact on student performance and equity compared to each other and compared to non-district and traditional models, and the challenges they face in light of widening racial inequality and the need for community input and support. Based on its analysis of these reforms, the brief provides seven recommendations for leaders of schools and their districts, designed to further autonomy and democratic participation while ensuring that the responsibility for addressing equity is shared at the district and the school levels. Find Rethinking "Innovation Schools:" Strengths and Limitations of Autonomy-Based School Improvement Plans in Contexts of Widening Racial Inequality, by Terrenda White and Anna Noble, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Consolidation of Schools and Districts What the Research Says and What It Means Summary This policy brief provides a review of the research that has been done on school and district consolidation and finds that consolidation will generally not save money nor will it improve education outcomes particularly for minority and poor students. Policymakers are urged to make decisions about consolidation on a case-by-case basis with local input. Further, for very large school districts, deconsolidation may be a means of improving fiscal efficiency and learning outcomes. Publication Date January 31, 2011 Authors Craig Howley, Jerry Johnson, and Jennifer Petrie, Ohio University Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release School consolidation could increase costs and lower education quality, new report finds February 1, 2011 Sweeping state-level consolidation policies have unintended consequences Craig Howley Teri Battaglieri EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 1, 2011) — School consolidation could actually cost taxpayers more money while harming student performance, according to a new policy brief released today. Consolidation will generally not save taxpayers' money, and could actually increase taxpayers' financial burden through added administrative and transportation costs, according to the brief's authors, Craig Howley, Jerry Johnson and Jennifer Petrie of Ohio University. "While state-level consolidation proposals may serve a public relations purpose in times of crisis, they are unlikely to be a reliable way to obtain substantive fiscal or educational improvement," the authors state in their report, Consolidation of Schools and Districts: What the Research Says and What It Means. The policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Larger school districts are more likely to be fiscally inefficient than smaller districts, according to the brief. And while some policymakers think school district consolidation will save money through fewer superintendents, they don't take into account that larger school districts require more mid-level administrators, the new report states. Furthermore, consolidation has not been shown to improve student achievement, but instead can result in diminished academic and social performance, according to the brief. Studies show that bigger districts and larger schools are associated with reduced rates of student participation in extracurricular activities, less safe schools, lower graduation rates, lower achievement levels for poor students, and wider achievement gaps, particularly among low-income and minority populations. Based on their research, Howley, Johnson and Petrie recommend that policymakers approach school consolidation cautiously and make decisions about it on a case-by-case basis, and not through sweeping state policy changes. They added that deconsolidating larger schools and districts is much more likely to achieve the goal of improving student achievement and making school operations more efficient. Deconsolidation would particularly benefit many impoverished schools and districts, where students and teachers would gain from more individual attention, according to the report. To read Howley, Johnson and Petrie's full report, go to: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/consolidation-schools-districts --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back America's Private Public Schools Summary This report identifies public schools across the U.S. that enroll very few students from low-income families (private public schools) and argues that the existence of these "exclusive" schools justifies the support of publicly funded vouchers to private schools. Publication Date March 23, 2010 Authors John T. Yun, University of California, Santa Barbara Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release "Private-Public School" Report Leaps to Unsupported Recommendations March 24, 2010 Fordham report's call for expansion of private school vouchers is unsupported by data and based on tenuous logic, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 24, 2010) – A recently released report identifies public schools across the U.S. that enroll very few students from low-income families and uses the existence of these schools to argue that private schools should be publically funded by vouchers and tax credits. A Think Twice review of that report concludes that the report's policy arguments are based on tenuous logic, oversimplification and "critical omissions of fact, context and prior research." The Thomas B. Fordham Institute report, America's Private Public Schools , was reviewed by professor John Yun of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Yun observes that the report does raise interesting issues in its finding that about 4 percent of the public school population attend some 2,800 schools where fewer than 1 in 20 students qualify for free- or reduced-price lunch. In the report, these schools are labeled "private public schools." The report argues that the prevalence of these "exclusive" schools justifies the expansion of publically funded private school voucher and tuition tax credit programs. Yet, Yun says, the report's attempts to use its findings to support that recommendation don't hold up. Moreover, even the term itself is misleading since it implies that lack of poverty alone makes a private school. The report's primary argument to tie lower levels of class segregation to school choice policies is extremely weak. Essentially, the report points to some states with choice policies and points out that they have fewer identified "public private schools." But Yun notes that the report offers little or no evidence to meaningfully link choice policies to lesser segregation, beyond sweeping "associational implications." The report also fails to explore alternative explanations for such variations, such as historic housing segregation or the presence of large county-wide districts (which tend to have less segregation) common in Southern states like Florida. Beyond these problems, Yun notes serious concerns about accuracy of the report's data, classifications, and calculations. Some schools classified as "private public" appear to be quite diverse, while others that escaped this classification appear to have few if any low-income students. Moreover, the report ignores prior research showing that private schools are more likely to be more economically exclusive than public schools, calling into question the recommended "solution" of sending more students to those private schools. Yun states that, "While policymakers should indeed engage with the issue of elite, secluded public schooling, shifting more students into a private sector that is even more stratified does not appear to offer a wise solution." The report fails to explain how even a voucher policy targeted to low-income students would result in overall improvement of the segregation problem. He concludes, "In pursuing such a flawed argument on such an important topic, the authors miss a chance to seriously address this critical issue in favor of making an unsupported recommendation for a private school voucher policy that has very little hope of addressing de facto socioeconomic segregation in any substantive way." Find John T. Yun's review as well as a link to America's Private Public Schools on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: John T. Yun (805) 893-2342; jyun@education.ucsb.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Schools without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System Summary This report, which is a comprehensive examination of enrollment patterns in charter schools operated by Education Management organizations (EMOs), finds that charter schools run by EMOs are segregated by race, family income, disabilities and English language learner status as compared with their local public schools districts. Publication Date February 8, 2010 Authors Gary Miron, Jessica L. Urschel, William J. Mathis,* and Elana Tornquist Dept. of Educational Leadership, Research & Technology College of Education Western Michigan University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report url: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Miron_Diversity.pdf EAST LANSING, Mi., Feb. 9, 2010 – A comprehensive examination of enrollment patterns in schools operated by private corporations finds these schools segregate by race, family income, disabilities, and English language learner status. As compared with their local public school districts, these schools operated by Education Management Organizations, or EMOs, are substantially more segregated, and the strong segregative pattern found in 2001 is virtually unchanged through 2007. The study, funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, finds: Charter schools tended to be strongly concentrated in racial or ethnic terms – either more heavily populated with minority students, or more heavily populated with White students – compared to the districts that send students to those schools. "Only one-fourth of the charter schools had a composition relatively similar to that of the sending district," according to the report. The charter schools in this study draw their students from the extremes of family income, divided into either largely high-income or largely low-income populations. "Between 70% and 73% of the schools were in the extreme categories of the scale, depending on the comparison." Most of these EMO-operated schools enrolled substantially fewer special education children than their home districts. At the same time a small number of charter schools focused almost exclusively on students with special needs. More than half of these privately managed schools enrolled far fewer English language learners than did their home districts. About one-third of the schools had an ELL population similar to their district. "The segregation patterns of 2000-2001 were virtually identical to those in 2006-2007. Consequently, a pattern of segregation attributable to EMO-operated schools is being maintained." The new study, Schools without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System , is written by Gary Miron, Jessica Urschel, and Elana Tornquist of Western Michigan University, and William Mathis of the University of Colorado at Boulder. It comes to conclusions remarkably similar to another nationwide study, released last week by UCLA's Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles . The two studies, conducted independently using different data, different researchers and different methods, both found extensive segregation in charter schools. Together, these two new studies paint a powerful picture of charters adding to the school segregation caused by the nation's highly segregated neighborhoods. "Given that educational equality, whether financial or programmatic, has not occurred in this nation, the perpetuation of educational policies that have the effect of further dividing society is troubling and calls for rectification," says lead researcher Gary Miron. "Charter schools were originally intended to provide distinctive learning environments," Miron observes. "As it turns out, what is often most distinctive about charters is the composition of their student bodies." The schools show evidence both of White flight and of minority flight . "Parents are selecting schools where their child will experience less diversity," says Miron. The new EMO study relies on an extensive database of nearly 1,000 schools which represents 90% of the schools operated by for-profit and nonprofit Education Management Organizations, firms that primarily manage charter schools. The researchers constructed the database from sources that included the National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data as well as annual profiles of for-profit and nonprofit EMOs that are produced for the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at ASU. Find the report, Schools without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System , on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Gary Miron – (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance Summary This report seeks to provide relevant evidence to inform and guide options that policy makers should consider as they work to address prevalent concerns about the country’s virtual and blended school sectors. The Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance report is the sixth in an annual series of research briefs on the fast-growing U.S. virtual school sector. This year’s report provides a comprehensive directory of the nation’s full-time virtual and blended learning providers. The report finds both virtual and blended schools have not been as successful as traditional public schools. Despite this lackluster performance, virtual school enrollment has continued to grow. The report found evidence suggesting that several factors are key to the poor performance of virtual schools, including large school sizes and large student-to-teacher ratios. Publication Date April 30, 2018 Authors Gary Miron, Christopher Shank, & Caryn Davidson, Western Michigan University; and Alex Molnar, University of Colorado Boulder. Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release 6th Annual Virtual Schools Report Makes Recommendations to Improve Virtual and Blended Schooling EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 1, 2018) – A new report, Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance , is the sixth in an annual series of research briefs on the fast-growing U.S. virtual school sector. This year's report provides an overview and inventory of full-time virtual and blended learning providers. The report is intended to be a reference work for policy makers, educators, and the public. Gary Miron , Christopher Shank , and Caryn Davidson , Western Michigan University, authored the research brief for the National Education Policy Center , housed at the University of Colorado Boulder. Alex Molnar , NEPC publications director, serves at the series editor. The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice funded the report. In addition to the overview and inventory of virtual and blended learning providers, this year's report also — where data were available — provides an analysis of school performance measures. The available school performance measures indicate that both virtual and blended schools have not been as successful as traditional public schools. Despite this lackluster performance, virtual school enrollment has continued to grow. The report found evidence that suggests that several factors are key to the poor performance of virtual schools, including large school sizes and large student-to-teacher ratios. This year's report also finds that a new trend has emerged, with school districts opening their own virtual schools. Despite this trend, large virtual schools operated by for-profit education management organizations (EMOs) still dominate the sector. The report, based on the evidence available, recommends several improvements that policy makers should consider. In conclusion, the authors state: "Although largely descriptive, this report seeks to provide relevant evidence to inform and guide options that policy makers should consider as they work to address prevalent concerns about the country's virtual school and growing blended school sectors." Find the report on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the report with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965, gary.miron@wmich.edu Great Lakes Center, (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

Contact Us A legal disclaimer Do you have questions or need further information? We're here to help! Reach out to us through our contact form and a member of our team will get back to you as soon as possible. Terms & Conditions - the basics Having said that, Terms and Conditions (“T&C”) are a set of legally binding terms defined by you, as the owner of this website. The T&C set forth the legal boundaries governing the activities of the website visitors, or your customers, while they visit or engage with this website. The T&C are meant to establish the legal relationship between the site visitors and you as the website owner. T&C should be defined according to the specific needs and nature of each website. For example, a website offering products to customers in e-commerce transactions requires T&C that are different from the T&C of a website only providing information (like a blog, a landing page, and so on). T&C provide you as the website owner the ability to protect yourself from potential legal exposure, but this may differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so make sure to receive local legal advice if you are trying to protect yourself from legal exposure. What to include in the T&C document Generally speaking, T&C often address these types of issues: Who is allowed to use the website; the possible payment methods; a declaration that the website owner may change his or her offering in the future; the types of warranties the website owner gives his or her customers; a reference to issues of intellectual property or copyrights, where relevant; the website owner’s right to suspend or cancel a member’s account; and much, much more. To learn more about this, check out our article “Creating a Terms and Conditions Policy ”.

< Back Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods Summary When youth engage in collective-impact strategies, they have the potential to strengthen the design, implementation, and outcomes of school decision-making. A recent Urban Institute report takes up this important topic, examining what youth engagement initiatives look like within a broader reform structure. It presents a continuum of youth involvement-focused on issues of support, input, and leadership. Publication Date March 29, 2021 Authors Jessica Shakesprere, Mica O'Brien, and Eona Harison; Dana Mitra, Penn State University Research Areas Community Schools; Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Offers Only a Clouded Understanding of Youth Engagement An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report draws attention to a range of ways that young people can be included in decision-making process, but its framework is applied in a way that creates confusion. EAST LANSING, MI (March 30, 2021) - When youth engage in collective-impact strategies, they have the potential to strengthen the design, implementation, and outcomes of school decision-making. A recent Urban Institute report takes up this important topic, examining what youth engagement initiatives look like within a broader reform structure. It presents a continuum of youth involvement-focused on issues of support, input, and leadership. Professor Dana Mitra of Penn State University reviewed Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods . She found examples of this continuum and some description of strengths and weaknesses. But ultimately she found that the continuum created more confusion than clarity, because key examples did not fit where they were placed within the framework. The report considers the challenges involved in creating youth empowerment initiatives, providing examples of three of the federal Promise Neighborhood initiative sites. Yet while the report defines youth engagement as "the intentional, meaningful and sustained involvement of young people in actions to create positive social change," the descriptions in the first phase of the continuum-mentoring, case management, service learning-are not examples of youth engaged in actions to create change. Professor Mitra found this mismatch to occur because the examples given in the report were drawn from a convenience sample without an explanation of why they illuminate the framework. Though the strengths and challenges presented do align with previous research regarding the contexts that enable and constrain youth engagement, the report fails to make these connections explicit. Overall, Professor Mitra concludes, though the report champions youth engagement, it misses an opportunity to influence future policy and practice. Find the review, by Dana L. Mitra, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods , written by Jessica Shakesprere, Mica O’Brien, and Eona Harison and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103408/youth-engagement-in-collective-impact-initiatives_1.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Dana L. Mitra: (814) 441-2633, dana@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Promises and Pitfalls of Alternative Teacher Compensation Approaches Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date April 22, 2007 Authors Debbi C. Harris - Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report cautions policy makers against simplistic pay solutions EAST LANSING, Mich., April 23, 2007 – Merit pay systems for teachers, although currently enjoying renewed popularity with policy makers, are not a panacea according to a new policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (GLC). The brief, “Promises and Pitfalls of Alternative Teacher Compensation Approaches,” is by Debbi C. Harris, Ph.D and is one in a series of briefs on education issues funded by the GLC. In her brief, Harris explores the three main types of teacher compensation systems used in the U.S. They are the uniform salary schedule which is used in most districts, as well as two types of merit-pay systems: performance-based and outcome-based. She notes that though there are advantages to each approach, there are also adverse, often unintended, consequences to each system as well. In contrast to the uniform salary schedule that rewards years of experience and additional education for teachers, merit pay programs are typically structured to reward teacher behaviors and activities that are believed to be associated with higher student achievement, or to reward outcomes, usually measured by students’ test scores. Recently, several states have instituted statewide merit pay plans, and the federal government is offering grants to implement such plans. Various districts also have noteworthy merit pay plans. Harris, however, describes a troubled history for merit pay plans, which have surfaced repeatedly over the last century, only to be discontinued over time. Harris’s policy brief does not endorse any particular compensation system, and it carefully explains each system’s strengths and weaknesses. In addition, Harris makes specific recommendations to policy makers interested in restructuring teacher pay systems. Particularly important, says Harris, is that policy makers must fully account for the inevitable complexity, costs and tradeoffs of any particular compensation system. The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Debbi C. Harris (850)445-1306; dch323@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of From Surviving to Thriving: K-12 Choice and Opportunity for Rural Texas Students and Teachers Summary The Heritage Foundation recently published a report that claims increased competition has improved academic achievement in Arizona's rural public schools and that similar policies will be good for rural Texas. However, a review finds several flaws in the report's reasoning and methodology. Publication Date December 6, 2023 Authors Matthew Ladner and Jason Bedrick; Amanda Potterton of the University of Kentucky, Annah Rogers of the University of West Alabama, and Jeanne Powers of Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Misfires in Touting School Choice in Rural Communities An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: In its push for expanding school choice, the report exaggerates how much Arizona and Texas are alike, fails to consider existing research, and uses simplistic and inaccurate analyses to support its claims. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (Dcember 7, 2023) - The Heritage Foundation recently published a report that claims increased competition has improved academic achievement in Arizona's rural public schools and that similar policies will be good for rural Texas. However, a review finds several flaws in the report's reasoning and methodology. Amanda Potterton of the University of Kentucky, Annah Rogers of the University of West Alabama, and Jeanne Powers of Arizona State University reviewed From Surviving to Thriving: K-12 Choice and Opportunity for Rural Texas Students and Teachers. They found that the data provided in the report fails to support its contention that rural Texas would do well to copy Arizona's example. In its attempt to prove that Arizona should be a model for school choice, the report overstates the similarities between Arizona and Texas, ignores relevant research literature, and presents simplistic and inaccurate analyses to support its claims. For example, it focuses heavily on a variety of reports that support the expansion of school choice, news media stories, and opinion pieces, rather than provide a more balanced picture of school choice via the academic peer-reviewed literature. Further, in some cases, alternative methods of reporting the data suggest different conclusions than those presented in the report. There are also inconsistencies and inaccuracies in how the report uses and interprets some of the data sources. By addressing a narrow set of possible benefits of school choice, the report also overlooks issues related to fiscal impacts for district schools, segregation, and exclusionary practices for students who require specialized services in schools. The reviewers conclude that the report is an exercise in advocacy for expanding school choice policies, with minimal usefulness as a guide for policy and practice. Find the review, by Amanda U. Potterton, Annah Rogers, and Jeanne M. Powers, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find From Surviving to Thriving: K-12 Choice and Opportunity for Rural Texas Students and Teachers , written by Matthew Ladner and Jason Bedrick and published by the Heritage Foundation, at: https://www.heritage.org/education/report/surviving-thriving-k-12-choice-and-opportunity-rural-texas-students-and-teachers NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Amanda U. Potterton (702) 553-9505 amanda.potterton@uky.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More