< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking—Teacher Evaluation Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes research findings on the effects of teacher evaluation systems, including unintended as well as intended consequences. This two-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date September 19, 2012 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Offers Suggestions for Teacher Evaluation Design EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 20, 2012) –The first in a new series of two-page briefs summarizing important education policies offers suggestions for policymakers designing teacher evaluation systems. The paper, written by Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes research findings on the effects of teacher evaluation systems, including unintended as well as intended consequences. At a time when teacher evaluation controversies in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago and other school districts have erupted—particularly over the issue of evaluations based in part on the growth of students' test scores—understanding the evidence about these issues has taken on new urgency. This paper suggests that lawmakers should be wary of approaches based in large part on test scores, because of three problems: The measurement error is large—which results in many teachers being incorrectly labeled as effective or ineffective; Given that only certain grade levels and subject areas are tested, relevant test scores are not available for most teachers; and The incentives created by the high-stakes use of test scores drive undesirable teaching practices such as curriculum narrowing and teaching to the test. Instead, Mathis advocates systems like peer assistance and review (PAR) that de-emphasize test scores. Such systems are more labor intensive but that have "far greater potential to enrich instruction and improve education." He also advocates balancing summative, high-stakes assessment systems "with formative approaches that identify strengths and weaknesses of teachers and directly focus on developing and improving their teaching." This two-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. Find William Mathis's brief on the GLC website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This report is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options-teacher-evaluations 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 . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan 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 An Evaluation of Teachers Trained Through Different Routes to Certification Summary This report finds that students who were assigned an alternatively certified teacher did no worse on achievement tests than students whose teacher came through the traditional teacher-education route. Moreover, the report concludes that there is no association between greater amounts of teacher training coursework and effectiveness in the classroom. Publication Date March 9, 2009 Authors Sean P. Corocoran, New York University and Jennifer Jennings Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release They Note Methodological Limitations and Caution against Relying on the Report to Inform Teacher Certification Policy EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 10, 2009) – Despite the headlines announcing that a recent Mathematica Policy Research evaluation found alternative teacher certification to be as effective as traditional teacher preparation programs, a closer look by several education researchers shows that such conclusions are not supported by the study’s actual data. Commissioned by the federal Institute of Education Sciences, the Mathematica study reports that teachers from most alternative certification programs have similar impact on student achievement as teachers from traditional certification routes. But the report’s conclusions are based on a selective interpretation of results from a sample of schools and teachers that is dissimilar from the general population of schools in the United States, two new critiques have found. One review of the Mathematica report was prepared by Sean P. Corcoran, assistant professor of educational economics at New York University, and Jennifer L. Jennings, who will join the NYU faculty in the fall. They found significant methodological limitations that call into question the sweeping findings announced by Mathematica. They also found the Mathematica data themselves often suggest the opposite finding: that the alternatively certified teachers who were studied generally produced poorer outcomes than do the traditionally certified teachers in the sample. The full review is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org as part of the Think Twice think tank review project funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Corcoran and Jennings point out that policymakers and other readers of the Mathematica report tend to look for simple answers to simple questions such as “Is alternative teacher certification a bad thing or a good thing, and if alternative certification does no harm, is traditional teacher certification even necessary?” “Notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary in the report’s press release or executive summary, this report is unable to provide a satisfactory or general answer to either of those questions,” they conclude. Specifically, the review found the Mathematica study: Did not fully report and acknowledge in its conclusions the many analyses from the study finding that traditionally trained teachers outperformed alternative route teachers in both math and reading. Has a research design that favors finding few significant differences between groups, most notably its small sample size, sampling methods, and failure to distinguish the “treatments” that alternative certification and traditional certification teachers provided (meaning that members of the two compared groups had substantially overlapping preparation experiences). Is relevant only to a very limited population of teachers in schools that hire many alternatively certified teachers, and is not generalizable to most states, districts, and schools that do not allow such programs and are more selective in their hiring. The review found that the study sample includes teachers with an average of three years experience and is heavily weighted towards grades K-2, which comprise 71 percent of the study’s teachers. The average school in the study is a high-poverty, high-minority urban school, and the traditionally certified teachers who are the comparison group in the study are only those employed by these disadvantaged schools. As a result, alternatively certified teachers are compared only with teachers that prior research has demonstrated are, on average, less qualified than other traditionally certified teachers. “Unfortunately, none of the results found in this study can be used to meaningfully inform the policy debate over alternative certification because they cannot be generalized to the larger population of schools and teachers,” Corcoran said. The review also took issue with Mathematica’s selected emphasis of results, highlighting those results suggesting no difference between alternatively and conventionally certified teachers while minimizing results showing alternatively certified teachers doing significantly less well than other teachers in many categories. For example, alternatively certified teachers still taking coursework were significantly less effective in teaching reading and mathematics than their traditionally certified counterparts; and alternatively certified teachers from California were significantly less effective in teaching mathematics than traditionally prepared teachers. “We want to be careful here not to overstate the findings—because in reality the findings are minimal,” wrote Corcoran and Jennings. “This is for good reason: if one set out to design a study that would find no statistically significant differences between the achievement of students taught by traditionally and alternatively certified teachers, this is precisely the study one would have designed.” Aaron Pallas, professor of education and sociology at Teachers College, Columbia University, concurred with the findings, noting that “The design of this study successfully precludes it from addressing the most salient policy questions about alternative teacher certification – but we get a pretty clean estimate of the relative effectiveness of pairs of traditional-route and alternate-route teachers that are not representative of any population of teacher education programs, teachers, or schools.” These concerns are also reinforced by a second review of the Mathematica research, conducted by Linda Darling-Hammond, the Charles Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, as part of a policy brief on teacher preparation programs generally. In her analysis, Darling-Hammond pointed to a number of similar methodological flaws in the Mathematica study. She also noted that, when students’ fall-to-spring scores are examined, Mathematica’s data show that alternatively certified teachers from “low-coursework” programs – most of them from Texas schools – actually lowered student achievement noticeably – hardly a standard to which other schools should aspire. Students of “high-coursework” alternatively certified teachers did only slightly better. In all cases, the students of traditionally certified teachers gained more or declined less than the alternatively certified teachers, but none of these already low-achieving students did well enough to begin to close the achievement gap. Characterizing the outcomes of these programs as a “race to the bottom,” Darling-Hammond also reviewed the results of studies showing substantial gains for students of teachers with stronger qualifications and much higher-quality training. “If we truly want our children to engage in a race to the top, we must create substantially higher levels of teacher effectiveness, particularly in those classrooms that have been left the furthest behind,” Darling-Hammond said. “The poor overall outcomes reported by Mathematica for these overwhelmingly disadvantaged schools show that these children are being abandoned by a system that has not invested in the quality of teachers needed to substantially improve their learning. This race to the bottom cannot be halted through alternative certification programs that simply seek to ‘do no more harm’ – or at least not much more harm – than other relatively poor training. Our students deserve far better than that. We need to invest in replicating the high-quality programs that achieve better results.” Darling-Hammond’s review, “Educational Opportunity and Alternative Certification: New Evidence and New Questions,” can be found on the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) website, http://edpolicy.stanford.edu/ . 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 Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report on Implementation and Impact of Pay-for-Performance Across Four Years Summary The final report from a four-year evaluation of 2010 Teacher Incentive Fund grant recipients was released late in 2017. The evaluation project sought to determine whether pay-for-performance (PFP) bonuses for teachers and principals resulted in improved student achievement. The final report found that test scores in reading and math increased slightly among the 2010 TIF recipients. It also found that the incentives were associated with higher classroom observation ratings, but the report found no association between test scores and observation ratings. Findings also indicated that the incentives had no effect on filling teacher vacancies. Publication Date February 26, 2018 Authors Hanley Chiang, Cecilia Speroni, Mariesa Herrmann, Kristin Hallgren, Paul Burkander, and Alison Wellington; Francesca López, University of Arizona Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Promising pay-for-performance evaluation suffers problematic issues in analyses, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 27, 2018) — The final report from a four-year evaluation of 2010 Teacher Incentive Fund grant recipients was released late in 2017. The evaluation project sought to determine whether pay-for-performance (PFP) bonuses for teachers and principals resulted in improved student achievement. An academic review of the report released today finds that the report lacks utility for those seeking to learn from the implementation of PFP. Francesca López , an associate professor of educational policy studies at the University of Arizona, reviewed the report, Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report on Implementation and Impact of Pay-for-Performance Across Four Years , 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 . Commissioned by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and produced by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), the report was part of a seven-year $13.9 million study. The study was required as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The final report found that test scores in reading and math increased slightly among the 2010 TIF recipients. It also found that the incentives were associated with higher classroom observation ratings, but the report found no association between test scores and observation ratings. Findings also indicated that the incentives had no effect on filling teacher vacancies. Despite the potentially interesting findings on the varied impact of the TIF program recipients, López in her review found several problematic issues with the analyses in the report. Because the report used non-comparable sites and incorporated a "polyglot of outcome measures of questionable validity," she finds the report is of little use to policymakers seeking to learn from implementation of TIF. López writes, "Although several thorough analyses are presented, the data do not support the report's suggestion that PFP holds promise to address achievement disparities." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original MPR evaluation here: https://tinyurl.com/y83mue46 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: Francesca López, (520) 621-0306, falopez@email.arizona.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 Charter Management Organizations 2017 Summary A report from the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) looked at the impact of charter school operating organizations. The report found that students in charter schools demonstrated slightly greater gains in performance than peers in traditional public schools, especially in charter schools operated by certain types of management organizations. The report contributes to an expansive body of existing research on charter schools by expanding on its prior work by exploring differences in charter school performance based on management organization type. Publication Date September 6, 2017 Authors James Woodworth, Margaret Raymond, Chunping Han, Yohannes Negassi, W. Payton Richardson, and Will Snow; Gary Miron and Christopher Shank, Western Michigan University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An academic review raises concerns about the practical utility of CREDO findings EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 7, 2017) — A recent report from the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) looked at the impact of charter school operating organizations. The report found that students in charter schools demonstrated slightly greater gains in performance than peers in traditional public schools, especially in charter schools operated by certain types of management organizations. An academic review out today highlights a number of concerns that have gone unaddressed. Gary Miron and Christopher Shank, Western Michigan University, reviewed the report, Charter Management Organizations 2017 , 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 . According to the reviewers, the CREDO report contributes to an expansive body of existing research on charter schools by expanding on its prior work by exploring differences in charter school performance based on management organization type. Despite this, the report fails to build on prior research in creating its charter school classification system. Miron and Shank note that the report uses confusing and illogical distinctions between organization types, which are arbitrary and unsupported by research. Additionally, the review calls into question other methodological decisions that threaten the validity of the study. The reviewers identified several overarching problems that have been identified, including: (1) the report dramatically overstates its findings; (2) CREDO fails to address or acknowledge the report's methodological limitations; and (3) the report does not take into account other research beyond CREDO's own work. As a result, Miron and Shank conclude that readers should use extreme caution when interpreting the results. They say, "The general findings from this study do not have relevance to policymakers." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the CREDO report at: https://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CMO FINAL.pdf 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: Gary Miron , (269) 599-7965, gary.miron@wmich.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 Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools Summary The report claims Texas had formerly been a leader in creating high-performing charter schools. It further claims that Texas’ past low barriers for entry into the market (i.e., ease of having an application approved by an authorizer) was a contributing factor to this success. Publication Date September 10, 2018 Authors Adam Jones and Amanda List; Edward J. Fuller Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (September 11, 2018) — A recent report from Excel in Ed and Texas Public Policy Foundation examines the charter-school authorizing process in Texas and contends that a 2013 legislative policy change made the authorization process too restrictive, thus reducing the number of applicants and stifling innovation. Professor Edward J. Fuller of Penn State University reviewed T ime to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools and found that its findings and conclusions are not supported by research or other compelling evidence and thus do not provide useful guidance for policymakers. The report is part of Think Twice Review, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Fuller's key finding is that although the report is billed as a case study, it fails to supply solid evidence. The report's lack of research and analysis results in an unsupported advocacy paper instead. After surveying current and past Texas authorizing policies, the report claims Texas had formerly been a leader in creating high-performing charter schools. It further claims that Texas' past low barriers for entry into the market (i.e., ease of having an application approved by an authorizer) was a contributing factor to this success. The report then provides recommendations for creating an easier authorization process. While the report contends it is a case study, Professor Fuller notes that it does not employ case study methodology. Moreover, the report fails to review or cite relevant research; it instead relies on unsubstantiated claims, anecdotes, misleading statements, and even demonstrably false statements to promote the development of more charter schools in Texas. In short, Fuller concludes, this report is an advocacy paper masquerading as a case study. Policymakers would be well advised to skip the report and look for evidence-based reviews of the Texas charter authorizing process. Find the Think Twice Review by Fuller on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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. Find Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools , written by Adam Jones and Amanda List and published by Excel in Ed and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, at https://www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ExcelinEd.TexasCharterSchoolPaper.TimeToChangeCourse.June2018.pdf You can also find the review by Edward Fuller on the NEPC website: https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-texas-charters 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

Browse Publications By Topic Assessment & Accountability Curriculum & Instruction Education Policy Equity & Civil Rights Community Engagement School Choice & Charter Schools School Climate School Funding School Leadership Early Childhood Teacher Workforce Technology & AI

< Back School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs Summary This report concludes that school choice programs which subsidize private school attendance with public funds have saved taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars cumulatively over a 15 year period. Publication Date May 23, 2007 Authors Bruce Baker, University of Kansas Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. – A recently released report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation claims that school choice programs which subsidize private school attendance with public funds have, cumulatively over 15 years, “saved” taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars. But a new review of that report concludes the claims of savings are misleading, oversimplified and, even if accurate, insignificant – less than 1/100 th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year. Further, the Friedman report does not address the issue of school quality, which is a large part of determining true cost savings. The report, “School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006,” was written by Susan Aud. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas. In her report, Aud studied twelve programs that offer public subsidies for students who attend private schools in ten states and the District of Colombia. She compared the per pupil cost of public financing (state and local) for a student attending a public school to the public financing of a student using a voucher to attend a private school. Based on this, she found a cumulative savings of $444 million over a 15-year period nationwide. In his review, Baker points out that expenditures and costs are not the same thing and that the report confuses “cost savings” with “government expenditure reduction.” “Typically,” he explains, “cost savings are defined in terms of achieving similar or better quality of outcome or output with lower investment. Cost necessarily assumes a level of product quality. Further, when one accounts for the cost of producing a product of specific quality, one must account for all resources that went into production, not just the small portion that was government subsidized.” The bottom line, Baker concludes, is that even if state and local governments were, in fact, able to reduce instructional expenses by $444 million over 15 years, this is a miniscule figure. The small number is in part because publicly financed vouchers are only used by 100,000 students which represents 0.2 percent of 2005 U.S. public school enrollment. Using 2004-05 public education spending amounts, Baker calculates the purported savings to be the equivalent of less than 1/100 th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year. Aud’s evidence, Baker concludes, “does not make a sufficient case to informed policymakers for the positive fiscal impact of vouchers and tuition tax credits. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite – that fiscal gains are trivial at best.” Find the complete review by Bruce Baker as well as a link to the report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About Think Twice 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: Bruce Baker (785) 864-9844 (email) bbaker@ku.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 Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems Summary EdTrust recently published a report using what it calls an "equity analysis" to critique states' accountability plans, recommending several steps states might take to improve their systems. But a new review explains how that report rehashes old arguments for the original No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Publication Date November 19, 2024 Authors Nicholas Munyan-Penney, Abigail Jones, and Shayna Levitan; Derek Gottlieb, University of Northern Colorado Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's Proposals for Reforming ESSA Reveals How Little Has Been Learned from the Recent Past An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: EdTrust report fails to support its recommendations for ensuring increased equity in state accountability plans. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 19, 2024) - EdTrust recently published a report using what it calls an "equity analysis" to critique states' accountability plans, recommending several steps states might take to improve their systems. But a new review explains how that report rehashes old arguments for the original No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In his review of Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems , Derek Gottlieb of the University of Northern Colorado details the shortcomings of the report's vision for how high-quality accountability structures would look and perform. The report, Prof. Gottlieb explains, calls for publicizing information that we have seen-through NCLB and related laws and policies-to be incomplete or gamed. The report also points to the potential for targeting resources that have proven to be chronically inadequate. Such tactics never achieved systemic equity or excellence when packaged as NCLB, yet this report, which relies heavily on indicators and tools that EdTrust has developed or compiled itself, does not see the historical record of failure as a reason to abandon the approach. To get on board with the report's analysis and recommendations, one would have to valorize its vacuous (and largely undefined) notion of "equity", gloss over the many failures and perverse outcomes of federal educational oversight across the decades, and ultimately place an implausible amount of faith in the power of rules alone-unsupported by additional resources-to transform the educational destinies of the nation's most vulnerable children. In critiquing state ESSA plans, Professor Gottlieb concludes, the report offers nothing more original than the very same strategy that gave rise to ESSA in the first place. Find the review, by Derek Gottlieb at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems , written by Nicholas Munyan-Penney, Abigail Jones, and Shayna Levitan and published by EdTrust, at: https://edtrust.org/rti/reassessing-essa-implementation-an-equity-analysis/ 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 Derek Gottlieb (503) 568-2004 derek.gottlieb@unco.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 K-12 School Choice Calculator Summary A new calculator from two voucher-advocacy organizations is offered as a tool to assist state policymakers and choice advocates in providing more accurate estimates of the expenses of adopting publicly financed private-school choice (i.e., voucher) programs. But several factors suggest it should be used with caution and caveats. Publication Date March 18, 2024 Authors Bruce Baker, University of Miami Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Flawed School Choice Calculator Has Limited Utility, if Used Judiciously An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: A tool offered as a way to estimate the cost of adopting voucher programs is a step forward but still needs work. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (March 19, 2024) - A new calculator from two voucher-advocacy organizations is offered as a tool to assist state policymakers and choice advocates in providing more accurate estimates of the expenses of adopting publicly financed private-school choice (i.e., voucher) programs. But several factors suggest it should be used with caution and caveats. Bruce Baker, professor and chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami, describes these factors in his review of the K-12 School Choice Calculator , which is provided online by the Reason Foundation and EdChoice's Fiscal Research and Education Center. Baker explains that there is one overarching problem that state policymakers have long faced in trying to make sense of competing claims about the fiscal bottom line for vouchers: How are they to estimate which percentage of voucher users will be students leaving public versus staying in private schools? The new calculator does not, and cannot, answer that question. However, using the calculator can reveal to policymakers the high additional state expenditures triggered when-as recent evidence shows to be the case, particularly with expanded or “universal” voucher programs-disproportionate numbers of students already enrolled in private schools accept proffered public subsidies through voucher, education savings account, or tuition tax credit programs. Baker's review finds that many of the assumptions included with the new calculator are reasonable, but it also has faults that should be addressed. The calculator overstates the spending reductions that result when a current public-school student switches to a private school-first, by overestimating student-level variable spending and second, by assuming that local revenues as well as state aid would be reduced. It also ignores overhead expenses of operating such a program. The calculator, then, will provide skewed results even if the user's assumptions prove accurate about the percentages of voucher users who are leaving public versus those staying in private schools. Even those skewed results, however, can be more useful than mere guesswork. Dr. Baker therefore acknowledges the potential for the calculator to assist policymakers in refining their projections of program expenditures if used judiciously, bringing their estimates closer to the unfolding reality. Find the review, by Bruce Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find K-12 School Choice Calculator , published by the Reason Foundation and EdChoice, at https://www.schoolchoicecalculator.com/ . 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 Bruce Baker: (848) 932-0698, bdb119@miami.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 Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. Summary A recent Bellwether report explores how much public financing charter schools receive and whether they are funded fairly compared to traditional public schools, specifically in the District of Columbia. After finding disparities, it offers a series of recommendations to reduce those disparities, but upon review these findings and recommendations are not well-supported. Publication Date January 20, 2025 Authors Krista Kaput, Titilayo Tinubu Ali, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Clive Belfield; Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Does Not Provide Useful Comparisons of Funding Between Charters and District Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Bellwether report fails to offer a rigorous or methodical investigation of funding allocations and disparities. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 21, 2025) - A recent Bellwether report explores how much public financing charter schools receive and whether they are funded fairly compared to traditional public schools, specifically in the District of Columbia. After finding disparities, it offers a series of recommendations to reduce those disparities, but upon review these findings and recommendations are not well-supported. In his review of Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. , Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York determines that the report's oversimplistic analyses account for the unfounded conclusions. Using tabulations of funding across charter and public schools to describe funding disparities in DC from 2022 to 2025, the report finds that the district's public schools are more generously funded-that they have access to additional funding streams, received extra pandemic funding, have more capital funding, and pay teachers much higher salaries. Although these tabulations themselves appear to be accurate, there is no proof that charter schools are underfunded in relation to their services and needs-or that they should, in fact, be funded at the same dollar amounts as public schools. Schools in these two sectors are responsible for providing different services and serving different students, and they often receive resources from different sources. In sum, the report does not apply a valid method of comparison and thus provides no way to determine if DC charter schools are funded at the "right level" or what that level should be. As a result, Professor Belfield concludes, it is of limited use to policymakers-except perhaps within the district as an introductory or preliminary study. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. , written by Krista Kaput, Titilayo Tinubu Ali, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/publications/resource-realities/ 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 Clive Belfield (718) 997-5440 clive.belfield@qc.cuny.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Educational Innovation and Diversification in School Choice Plans 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 February 29, 2008 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review 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 The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? Summary A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called “neovouchers.” The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Publication Date August 23, 2017 Authors Martin F. Lueken; Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release More balanced and empirically robust assessments needed to estimate costs and benefits of subsidizing private school choice programs, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 24, 2017) — A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. The report analyzed savings from tax-credit scholarship programs. However, an academic review of the report questions the calculation method and claims made regarding the estimated financial savings for state governments. The report, The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? , was reviewed by Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called "neovouchers." The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Huerta and Koutsavlis in their review note that because states do not collect or publish data on scholarship recipients, no formal accounting exists. As a result, they recommend that policymakers "develop statutory language that will allow researchers to develop better and more accurate answers to thorny policy questions." They add that the findings of the report are too speculative to provide useful guidance for policymakers. In their conclusion, they write: "When weighing the implementation of TCSPs, policymakers must look beyond measures of cost efficiency and seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments that would allow them to make informed decisions about how to proceed with effective and equitable school reform polices." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the EdChoice report at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/tax-credit-scholarship-audit/ 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: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 678-4199, lah2013@tc.columbia.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