< Back Supplemental Education Services under NCLB: Emerging Evidence and Policy Issues Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date April 30, 2017 Authors Patricia Burch, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich., (May 1, 2007) – Supplemental Education Services, a key component of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act, has been adopted and implemented with little evidence to support its effectiveness according to a new policy brief funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The policy brief, “Supplemental Education Services under NCLB: Emerging Evidence and Policy Issues,” is by Patricia Burch, Ph.D of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The brief examines the supplemental education services (SES) provision of NCLB, which requires school districts to pay the cost of after-school tutoring services for eligible students attending schools that have failed to meet mandated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks three years in a row. Those schools must set aside up to 20 percent of their Title I funds to pay for third-party tutoring services provided by state-approved providers. Currently, this field of providers is dominated by private, for-profit companies. The report finds that SES programs have low participation rates and offer limited services for English Language Learners and special education students. It also finds that states and school districts lack the capacity to offer significant monitoring or accountability for SES programs—in stark contrast to the NCLB law’s strict accountability measures applied to the schools themselves. The report emphasizes the overwhelming lack of evidence to support (or refute) the wisdom of the SES policy. The report states, “existing research offers little information about specific conditions that support positive outcomes” from supplemental education services provided under the law. “To make well-informed decisions in the future, policy makers will require additional empirical evidence.” The report recommends policy makers redesign NCLB to commission federally funded studies that assess the effectiveness of SES programs and their accessibility to at-risk students. It also offers concrete recommendations for amending NCLB to assist local school districts and state education agencies in administering SES programs. The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Patricia Burch – (303) 492-8370; pburch@wisc.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 Fiscal Factbook: 2025 Edition Summary As enrollment in school privatization programs grows, right-wing ideological think tanks such as EdChoice have continued to argue that school vouchers and education savings accounts (ESAs) strengthen public school finances. Its Fiscal Factbook purports to find that voucher programs do not harm public school finances. The data presented in the report, however, fail to support its assertion. Publication Date September 3, 2025 Authors Mark Weber, Rutgers University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Misrepresents the Impact of Vouchers and ESAs on Public School Finances An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Relying on weak data and useless analyses, the EdChoice 2025 Fiscal Factbook fails to support its claims about the fiscal impact of vouchers and education savings accounts. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (SEPTEMBER 4, 2025) - In his review of Fis cal Factbook: 2025 Edition, authored by the Fiscal Research and Education Center of EdChoice, Rutgers University lecturer Mark Weber highlights several ways the report falls short of providing credible support for its conclusions. As enrollment in school privatization programs grows, right-wing ideological think tanks such as EdChoice have continued to argue that school vouchers and education savings accounts (ESAs) strengthen public school finances. Its Fiscal Factbook purports to find that voucher programs do not harm public school finances. The data presented in the report, however, fail to support its assertion. Specifically, Weber shows that the report relies on weak data and flawed analyses to support its central arguments: that vouchers and ESAs save taxpayers money; that public schools benefit financially when they lose students to such programs, and; that per-pupil public school funding has increased substantially during the expansion of voucher programs. Weber finds that the report uses an inappropriate inflation adjuster and then calculates meaningless correlations between nationwide spending levels and voucher program expansion. He points out that it is wide variation among states, along with many other factors, that drives education costs. Weber concludes that the report's reliance on meaningless comparisons between voucher program expenditures and public school spending, and its omission of differences in student demographics and academic outcomes, result in meaningless cost analyses. These shortcomings make the EdChoice Fiscal Factbook useless as a basis for sound school funding policymaking. (Note: The report is published by the Fiscal Research and Education Center (FERC) of EdChoice, but it does not list specific authors. The FERC website lists only one staffer: “Martin Lueken, Director of Fiscal Research & Education Center.”) Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Fiscal Factbook: 2025 Edition, published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/2025-fiscal-factbook/ 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 Mark Weber (908) 358-5828 mark.weber@rutgers.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 Economic Cost of the Pandemic: State by State Summary A recent Hoover Institution report by Eric Hanushek presents a calculation of the future learning-related economic burden resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It projects a large and persistent economic loss by using a set of assumptions about the link between reduced student achievement levels and earnings, but in doing so fails to consider several factors. Publication Date March 6, 2023 Authors Eric A. Hanushek; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas School Funding; Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Gives an Insufficient Calculation of the Economic Cost of Pandemic for Education An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's examination of future economic burden arising from students' decreased academic learning is far from comprehensive. EAST LANSING, MI (March 7, 2023) - A recent Hoover Institution report by Eric Hanushek presents a calculation of the future learning-related economic burden resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It projects a large and persistent economic loss by using a set of assumptions about the link between reduced student achievement levels and earnings, but in doing so fails to consider several factors. In a review of The Economic Cost of the Pandemic: State by State , Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York describes how the report falls short of a full accounting of the total loss in children's human capital from the pandemic. The report focuses only on achievement-test shortfalls (what the report calls, "learning losses"), failing to consider the other dimensions of human-and social-capital. It also neglects the toll on families and, most significantly, it fails to consider how school productivity may have been permanently shocked. Almost certainly, Professor Belfield specifies, the educational consequences of the pandemic are understated. Belfield also points out that, while the report contends that schools need to be "made better" to offset the student achievement gap, it never says what this would entail. Schools, it seems, simply need to be reformed in some unspecified way to produce more outcomes with the same amount of money after a highly disruptive shock to inputs and technology. Finally, the report claims that schools "contributed to" the achievement-test shortfalls, but again it offers no evidence or justification for the claim. Unfortunately, without a full reckoning or understanding of the damage and costs-economic and otherwise-that the pandemic imposed on schoolchildren, it is unlikely that suggested policy responses will be adequate, efficient, or equitable. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Economic Cost of the Pandemic: State by State , written by Eric A. Hanushek and published by the Hoover Institution, at: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/Hanushek_EconomicCost_web.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: https://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: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com 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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking - Twenty-first-Century Skills and Implications for Education Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research explores the idea of “21st Century skills.” The brief explains the sometimes-conflicting values and proposals for making schools relevant to meeting the needs of the 21st Century. This short 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 May 13, 2013 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Explores 21st Century Skills How do we promote a more responsive, integrated model to meet twenty-first century learning requirements? EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 14, 2013) –"Teaching twenty-first-century skills" is a catchy slogan, but its meaning is often interpreted in two different ways. Those appealing to international economic competitiveness typically embrace common cognitive-based curriculums and testing. Those looking toward workforce skills place greater emphasis on softer skills such as problem solving, creativity, and working with others. The eighth in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research explores the idea of "21st Century skills." The brief explains the sometimes-conflicting values and proposals for making schools relevant to meeting the needs of the 21st Century. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), prepared the brief, Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Twenty-first-Century Skills and Implications for Education . Previous sections of Research-Based Options have included: teacher evaluations, common core standards, early childhood education, choice funding, dropout strategies, effective school expenditures, and parental involvement for ELL. To summarize the complicated debate over these skills, Dr. Mathis had this to say, "In broad brush strokes, the debate about twenty-first century skills is represented by these two perspectives; soft skills with constructivist learning versus test-based, set-piece, top-down cognate." However, he cautions, "In reality, few would embrace such a stark contrast." Seeking to bridge the gap, Mathis reviews current research over "multiple pathways" or "linked learning," which seeks to blend the two perspectives. Linked learning is an approach that combines academic and technical learning, providing context for real-life situations. Regarding linked learning, Mathis had this to say, "Rather than the traditional one-size-fits-all, classroom-based approach to education, a rich variety of options are open to students, including higher education, workforce internships, career academies, magnet schools, small learning groups and technical careers." Mathis makes several recommendations for policymakers seeking to promote a more integrated model emphasizing "21st Century skills." Here are a few: Accountability systems must allow for the demonstration of student proficiencies through a broad array of assessment methods (beyond test-bases systems tied to a system of test-based sanctions). Work-based learning opportunities must be defined and adopted as legitimate parts of the school curriculum. Cooperation between secondary and higher education must be expanded. Greater flexibility in school schedules, day and year. The recommendations also explain the importance of investing time, energy, and resources needed to expand the skills of teachers who would be teaching in a linked learning setting. Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php Twenty-first-Century Skills 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. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced this brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options 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 End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind Summary This report urges scrapping the No Child Left Behind law and replacing it with a national voucher or tax credit system. Publication Date October 7, 2007 Authors Bruce Fuller, University of California-Berkeley Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORT’S URGE TO SCRAP NCLB AND REPLACE WITH VOUCHERS WEAKENED BY IDEOLOGY Review finds Cato report offers valuable critique of NCLB but refuses to subject market-based reforms to critical analysis EAST LANSING, MI – A recent report from the Cato Institute urges scrapping the No Child Left Behind law and replacing it with a national voucher or tax credit system. A review of this report finds that though it offers a strong analysis of NCLB’s weaknesses, it ignores evidence of the benefits of state-led accountability efforts prior to NCLB and fails to subject market-based solutions to the same scrutiny applied to NCLB. The Cato report, “End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind,” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Bruce Fuller, director of the Policy Analysis for California Education Center. Fuller’s review offers praise for the report’s analysis of how NCLB has failed to deliver on its promise of raising student achievement and has resulted in a number of negative consequences for schools including narrowing curriculum and a lowering of the achievement bar. Fuller criticizes the report, however, for its “highly selective, even misleading” use of research to make some of its points. He points out that the report’s argument for shrinking the government’s role in overseeing education would be greatly weakened had the report’s authors not ignored research finding rising test scores and narrowing achievement gaps during the 1990s – as states implemented accountability systems. He also points out that the report ignores or downplays research raising serious questions about the benefits of market proposals such as school vouchers – Cato’s preferred alternative to NCLB. According to Fuller, even though the Cato report offers a critical analysis of NCLB, “when attention is turned to market proposals, the report offers only the party line.” Find Bruce Fuller’s review and a link to the Cato Institute’s “End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind” report 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: Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940; (email) greatlakescenter@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 Find Documenting Inequitable Patterns in Spending by Parent Teacher Associations, Parent Teacher Organizations, and “Friends of” Fundraising Groups at Illinois Public Schools Summary A recent Urban Institute report analyzing the role of Parent Teacher Organizations and similar groups in Illinois echoes and amplifies the existing critique of private fundraising: that it exacerbates inequitable school funding. Publication Date March 28, 2022 Authors Claire Mackevicius; Maia Cucchiara,Temple University Research Areas School Funding; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Useful But Limited Report Examines Private Fundraising for Wealthier Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Though it offers a helpful approach for estimating spending by private fundraising organizations, report fails to support its key claims. EAST LANSING, MI (March 29, 2022) - A recent Urban Institute report analyzing the role of Parent Teacher Organizations and similar groups in Illinois echoes and amplifies the existing critique of private fundraising: that it exacerbates inequitable school funding. However, some weaknesses prevent it from making a convincing case. Maia Cucchiara, a professor at Temple University, reviewed Documenting Inequitable Patterns in Spending by Parent Teacher Associations, Parent Teacher Organizations, and “Friends of” Fundraising Groups at Illinois Public Schools , and found that problems with its analysis and presentation of the data undercut its conclusions about the impact of this fundraising. The report uses a thoughtful and creative analysis of tax return data for 600 school-specific organizations in Illinois, matched with school-level demographic data. It finds that fundraising organizations are more likely to exist in advantaged schools. It also finds that groups at wealthier and whiter schools spend more per student than groups at other schools. Based on these findings, the report recommends that state and district policymakers track private fundraising and consider strategies for resource sharing and equalization. However, Professor Cucchiara explains that while the report’s claims are consistent with other research, and while its recommendations are sound, its problems with data presentation and analysis prevent the report from illustrating how much these patterns actually exist in Illinois schools. As such, she explains, the report fails to conclusively demonstrate two key claims: that schools serving wealthy student bodies are more likely to have private fundraising groups, and that larger shares of white students are associated with increased private spending. Nonetheless, the report’s approach of calculating per-pupil spending to estimate the magnitude of spending by private fundraising organizations could be useful to scholars and policymakers interested in understanding the potential impact of school-specific fundraising organizations. These groups could also find report’s recommendations helpful, especially those concerning tracking and equalizing funds raised. Find the review, by Maia Cucchiara, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Documenting Inequitable Patterns in Spending by Parent Teacher Associations, Parent Teacher Organizations, and “Friends of” Fundraising Groups at Illinois Public Schools , written by Claire Mackevicius and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/105420/documenting-inequitable-patterns-in-spending-by-parent-teacher-associations-parent-teacher-organizations-and-friends-of-fundraising-groups-at-illinois-public-scho.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Maia Cucchiara: (215) 204-8184, maia.cucchiara@temple.edu 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