< Back Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 Summary As proponents continue to make the case that virtual education can expand student choices and improve the efficiency of public education, full-time virtual schools have attracted a great deal of attention. Advocates contend that this potential for individualization allows virtual schools to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. NEPC researchers found, however, that the research evidence does not support this claim. This three-part brief provides disinterested scholarly analyses of the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools; reviews the relevant available research related to virtual school practices; provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft virtual schools policy; and offers policy recommendations based on the available evidence. Publication Date May 28, 2019 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Najat Elgeberi, Michael K. Barbour, Luis A. Huerta, Sheryl Rankin Shafer, and Jennifer King Rice Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus Summary The brief, titled, We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus, explores the question, "How might we acknowledge and work toward the important task of diversifying the educator workforce while maintaining a healthy skepticism about the confluence of actors with their differing motivations who are promoting the diversification of the teaching profession?" The brief's authors – Thomas M. Philip of the University of California, Berkeley and Anthony L. Brown of the University of Texas at Austin – caution in particular against the "no excuses" school model, where teachers of color must try to satisfy irreconcilable demands focused on extreme accountability on one hand and commitments for cultural relevance and justice on the other. Publication Date July 21, 2020 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Teacher Workforce Authors Thomas M. Philip, University of California, Berkeley; Anthony L. Brown, University of Texas at Austin Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Brief warns that care and skepticism should accompany efforts to foster an educational workforce representative of its general population. EAST LANSING, Mich. (July 21, 2020) - For very good reasons, there is a near unanimity among researchers and practitioners about the need to recruit and retain more teachers of color. Diversification of the teaching ranks has clear benefits. But a brief released today argues that the push for diversifying the teaching force should be scrutinized within the context of larger patterns and structures of racial injustice and should be thoughtfully and carefully pursued as part of broader efforts toward equity-oriented school reform. The brief, titled, We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus , explores the question, "How might we acknowledge and work toward the important task of diversifying the educator workforce while maintaining a healthy skepticism about the confluence of actors with their differing motivations who are promoting the diversification of the teaching profession?" The brief's authors – Thomas M. Philip of the University of California, Berkeley and Anthony L. Brown of the University of Texas at Austin – caution in particular against the "no excuses" school model, where teachers of color must try to satisfy irreconcilable demands focused on extreme accountability on one hand and commitments for cultural relevance and justice on the other. As Philip and Brown make clear, research does document how teachers of color serve as cultural translators, are more aware of racial trauma experienced by students, and are more likely to work in schools that disproportionately enroll low-income students of color. They bring concrete benefits for racially matched students concerning higher test scores, more positive disciplinary outcomes, higher expectations, and authentic forms of care. Yet calls to diversify the teaching force must be understood within the current societal context, where diversity has often been embraced in ways that have blunted demands for structural change. Philip and Brown examine research about the diversification of teachers, with particular attention to assumptions about racial/cultural match and the discourse of role models. While the rationales for diversifying the teaching profession are (as noted above) wide-ranging, it is the fusing of racial/cultural match and the role model thesis that has had the greatest mainstream currency in justifying the need for teachers of color. The authors conclude by offering questions that those concerned with the diversification of the teaching force might consider as safeguards to promote a focus on strategic essentialism and the transformation of schools. Find We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus, by Thomas M. Philip and Anthony L. Brown, at: 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: 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 Review of A Roadmap to Fix Arizona School Finance: Steering the Grand Canyon State Toward Fairness and Innovation in K-12 Education Summary The report begins by describing how Arizona's lowest-income school districts receive less funding from state and local sources than higher-income school districts. As is the case in many states, Arizona's school districts with lower property wealth have higher tax rates and generate less revenue than higher property wealth school districts. The report then sets forth the 16 far-ranging policy recommendations that its author argues will improve the "transparency, equity, and effectiveness of Arizona's school finance system. . ." Collectively, these recommendations would amount to a fundamental overhaul of Arizona's school finance system. Publication Date April 14, 2020 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Authors Christian Barnard; David R. Garcia, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Points to Arizona's Funding Inequities But Fails to Critically Consider Its Own Recommendations An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's critiques are stronger than its proposals for Arizona's school finance system. EAST LANSING, MI (April 14, 2020) - A recent report from the Reason Foundation walks the reader through a calculation of Arizona's complicated school finance formula, pointing out a number of funding inequities. It then sets forth 16 policy recommendations to change the funding system. David R. Garcia, a professor at Arizona State University, reviewed A Roadmap to Fix Arizona School Finance: Steering the Grand Canyon State Toward Fairness and Innovation in K-12 Education . He determined that it lacks the necessary analyses of impact to make its many policy recommendations useful. The report begins by describing how Arizona's lowest-income school districts receive less funding from state and local sources than higher-income school districts. As is the case in many states, Arizona's school districts with lower property wealth have higher tax rates and generate less revenue than higher property wealth school districts. The report then sets forth the 16 far-ranging policy recommendations that its author argues will improve the "transparency, equity, and effectiveness of Arizona's school finance system. . ." Collectively, these recommendations would amount to a fundamental overhaul of Arizona's school finance system. Yet the report is not a credible policy document because it does not provide any assessment of the impact of any of the recommendations. To illustrate, Professor Garcia calculates this impact for two of the policy recommendations, demonstrating how they would decrease Arizona's already meager per-pupil expenditures. Further, the report's policy usefulness is undermined by the lack of coordination among the many policy recommendations, which may entice legislators to pick and choose which recommendations to implement and which to ignore. Professor Garcia concludes that this would lend itself to the exact type of piecemeal approach that created Arizona's inequitable school finance formula in the first place. Find the review, by David R. Garcia, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A Roadmap to Fix Arizona School Finance: Steering the Grand Canyon State Toward Fairness and Innovation in K-12 Education , written by Christian Barnard and published by the Reason Foundation, at: https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/roadmap-to-fix-arizona-school-finance.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 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: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net David R. Garcia: david.garcia@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Choice and Accountability 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 March 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of School Accountability-Past, Present, and Future: Findings and Recommendations for State and District Policymakers Summary A recent report from the Hoover Institution's Education Success Initiative argues that state and federal officials should retain what it calls "results-based" accountability systems that use standardized assessments of students followed by consequences for not meeting performance goals. But it does not provide the evidence needed to support that contention. Publication Date February 9, 2021 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors Chester E. Finn, Jr.; Gail L. Sunderman, Maryland Equity Project Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Poorly Argues for the Expansion of Ineffective School Accountability Systems An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Hoover Institution advocacy report relies on theories of test-based accountability and market-driven reforms rather than research evidence to provide a rationale for its conclusions and recommendations. EAST LANSING, MI (February 9, 2021) -A recent report from the Hoover Institution's Education Success Initiative argues that state and federal officials should retain what it calls "results-based" accountability systems that use standardized assessments of students followed by consequences for not meeting performance goals. But it does not provide the evidence needed to support that contention. Gail L. Sunderman, co-founder of the Maryland Equity Project, reviewed School Accountability-Past, Present, and Future: Findings and Recommendations for State and District Policymakers , authored by Dr. Chester Finn. The report contends that accountability systems can be improved by expanding assessment to more grades, transparently reporting those results, and focusing on intervening in low-performing schools through a combination of intervention-style and market-driven consequences coupled with an inspectorate system to evaluate schools. Dr. Sunderman found the report unconvincing for a number of reasons. She explains that the report ignores a plethora of literature on the deleterious impact of test-based accountability on outcomes that could provide a more nuanced understanding of these systems. It also fails to explain why these systems should be extended to include more testing at more grades. Further, she finds, the report provides no evidence on the efficacy of its preferred reform strategies for low-performing schools, which include combining external interventions with market-driven consequences. Rather than evidence, the report relies on unsupported theories of accountability and market-driven reform to provide a rationale for its conclusions and recommendations. For these reasons, Dr. Sunderman concludes, policymakers, educators, and state education administrators should not rely on this report for guidance as they consider strategies for assisting low-performing schools and districts. Find the review, by Gail L. Sunderman, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find School Accountability—Past, Present, and Future, written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and published by the Hoover Institution, at: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/finn_webready.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 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 Gail L. Sunderman: (410) 435-1207, glsunderman@yahoo.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back No Excuses Charter Schools: A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence Summary The authors of this working paper declared that students attending No Excuses charter schools had significantly improved math and reading scores. No Excuses schools feature high academic standards, strict disciplinary codes, extended instructional time, and targeted supports for low-performing students. The hope is that by having high standards for academics and discipline, No Excuses schools will help close the achievement gap between minority students and their White peers. The authors used findings from 10 studies that utilized experimental methods to estimate achievement outcomes. Publication Date January 20, 2015 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Albert Cheng, Collin Hitt, Brian Kasida, & Jonathan N. Mill; Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release "No Excuses" Meta-Analysis Overstates Findings Working paper offers few insights for decision-making EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 20, 2015) – In December, the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform (DER) published a working paper claiming to be the first meta-analysis of the achievement impacts of "No Excuses" charter schools. The authors declared that students attending No Excuses charter schools had significantly improved math and reading scores. An academic review of the paper finds it offers few insights for policymakers. Jeanne Powers, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State, reviewed No Excuses Charter Schools: A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence 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. Dr. Powers is a sociologist whose research focuses on school segregation, school choice, and school finance litigation. According to the paper, No Excuses schools feature high academic standards, strict disciplinary codes, extended instructional time, and targeted supports for low-performing students. The hope is that by having high standards for academics and discipline, No Excuses schools will help close the achievement gap between minority students and their White peers. The authors used findings from 10 studies that utilized experimental methods to estimate achievement outcomes. Powers, in her review, finds several flaws in the paper: (1) students who apply to charter school lotteries are not representative of all charter school students; (2) the authors did not address student attrition from charter schools; and (3) the results are based on a small sample of schools concentrated in East Coast cities. She says, "As a result, the author's claim that No Excuses schools can close the achievement gap substantially overstates their findings." Furthermore, Powers cautions "the current research base is too limited to make conclusions about the effectiveness of No Excuses charter schools." In her conclusion, Powers finds that the working paper is of limited value to policymakers or anyone seeking to understand the advantages or disadvantages of the No Excuses model. Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find No Excuses Charter Schools: A Meta-Analysis of the Experimental Evidence on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/no-excuses-charter-schools-a-meta-analysis-of-the-experimental-evidence-on-student-achievement/ 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 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. Contact: Jeanne M. Powers, (480) 965-0841, jeanne.powers@asu.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 Review of The Effect of Milwaukee's Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools Summary Camilli's review raises a number of questions about the statistical methods used in the report and concludes that any positive effect of competition is very small, if it exists at all. Publication Date January 1, 1970 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review concludes that positive tests-score effects of voucher competition on Milwaukee public schools are very small at best EAST LANSING, MI (May 18, 2009)—A recent report contends that competition from Milwaukee’s private school voucher program for low-income families has benefited Milwaukee public schools. A Think Twice review of that report raises a number of questions about its statistical methods and concludes that any positive effect of competition is very small, if it exists at all. The report, The Effect of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools , was written for the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Gregory Camilli of Rutgers University, an expert in the use of statistics and measurement in social science research. Camilli points out that the largest competition benefit emphasized in the report was obtained with no controls, but also that these benefits were small from a practical perspective. Moreover, when statistical controls are used, no statistically or practically significant competition benefits were found. Those controls essentially account for whether there is in fact private school competition for a public school student (that is, the effects of grade and year are distinguished from the effect of competition). Despite the questions Camilli raises about the report, he commends it for clearly and thoroughly presenting its findings and for presenting its methods and statistical models clearly. Camilli concludes, “Before the results of this study can effectively inform the decision of whether to expand or reduce the size of the voucher program in Milwaukee, a number of issues need resolution. Most importantly, the use of uncontrolled estimates requires justification.” Find Gregory Camilli’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 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 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 7, 2023 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability 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 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

< Back Review of The Effect of Constitutional Provisions on Education Policy and Outcomes Summary The Effect of Constitutional Provisions on Education Policy and Outcomes, a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, examines the potential effects of amending education clauses contained in states' constitutions. The apparent intent of the Federal Reserve Bank report is to provide an empirical justification for amending the education clause of Minnesota's constitution. Specifically, the report lays out four independent empirical analyses in an attempt to advance a theory of action for improving education quality. This theory of action asserts that amending these education clauses to include strong language regarding a legislative duty to fund schools leads to increased citizen leverage, potential judicial intervention, and adopted legislation-all of which lead to better school quality and student outcomes. Publication Date June 22, 2021 Research Areas School Funding Authors Scott Dallman, Anusha Nath and Filip Premik; Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report from Federal Reserve Bank Comes Up Short An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report contends, with little real evidence, that new constitutional provisions concerning education lead to substantive and sustained improvement to school funding, quality, and student outcomes. EAST LANSING, MI (June 15, 2021) - The Effect of Constitutional Provisions on Education Policy and Outcomes , a recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, examines the potential effects of amending education clauses contained in states' constitutions. Bruce D. Baker of Rutgers University reviewed the report and found its conclusions to be overly simplistic, despite using excessively complex analyses to make its case. The apparent intent of the Federal Reserve Bank report is to provide an empirical justification for amending the education clause of Minnesota's constitution. Specifically, the report lays out four independent empirical analyses in an attempt to advance a theory of action for improving education quality. This theory of action asserts that amending these education clauses to include strong language regarding a legislative duty to fund schools leads to increased citizen leverage, potential judicial intervention, and adopted legislation-all of which lead to better school quality and student outcomes. Unfortunately, the four analyses presented in the report use methods and models that exceed the capacity and quality of the data. In addition, these methods and models are inadequately linked to one another or to the theory of action. Professor Baker concludes that the report provides little evidentiary basis for the proposed theory of action or for the current campaign to amend the Minnesota constitution. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Effect of Constitutional Provisions on Education Policy and Outcomes , written by Scott Dallman, Anusha Nath and Filip Premik and published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, at: https://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/staff-reports/the-effect-of-constitutional-provisions-on-education-policy-and-outcomes 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 Bruce D. Baker: (848) 932-0698, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Why School Report Cards Merit a Failing Grade 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 January 26, 2015 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Kenneth R. Howe and Kevin Murray, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New policy brief shows A-F report cards deserve a failing grade Composite grades fail to provide useful information EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 26, 2015) – No Child Left Behind (NCLB) required all states to develop accountability systems that would lead to all students being proficient in math and reading. Flexibility waivers now allow states to pursue comprehensive plans to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, and improve the quality of teaching. One accountability approach is to assign A-F letter grades to schools. Today, 16 states have adopted accountability systems that assign A-F grades to schools, each with different rewards for schools that succeed, and correctives and punishments for those that fail in multiple consecutive years. A new brief, Why School Report Cards Merit a Failing Grade , examines A-F accountability systems with respect to three kinds of validity: (1) as a measure of school quality; (2) as a policy instrument; and (3) as a democratic assessment framework. The authors find that A-F accountability systems are invalid along each of these lines. The brief is written by Ken Howe, University of Colorado Boulder, along with doctoral candidate Kevin Murray, and is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Howe and Murray identify substantial problems with letter grades as a measure of school quality and find that expressing school quality in a single composite grade is flawed. The authors of the brief endorse three recommendations recommended by other researchers: Eliminating the single grade Developing a report card format that uses multiple school indicators Enlisting the services of assessment and evaluation experts in designing accountability systems They also suggest that indicators of school quality must: Be determined through democratic deliberation Ensure systems promote the formation of democratic character To improve schools, they recommend policymakers avoid or eliminate A-F grading, which only promotes confusion, and replace it with a report card format that uses multiple school indicators that more adequately reflect a school performance profile. "Rather than working to empower parents and community members in a way that promotes school improvement," Howe and Murray find that A-F accountability systems "are more likely to alienate parents from democratic participation in the education of their children." Find the brief, Why School Report Cards Merit a Failing Grade , on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Kenneth R. Howe , University of Colorado Boulder, is professor in Educational Foundations, Policy, and Practice and past president of the Philosophy of Education Society. He specializes in education policy, professional ethics, and philosophy of education. Kevin Murray , University of Colorado Boulder, is a Ph.D. candidate in Educational Foundations, Policy & Practice. 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. Contact: Kenneth R. Howe, (303) 492-7229, ken.howe@colorado.edu Daniel 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 Ten Years in New Orleans: Public School Resurgence and the Path Ahead Summary A report published by Public Impact and New Schools for New Orleans attempted to review 10 years of education reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans, and the creation of a “portfolio model.” The report argued that the reform experiment has been an unquestioned success, and other cities should duplicate efforts. Overall, the report lays out a grand vision for the future of public education in New Orleans, which was described by the authors as “America’s first great urban public school system.” It is organized into six themes: governance, schools, talent, equity, community, and funders. Publication Date October 21, 2015 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Christen Holly, Tim Field, Juli Kim, Bryan C. Hassel, Maggie Runyan-Shefa, Michael Stone, and Davis Zaunbrecher; Adrienne D. Dixson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NOLA report does little to accurately inform, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 21, 2015) – A report published by Public Impact and New Schools for New Orleans attempted to review 10 years of education reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans, and the creation of a "portfolio model." The report argued that the reform experiment has been an unquestioned success, and other cities should duplicate efforts. However, an academic review of the report finds that the report does little to accurately inform policymakers or practitioners about the current state of public education in New Orleans or the viability of "portfolio" districts. Adrienne D. Dixson, associate professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, reviewed Ten Years in New Orleans: Public School Resurgence and the Path Ahead for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Overall, the report lays out a grand vision for the future of public education in New Orleans, which was described by the authors as "America’s first great urban public school system." It is organized into six themes: governance, schools, talent, equity, community, and funders. Dixson, whose research focuses on how issues of race, class, and gender intersect and impact educational equity in urban school contexts, found multiple weaknesses that limit the usefulness of the report. In her review, Dixson highlights that the report exaggerates improvements, while downplaying the ways in which the enacted reforms exacerbated inequities in New Orleans. She also notes that the report erroneously presents the reforms as a result of a logical and apolitical process. In reviewing the validity of the findings, Dixson says, "The report does not present original or empirical research but bases its claims on advocacy publications that have not been peer-reviewed, and newspaper articles that primarily accept the claims made by vested interest reformers." Dixson further finds fault with the data referenced in the report, which has not been made readily available to researchers, community members, or the press, making the claims difficult to verify. In her conclusion, Dixson highlights the omission of research from the report as a serious concern, "The research that the report excludes tells a different and far more troubling story about the reforms in New Orleans." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report on the web: http://www.newschoolsforneworleans.org/education-in-nola/10-years-of-reform/ 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: Adrienne D. Dixson, (217) 244-4741, addixson@illinois.edu Daniel 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 U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective: How Well Does Each State Do at Producing High-Achieving Students Summary This report compares the performance of high-achieving math students domestically and internationally, using data from the 2005 NAEP and PISA. Publication Date January 11, 2011 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Assessment & Accountability Authors Jeremy Kilpatrick, University of Georgia Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds study comparing U.S. math achievement with other countries misleading and deceptive Jeremy Kilpatrick Teri Battaglieri EAST LANSING, MI. (Jan. 11, 2011) –While a recent report asserts that U.S. students are far behind students in most other developed countries in mathematics achievement, a new review of the study finds that it makes deceptive comparisons and exaggerates small differences, rendering the study useless in helping educators improve U.S. students' math performance. U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective: How Well Does Each State Do at Producing High-Achieving Students was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Jeremy Kilpatrick, Regents Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of Georgia. Professor Kilpatrick has extensive background and expertise in national and transnational testing of student mathematics achievement. The review 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. U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective , published by the Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance and by the journal Education Next , compares the performance of high-achieving students domestically and internationally, using data from the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The NAEP is administered domestically, to a sample of 8th grade students throughout the U.S.; PISA is administered internationally, to a sample of 15-year-olds in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and partner countries. The study compared the percentages of U.S. students in the 50 states and 10 urban districts who performed at an advanced level in mathematics on the 2005 NAEP with estimated percentages of students in other countries who would have reached that same level had they taken the NAEP 2005 mathematics assessment. Samples of U.S. students in the graduating class of 2009 had taken NAEP 2005 when they were eighth graders and the PISA 2006 when they were tenth graders, so a statistical procedure could be used to calculate the PISA mathematics score that was presumed equivalent to scoring at an advanced level on NAEP. It was thus possible to estimate what percentage of students in each of the 57 countries in PISA 2006 would have attained that advanced NAEP level. The report indicates that most of those countries had far greater percentages of high achievers than the United States did. In his review, Kilpatrick finds six areas of concern: NAEP is taken by eighth graders, whereas PISA is taken by 15-year-olds in each country, who are typically not all going to be in the same graduating class. The mathematical proficiency of those students who graduated in the class of 2009 was likely rather different from what it had been in 2005 or 2006. To rank districts and states measured on one scale against countries measured on another gives a misleading picture of how they are performing, especially when the scores come from one tail of a distribution (the very highest achievers) and are estimated using statistical linking. Although a statistical linkage had in the past been possible between NAEP and previous international tests that had been administered to equivalent representative samples of students in mathematics at the same time and in the same grades, no similar basis exists to create a linkage between PISA and NAEP. NAEP mathematics is designed to measure the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed by U.S. students in mathematics at different grades, whereas PISA is not intended to be tied to the school mathematics curriculum, calling instead on the ability to use and apply knowledge and skills in real-world situations; the study thus tries to mesh the results of two different tests that measure different domains of mathematics proficiency. Mathematics was a so-called minor domain in PISA 2006, which means that relatively few questions were asked and there was likely substantial variability within countries, raising unresolved reliability and validity concerns. Kilpatrick doesn't argue with the report's claim that relatively few students in the U.S. score at advanced levels in math. "What is misleading is that the percentages of advanced-level students in countries, states, and districts can be put on the same scale so that they can easily be compared," he writes. Moreover, such misleading comparisons aren't necessary, according to Kilpatrick: "At the website of the National Center for Education Statistics, state and urban district policymakers can obtain ample data on how their students at all levels of proficiency have been performing in NAEP mathematics. Those policymakers do not need, and should avoid, this flawed effort to enter their high-performing graduating seniors of 2009 into a mock international horse race in which they did not participate." Find Jeremy Kilpatrick's review and a link to U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-us-math ### 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