< Back Review of Measuring Student Poverty: Developing Accurate Counts for School Funding, Accountability, and Research Summary A recent Urban Institute report highlights how legislative changes have led to the steady decline of the usefulness, as a measure of student poverty, of participation in the free- and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program. The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act mandates that schools enrolled in CEP have at least 40% of their students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch in the year before enrolling. CEP schools provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students regardless of any given student’s household income or enrollment in safety net programs. Thus FRPL participation is 100% in a school and can no longer be sensibly used as a poverty measure. Publication Date March 3, 2020 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Erica Greenberg, Kristin Blagg, and Macy Rainer; Michael Harwell of the University of Minnesota Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Student Poverty Measures Provides Important Snapshot but Not the Whole Picture An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New report is useful, but misses an opportunity to explore the need for a standardized measure of student poverty. EAST LANSING, MI (March 3, 2020) - A recent Urban Institute report highlights how legislative changes have led to the steady decline of the usefulness, as a measure of student poverty, of participation in the free- and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program. The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act mandates that schools enrolled in CEP have at least 40% of their students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch in the year before enrolling. CEP schools provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students regardless of any given student’s household income or enrollment in safety net programs. Thus FRPL participation is 100% in a school and can no longer be sensibly used as a poverty measure. Michael Harwell of the University of Minnesota reviewed Measuring Student Poverty: Developing Accurate Counts for School Funding, Accountability, and Research . The report looks at how states now make poverty-related determinations for school funding and accountability purposes. Professor Harwell found the report to be useful in providing an important snapshot of the crazy quilt pattern of enrollment in safety net programs. The report, however, does not fully address a question that should significantly influence its methods, conclusions, and impact: Is it sufficient to rely on enrollment in safety net programs to define and measure student poverty, or is a change needed in its definition and measurement? The report seems to lean towards the latter, but no definition (new or otherwise) of student poverty is provided, and alternative measures of poverty are presented without critique. The report is also silent on whether a poverty measure should be related to important student outcomes such as achievement. As such, the report is very useful in describing the current dilemma, but it offers little specific guidance on how to move forward. Find the review, by Michael Harwell, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Measuring Student Poverty: Developing Accurate Counts for School Funding, Accountability, and Research, written by Erica Greenberg, Kristin Blagg, and Macy Rainer and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101430/measuring_student_poverty.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: http://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: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Michael Harwell: (612) 625-0196, harwe001@umn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Housing Policy Summary Because educational opportunities and life chances are inextricably tied to family wealth and housing advantages, Kevin Welner and William Mathis call for a comprehensive, cohesive approach to address societal inequities. In Housing Policy, the authors recommend that multiple approaches can and should be implemented as a united set of mutually supportive initiatives. In their recommendations, the authors suggest that housing integration policies that address housing supply and affordability can be beneficial. Publication Date May 24, 2016 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors Kevin G. Welner and William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 24, 2016) — The sixth in a series of concise policy briefs investigates five equity-focused approaches tied to educational opportunities and life chances for students. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In Housing Policy , Kevin G. Welner and William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss closing the opportunity gap through housing-focused policies coupled with other efforts. Welner and Mathis review five interventions: (1) school improvement policies; (2) school choice policies; (3) school desegregation policies; (4) wealth-focused policies; and (5) housing-focused policies. Regarding the approaches, Welner and Mathis caution that individually the interventions, without other supports, are insufficient to overcome the impact of poverty as it relates to food insecurity, housing insecurity, employment insecurity, or other obstacles facing students in schools today. Because educational opportunities and life chances are inextricably tied to family wealth and housing advantages, the authors call for a comprehensive, cohesive approach to address societal inequities. Welner and Mathis recommend that multiple approaches can and should be implemented as a united set of mutually supportive initiatives. In their recommendations, the authors suggest that housing integration policies that address housing supply and affordability can be beneficial. Specifically, they highlight the positive impact that inclusionary zoning can have on neighborhoods. Inclusionary zoning uses incentives to encourage developers to build affordable housing in high-cost neighborhoods. They conclude that sustained efforts in all areas should be pursued, including: school improvement, desegregation efforts, and policies that address wealth inequity. These policies do not have to be mutually exclusive. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Public Charter Schools: A Great Value for Ohio’s Public Education System Summary This report purports to show that charter schools in Ohio are unfairly underfunded relative to traditional public schools. It also claims that districts gain revenue for each student who attends a charter school and that there would be a net loss of revenues for districts if charter schools were closed. Publication Date December 10, 2008 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Gary Miron, Western Michigan University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Ohio Charter Schools Report False and Deceitful Review finds financial analysis and claims are only shoddy propaganda EAST LANSING, Mi. (Dec. 10, 2008)—A recent report from the Buckeye Institute claims to show that charter schools in Ohio are unfairly underfunded when compared to traditional public schools. A new review of the report, however, finds it is misleading and, in some instances, false and deceitful. The report, Public Charter Schools: A Great Value for Ohio’s Public Education System , was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Dr. Gary Miron of Western Michigan University, a leading evaluator of states’ charter school programs. Miron begins his review by noting that the financing of charter schools has long been controversial. Supporters of traditional public schools contend that charters receive too much money based on the students they educate and the services they provide. Charter school proponents claim that they receive less money than they should. But fair analyses of school finance issues must seriously address the complexities of school funding formulas and of the many sources of possible school revenues. Meaningful research would also include the caveats, nuances and exceptions which would help readers to fully understand the issues. In contrast, Miron says, “the analysis from the Buckeye Institute does not list a single limitation in the data or provide a single cautionary note for readers.” Even more troubling, however, are the outright errors in the report’s analysis. Miron demonstrates in his review that all of the report’s main contentions are wrong or misleading, but one claim drew particular criticism. The Buckeye report contends that the state’s largest school districts receive a net gain in revenue on average for each student attending a charter school—and that returning those charter students to the regular schools would actually cost the districts in revenue per pupil. This contention, Miron says, is “ridiculously false, deceitful, and patently misrepresent[s] how the funding of public schools works.” In reality, Miron explains, “If charter schools closed and a large portion of students returned to district schools, [the district] would still receive the same amount of revenues per pupil. The only difference is that the state share of the overall district costs would increase—with a shift in public funding from the charters to the school districts.” Overall, Miron finds the Buckeye report to be of the type that presents “only selected data or partial evidence that supports a particular position.” It is, he writes, “intended to advocate, obscure, and redirect attention rather than deepen understanding and insight” and consequently offers little to recommend it as useful to policymakers. Find Gary Miron’s review 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 website 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 Making a Difference: Six Places Where Teacher Evaluation Systems Are Getting Results Summary Narrow focus and methodological flaws also diminish report’s attempt to promote the benefits of teacher evaluation linked to measures of student growth. Publication Date December 4, 2018 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Hannah Putman, Kate Walsh, and Elizabeth Ross; Amy Farley and Leah Chamberlain, University of Cincinnati Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Fails to Sufficiently Address the Evidence Surrounding Teacher Evaluation BOULDER, CO (December 4, 2018) – A new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) highlights six teacher evaluation systems purportedly "yielding substantial benefits." This comes at the end of a decade when reformed teacher evaluation systems that link teacher performance to measures of student growth have been at the center of educational debate. Amy Farley and Leah Chamberlain of the University of Cincinnati reviewed Making a Difference: Six Places Where Teacher Evaluation Systems Are Getting Results . They find that the report does little to enrich an already tired conversation about linking teacher evaluation to student achievement. Overall, the research regarding teacher evaluation is mixed, at best. Most notably, a recent multi-year RAND report suggests that a $500 million investment in teacher evaluation that heavily weighted student growth measures, with considerable funding from the Gates Foundation, did not improve student outcomes. In fact, the reform may have exacerbated unequal access to effective teachers for low-income students and students of color. While the NCTQ report promotes these approaches to teacher evaluation, Farley and Chamberlain explain how it fails to seriously counter the groundswell of academic literature critiquing these systems. It also does not present a compelling justification for its site selection or the criteria used for inclusion of evidence. Instead, it appears to rely on a limited set of data drawn mostly from internal reports or interviews with district or state representatives and does not adequately consider disconfirming or contradictory evidence. These methodological flaws limit the validity of the report's findings, they conclude, which ultimately diminishes its usefulness for policy and practice. Find the review, by Amy Farley and Leah Chamberlain, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Making a Difference: Six Places Where Teacher Evaluation Systems Are Getting Results, written by Hannah Putman, Kate Walsh, and Elizabeth Ross and published by the National Council on Teacher Quality, at: https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/NCTQ_Report_-_Making_a_Difference 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: http://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 http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back When Degree Programs for Pre-K Teachers Go Online: Challenges and Opportunities Summary A recent report from New America sought to explore the impact of online degree programs for early childhood (EC) educators. The report argued that online degree programs had the potential to professionalize pre-K teachers. The report claimed that flexible online bachelor’s programs could facilitate degree completion, increase the overall quality of EC educators, and raise salaries for pre-K teachers. Publication Date January 18, 2018 Research Areas Teacher Workforce; Technology & AI Authors Shayna Cook; Beth Graue and Erica Ramberg, University of Wisconsin-Madison Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Early childhood workforce report fails to provide a nuanced discussion of the issues, usefulness limited EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 18, 2018) — A recent report from New America sought to explore the impact of online degree programs for early childhood (EC) educators. The report argued that online degree programs had the potential to professionalize pre-K teachers. A review of the report released today finds that the report fails to recognize the economic realities that many pre-K teachers face across the U.S. and is of limited use for policymakers. Beth Graue and Erica Ramberg, University of Wisconsin-Madison , reviewed the brief, When Degree Programs for Pre-K Teachers Go Online: Challenges and Opportunities , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The report claimed that flexible online bachelor's programs could facilitate degree completion, increase the overall quality of EC educators, and raise salaries for pre-K teachers. Unfortunately, it offers very little support for the claims made. In the review, Graue and Ramberg note that the report draws important attention to EC workforce policy, but it underplays a number of critical issues facing the field. In particular, the reviewers find: The report does not provide an adequate treatment of the economic realities facing EC educators, placing them at the poverty line; It presents testimonials instead of outcomes for online programs; and It makes pre-K teachers responsible for closing the pay gap and upgrading their low professional esteem. In conclusion, the reviewers write, "While having a bachelor's degree is one element that might contribute to quality, in the current landscape of EC education, it is insufficient. In a context where we are uncertain about how a bachelor's degree contributes to EC teaching, the major thrust of the report requires a leap of faith." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report on the web: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/when-degree-programs-pre-k-teachers-go-online/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), 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: Beth Graue, (208) 263-2736, beth.graue@wisc.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 Unlocking Potential: How Political Skill Can Maximize Superintendent Effectiveness Summary A recent report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) sought to provide an overview on how school district superintendents could be more effective at influencing others, harnessing the political power of the position, and exercising real power to accomplish agendas. The report attempts to describe the work of a superintendent as a series of interactions with internal groups (working in a school district) and external stakeholders (business and foundation leaders, and policymakers). Publication Date March 6, 2018 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Paul Hill and Ashley Jochim; William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on the superintendency fails to offer solutions, perpetuates problems EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 6, 2018) — A recent report from the Center for Reinventing Public education (CRPE) sought to provide an overview on how school district superintendents could be more effective at influencing others, harnessing the political power of the position, and exercising real power to accomplish agendas. An academic review of the report reveals that the report lacks substance, perpetuates antiquated methods, and does not advance our knowledge. William J. Mathis of University of Colorado Boulder , a former superintendent, reviewed the report, Unlocking Potential: How Political Skill Can Maximize Superintendent Effectiveness , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Broadly, the report attempts to describe the work of a superintendent as a series of interactions with internal groups (working in a school district) and external stakeholders (business and foundation leaders, and policymakers). In his review, Mathis finds that the report does not provide a research design, literature review, or a description of data collection. Instead, he says that the report simply relies on the authors' life experiences and "common sense" approaches. Mathis further points out that the power-based theory proposed in the report fails to consider the historic role that school boards and superintendents have played in preventing politicized governance. Additionally, Mathis notes that the report assumes a stronger, more influential superintendent is beneficial for schools, communities, and students. In summary, he says, "this report offers nothing new or insightful. It is more a reflection of nineteenth century thinking than twenty-first century leadership." Put concisely, Mathis concludes that this report offers no value to policymaking or for an aspiring superintendent seeking answers. Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original CRPE report here: https://tinyurl.com/ydftz49v Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , 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 . You can also find the review 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: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net 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 Let's Stop Asking Whether Teachers Are Professionals. Let's Ask What Kinds of Professionals We Want Teachers to Be Summary A professionalized teaching workforce is key to strong educational opportunities, improved student outcomes, and broader societal benefits. However, recent policies aimed at improving teacher quality have had unintended consequences-eroding teacher autonomy, increasing workload, standardizing curriculum and assessment, and fostering public distrust. In NEPC's new policy brief, Let's Stop Asking Whether Teachers Are Professionals. Let's Ask What Kinds of Professionals We Want Teachers to Be, authors Emilie Mitescu Reagan of Claremont Graduate University and A. Lin Goodwin of Boston College examine the ongoing evolution of teachers' professional status. The brief explores how educators can navigate the constantly shifting societal perceptions of their profession. Publication Date March 11, 2025 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Authors Emilie Mitescu Reagan, Claremont Graduate University; A. Lin Goodwin, Boston College Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: New brief exploring how policy changes have eroded teacher autonomy calls for a shift toward shared decision-making and professional empowerment. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (March 11, 2025) - A professionalized teaching workforce is key to strong educational opportunities, improved student outcomes, and broader societal benefits. However, recent policies aimed at improving teacher quality have had unintended consequences-eroding teacher autonomy, increasing workload, standardizing curriculum and assessment, and fostering public distrust. In NEPC's new policy brief, Let's Stop Asking Whether Teachers Are Professionals. Let's Ask What Kinds of Professionals We Want Teachers to Be , authors Emilie Mitescu Reagan of Claremont Graduate University and A. Lin Goodwin of Boston College examine the ongoing evolution of teachers' professional status. The brief explores how educators can navigate the constantly shifting societal perceptions of their profession. As the authors explain, teachers have struggled to maintain authority over the core elements that define a true profession. These elements include specialized knowledge, standards for practice, and a commitment to public welfare. Further, while educators have played a role in shaping accreditation and certification, many of these processes have been dictated by policymakers, advocacy groups, and corporations, again limiting teachers' professional agency. Three recent developments-standards and assessments, curriculum restrictions, and digitalization-have reshaped teachers' roles and further challenged their professional standing. These changes have shifted power even further away from teachers, raising fundamental questions about their professional status. Given these changes, the brief's authors call for a corresponding change in our collective thinking. Rather than debating whether teachers qualify as professionals, the focus should be on the kind of professionals we want them to be. A shift toward policies that empower educators-through shared decision-making and democratic collaboration-can strengthen teacher professionalism. To that end, Professors Reagan and Goodwin provide recommendations for policymakers and educational leaders to take action to redistribute power and foster teacher-led networks that drive information exchange, problem-solving, dialogue, and innovation. Find Let's Stop Asking Whether Teachers Are Professionals. Let's Ask What Kinds of Professionals We Want Teachers to Be , by Emilie Mitescu Reagan and A. Lin Goodwin, 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, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu 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 GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renée Valladares Emilie Mitescu Reagan Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Searching for the Tipping Point: Scaling up Public School Choice Spurs Citywide Gains Summary A recent Progressive Policy Institute report purports to examine the impact of charter schools on the achievement of students who remain enrolled in district-run public schools. Based on the data in the report, however, it shows only a weak relationship between the presence of charter schools and increases in achievement for all students, which contradicts the report's claims. Publication Date December 3, 2024 Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Tressa Pankovits; David R. Garcia, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: PPI report misleads on the impact of charter schools on district-run public schools, using incomplete research methods to support its policy recommendations. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (December 3, 2024) - A recent Progressive Policy Institute report purports to examine the impact of charter schools on the achievement of students who remain enrolled in district-run public schools. Based on the data in the report, however, it shows only a weak relationship between the presence of charter schools and increases in achievement for all students, which contradicts the report's claims. The report is centered around a graph that depicts a strong positive relationship between the percentage of students enrolled in charter schools and decreases in the achievement gap (as measured in test scores) for all low-income students in selected cities. In his review of Searching for the Tipping Point: Scaling up Public School Choice Spurs Citywide Gains, David R. Garcia of Arizona State University ran a correlation analysis using the data provided in the report and discovered that the relationship depicted in the graph is, in fact, weak (r = 0.4). Further, while the report recognizes that correlations do not indicate causation, it still erroneously asserts that the presence of charter schools in a city, alone, has a "spillover effect" related to improvements in the academic achievement of students who are not enrolled in those charter schools. Garcia's review points to other concerns as well, but he concludes that the report's major flaw is its incorrect depiction of a strong relationship, in the districts studied, between the presence of charter schools and decreases in the achievement gap. Also, the policy recommendations are based on an enormous, unsubstantiated causal leap, and the report makes no effort to close this gap in logic in support of its recommendations. The report should not be considered a credible contribution to policy. Find the review, by David Garcia, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Searching for the Tipping Point: Scaling up Public School Choice Spurs Citywide Gains, written by Tressa Pankovits and published by Progressive Policy Institute, at: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/searching-for-the-tipping-point-scaling-up-public-school-choice-spurs-citywide-gains / 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 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 GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares David Garcia Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice: 2019 Edition Summary A recent report from EdChoice presents itself as a yearly updated list and synthesis of empirical studies exploring the impacts of school vouchers across a set of outcomes. But a new review of the report finds that it fails to provide a robust summary of the research literature on vouchers and their full range of positive and negative impacts. Publication Date June 11, 2019 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Andrew Catt, Paul DiPerna, Martin Lueken, Michael McShane, and Michael Shaw; T. Jameson Brewer, of the University of North Georgia Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Voucher Report Uses Shaky Methods to Misrepresent Research An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Questionable methodology and misrepresentation of the research result in a misleading report not useful for decision-making or research purposes. EAST LANSING, MI (June 11, 2019) - A recent report from EdChoice presents itself as a yearly updated list and synthesis of empirical studies exploring the impacts of school vouchers across a set of outcomes. But a new review of the report finds that it fails to provide a robust summary of the research literature on vouchers and their full range of positive and negative impacts. T. Jameson Brewer, of the University of North Georgia, reviewed The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice: 2019 Edition . EdChoice's report attempts to convince readers that a solid body of research evidence shows voucher benefits such as an increase in test scores, parental satisfaction, increased civic values, improvements in racial segregation, and fiscal benefits through governmental cost savings. What Dr. Brewer found instead was a limited collection of cherry-picked studies, largely from non-peer-reviewed sources, and primarily authored by voucher advocates. The report's misrepresentation of the existing research, combined with its use of the questionable methodology of simply counting up results categorized as positive or negative, results in an overall appearance of stacking the deck to create an illusory compilation of studies that profess to bolster EdChoice's predetermined commitment to cheerleading school vouchers. Find the review, by T. Jameson Brewer, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice: 2019 Edition , written by Andrew Catt, Paul DiPerna, Martin Lueken, Michael McShane, and Michael Shaw, and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/123s-of-School-Choice.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: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), 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: http://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 http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net T. Jameson Brewer: (404) 941-4530, jameson.brewer@ung.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain Private Ventures in Need of Public Regulation Summary This policy brief focuses on virtual schooling, the fastest growing alternative to traditional K-12 education in the U.S.. The expansion in virtual schools (especially full-time virtual schools) is taking place despite the absence of any data on the effectiveness of full-time cyber programs and with little government oversight. The authors offer recommendations for state legislators and other policymakers. These recommendations are contained in model legislation which accompanies the policy brief. Publication Date October 25, 2011 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Gene V Glass and Kevin G. Welner (Policy Brief) Justin Bathon (Model Legislation) Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Full-time cyber schools expanding despite no evidence of their effectiveness, new report finds Study finds more questions than answers about the benefit of full-time virtual schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 25, 2011) — Full-time virtual schools are expanding despite no high-quality evidence that they are effective, according to a new report released today. Cash-strapped states and school districts are using online education — including full-time virtual schools with no face-to-face contact between students and teachers — as a lower-cost alternative to traditional public schools. In states such as Florida, virtual schools are used as a loophole in laws that limit the size of classes. According to the report, authored by University of Colorado education professors Gene V Glass and Kevin G. Welner, full-time "cyber schools" are now operating in 27 states. In at least one case in Arizona, a private firm outsourced essay grading to low-paid workers in India. "Private operators are gaining access to large streams of public revenue to run cyber schools," Glass said. "But school districts are not getting full information on the actual costs of these programs, so it's not clear if taxpayer money is being used effectively — or properly." Cyber schools are subject to only minimal government oversight, according to the report. "We have to make sure that cyber schools don't become just a cheap way of providing second-rate service to disadvantaged schools and students," Glass said. "No matter where they live or in what form they receive instruction, all students deserve quality teachers, supported by a rigorous program of accreditation and accountability," Welner said. As virtual schools continue to grow, Glass and Welner offered several recommendations for state legislators and other policymakers. The recommendations are contained in model legislation also released today by University of Kentucky educator professor and attorney Justin Bathon. These recommendations include: Financial audits of cyber schools to determine their actual per-student expenses, so school districts can determine appropriate reimbursement. Authentication of student work: An online instructor, whether located in the U.S. or abroad, has no way to determine whether work submitted via computer was performed by the student enrolled in the class. Trusted organizations should be engaged to administer in-person exams, as is currently the practice at several virtual schools. Accreditation: To avoid abuses that have been found in other proprietary schools – such as truck driving and cosmetology academies – traditional high school accrediting agencies and state and federal departments of education should work together to develop a rigorous approach to accreditation of both part- and full-time cyber schools. The full report, "Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain Private Ventures in Need of Public Regulation" and the model legislation were produced by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. To read Glass and Welner's full report and to view Bathon's model legislation, go to: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Both are also available on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/online-k-12-schooling --###-- 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 . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Gene V Glass, 480-294-1120, gene.glass@colorado.edu Justin Bathon, 859-257-7845, justin.bathon@uky.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools? Summary Legislatures across the United States continue to pass policies to add or expand school choice. Within this context, the Fordham Institute, an advocate of school choice expansion, has published a report asserting that charter schools have not negatively affected students in traditional public schools. However, a review of this report finds that though it could contribute to the conversation, its conclusions are highly misleading. Publication Date June 20, 2024 Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Stéphane Lavertu; Bryan Mann, University of Kansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Despite a Sound Analysis of School Choice, Report Offers Misleading Conclusions An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's analysis contributes to the charter school debate but fails to support its bold claim that the debate is over. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JUNE 20, 2024) - Legislatures across the United States continue to pass policies to add or expand school choice. Within this context, the Fordham Institute, an advocate of school choice expansion, has published a report asserting that charter schools have not negatively affected students in traditional public schools. However, a review of this report finds that though it could contribute to the conversation, its conclusions are highly misleading. In his review of Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools? , University of Kansas professor Bryan Mann determines the report to have little value to policymakers. This is in large part because the report's conclusions extend well beyond the scope of its statistical analysis. The Fordham report concludes that the presence of charter schools leads to modest improvements in traditional schools' attendance and graduation rates and, therefore, that charters and similar approaches should be expanded in Ohio. That is, the report argues that lawmakers should increase the charter-school footprint, based solely on a limited analysis of these two performance indicators. This argument aligns with other advocates' "competitive effects" arguments-the idea that district-run schools will adjust to marketplace pressure and improve. However, the study's statistical analysis actually reveals null findings in performance indicators, allowing for counterfactuals that undermine its core arguments. The study's own findings do not justify the report's bold conclusions. Even though there is significant scholarly debate on the extent and nature of competitive effects, Professor Mann details how the report misuses its limited findings to declare that debate "over." The competitive-effects issue remains unresolved. Thus, because of its unsupported leap from findings to conclusions, policymakers should avoid using the report to make high-stakes-and costly-decisions that expand charter schools in Ohio. Find the review, by Bryan Mann, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools?, written by Stéphane Lavertu and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/research/did-emergence-ohio-charter-schools-help-or-harm-students-who-remained-district 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 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 GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Bryan Mann: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Missouri The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Indiana The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Texas The High Cost of South Carolina’s Low Graduation Rates The High Cost of Low Graduation Rates in North Carolina Summary These five sister reports have been published by the Friedman Foundation over the past two years. They assert that private-school voucher programs can reduce the social costs of dropping out while increasing graduation rates. Publication Date January 9, 2008 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding Authors Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORTS CLAIMING VOUCHERS CAN REDUCE DROPOUT RATES FOUND TO BE OF POOR QUALITY Reviewer says the conclusions reached by Friedman Foundation reports are flawed and untrustworthy EAST LANSING , Mich. (Jan. 9, 2008) – A series of five reports released over the past two years asserts that dropout rates can be reduced by implementing private-school voucher programs. A new review of those reports, however, finds that they are of little value because they ignore the abundance of relevant research and offer no means by which to gauge the alleged benefits of vouchers against other alternatives. The five reports, each specific to a given state – Missouri, Indiana, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina – follow a parallel structure and were written by Brian Gottlob and published by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida. Among their more serious flaws, Dorn finds that all five reports: largely ignore existing research on dropping out and school competition; present a superficial calculation of the costs of dropping out; improperly rely on a single, imperfect 1998 article as the entire basis for their calculations on the purported impact of voucher programs on improving graduation rates; and ignore possible alternative approaches for raising graduation rates, instead focusing exclusively on private school voucher programs. According to Dorn, “the reports make no mention of the extensive literature exploring graduation, dropping out and the factors that shape educational attainment.” As a result, “each report obscures other program options that policymakers could consider.” These other options include preschool programs, intervention in middle and high school grades, changes in child labor laws, reduction in class sizes and modification of exit-exam requirements. Dorn notes that dropping out is a serious problem which deserves serious rather than superficial analysis. He concludes by advising state policymakers who are interested in increasing graduation rates to bypass these reports and instead seek out “the available, well-researched scholarship on the topic,” much of which he identifies in the review. Find the complete review by Sherman Dorn as well as a link to the Friedman Foundation reports at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review 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 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: Sherman Dorn – (813) 205-6143; sherman.dorn@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More