< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking—Public Funding of School Choice Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research and describes important issues and questions policymakers should consider in determining public funding of alternatives to conventional public schools. This three-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 December 13, 2012 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Calls for Increased Scrutiny in Funding 'Choice' Schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 13, 2012) – The fourth in a new series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research describes important issues and questions that policymakers should consider in determining public funding of alternatives to conventional public schools. 'Choice' schools include charter schools, conventional vouchers, neovouchers, magnet schools, open enrollment, and across-district school choice. In regards to the funding of 'choice' schools, Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, suggests, "Issues such as democratic governance, accountability of public funds, quality control and church/state concerns must be carefully deliberated." In Public Funding of School Choice , Mathis further explains, "When lawmakers do decide to allocate public funding to choice schools, as they have increasingly done over the past couple of decades, they must then engage in a new level of scrutiny regarding the structure, level and conditions of these subsidies." Mathis notes that the specific costs as well as the specific needs of students will vary from school to school, meaning the funding requirements can correspondingly vary widely. Similarly, wide variations among states in funding levels, funding sources, regulatory scrutiny, and the details of choice mechanisms complicate the decisions policymakers face. Mathis also explains that recipients of public funding should be open to rigorous scrutiny that emphasizes equity, transparency, and the assurance that the funding is reaching the intended students. Public Funding of School Choice 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. This brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publications/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 How Sound an Investment? Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals Summary This report considers current proposals for federal involvement in prekindergarten (pre-K). It concludes that federally funded preschool program for all children would be unnecessarily expensive, provide little benefit to most children, decrease options for parents and could likely impair the social development of many children. Publication Date March 24, 2008 Research Areas Early Childhood Authors W. Steven Barnett, Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report’s Attack on Federal Preschool Proposals is Misleading and Inaccurate Review finds bias, selective use of evidence in Lexington report EAST LANSING, Mich., (March 24, 2008)—A report from the Lexington Institute that critiques federal pre-Kindergarten proposals is incomplete, misleading, biased and inaccurate, a new review of the report finds. The report, “How Sound an Investment? An Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals,” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by W. Steven Barnett, the director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University. Expanding pre-Kindergarten (or pre-K) has become the subject of a growing national movement as evidence emerges about the importance of early childhood education in setting the stage for later school achievement. A number of federal bills have been proposed to support and fund pre-K education. The new Lexington report contends that federally funded preschool for all children would cost too much while providing little benefit to children. The report makes particular note of research on “negative” effects of preschool on children’s behavior and complains that a government-run program would drive private child care providers out of business. The report instead proposes either tax credits for private child care or vouchers that low-income families could use to purchase private early childhood care and education. Barnett, however, finds the report to be severely flawed. “Rather than capitalizing on an opportunity to clarify an area of policy that is ripe for change, the report manages to muddy the waters and to obstruct reasoned discussion of approaches for improving opportunities for many of the nation’s children,” he writes. Among other problems identified in his review, Barnett finds that the report misuses studies to make it claims and omits research which is at odds with the views of the report’s authors. “The report presents inaccurate information about current public pre-K programs and the research into their effects. Although the report provides some useful cautions to policymakers, it exaggerates their importance in comparison to the potential benefits of pre-K,” Barnett concludes. The result is a report that “oversimplifies the debate,” ignores relevant research and falls short of thoughtful policy discussion. Find the complete review by W. Steven Barnett as well as a link to the Lexington Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: W. Steven Barnett, (732) 932-4350; wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back How New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievement Summary This report estimates the effects on student achievement of attending a New York City charter school rather than a traditional public school. A key finding compares the cumulative effect of attending a New York City charter school for 9 years to the magnitude of average test score differences between students in Harlem and the wealthy New York community of Scarsdale. Publication Date November 12, 2009 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Sean Reardon, Stanford University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Reviewer finds serious statistical flaws, bias in research on NYC charter schools EAST LANSING, Mi., (November 12, 2009) – A recent report on New York City charter schools which found achievement results at the charters to be better than traditional public schools relies on a flawed statistical analysis, according to a new review. The report, How New York City Charter Schools Affect Achievement , was written by Caroline Hoxby, Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang. When it was released, it was enthusiastically and uncritically embraced by charter advocates as well as a number of major media outlets across the country as being the definitive word on charter school effectiveness. Because of the proclaimed importance of the new report, Sean Reardon, an expert on research methodology, was asked to review the report's strengths and weaknesses for the Think Twice think tank review project. Reardon, like the report's lead author Hoxby, is a professor at Stanford University. The Hoxby report estimates the effects on student achievement of attending a New York City charter school rather than a traditional public school. A key finding, repeated in press reports throughout the U.S., compares the cumulative effect of attending a New York City charter school for nine years (from kindergarten through eighth grade) to the magnitude of average test score differences between students in Harlem and the wealthy New York community of Scarsdale. The report estimates this cumulative effect at roughly 66% of the "Scarsdale-Harlem gap" in English and roughly 86% of the gap in math. In his review , Reardon observes that the report "has the potential to add usefully to the growing body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of charter schools." New York charter schools' use of randomized lotteries to admit students to charter schools offers the possibility that the study of those schools can roughly approximate laboratory conditions. But Reardon points out that the report's key findings are grounded in an unsound analysis--an inappropriate set of statistical models--and that the report's authors never provide crucial information that would allow readers to more thoroughly evaluate "its methods, results, or generalizability." Reardon's review notes these shortcomings in the report: In measuring the effects of charter schooling on students in grades 4 through 12, the study relies on statistical models that include test scores from the previous year, measured after the admission lotteries take place. Yet because of that timing, those scores could be affected by whether students attend a charter school. As a consequence, the statistical models "destroy the benefits of the randomization" that is a strength of the study's design. (The use of a different model makes the results for students in grades K-3 more credible, he notes.) The report's claims regarding the cumulative effects of attending a New York City charter school from kindergarten through eighth grade are based on an inappropriate extrapolation. It uses a weaker criterion for statistical significance than is conventionally used in social science research (0.05), referring to p-values of roughly 0.15 as "marginally statistically significant." The report describes the variation in charter school effects across schools in a way that may distort the true distribution of effects by omitting many ineffective charter schools from the distribution. Reardon explains that, as a result of the flaws in the report's statistical analysis, the report "likely overstates the effects of New York City charter schools on students' cumulative achievement, though it is not possible -- given the information missing from the report -- to precisely quantify the extent of overestimation" This, as well as the lack of detailed information in the report to assess the extent of that bias, make it impossible for readers to know whether the report's estimated charter school effects are in fact valid. "Policymakers, educators, and parents should therefore not rely on these estimates until the bias issues have been fully investigated and the analysis has undergone rigorous peer review." Find Sean Reardon's review as well as a link to the NYC report by Hoxby and her colleagues 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: Sean Reardon, (650) 736-8517 (office); (617) 251-4782 (cell); sean.reardon@stanford.edu Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 1) Are Private High Schools Better Academically than Public High Schools? 2) Monopoly Versus Markets: The Empirical Evidence on Private Schools and School Choice Summary These two reports come to different conclusions about whether private schools are better than public ones at educating students. The CEP report found no advantage for either public or private schools using the National Education Longitudinal Study database. The Friedman report used the Educational Longitudinal Study database and presents evidence that private schools produce more benefit. Publication Date December 12, 2007 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Jaekyung Lee, State University of New York at Buffalo Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release PUBLIC AND PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOLS DO ABOUT THE SAME ACCORDING TO REVIEW OF TWO NEW REPORTS EAST LANSING , Mich.– Two new reports appear to come to different conclusions about whether private schools are better than public ones at educating students. But a new review of both reports finds little actual difference between their findings—and little difference between public and private schools. One of the two reports reviewed was released by The Center on Education Policy (CEP) and is entitled, “Are Private High Schools Better Academically than Public High Schools?” The other was released by the Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation (Friedman) and is entitled, “Monopoly Versus Markets: The Empirical Evidence on Private Schools and School Choice.” The two reports are similar in that they each use an existing national database and compare public and private schools in terms of students’ learning outcomes as measured by standardized tests. The two reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Jaekyung Lee, associate professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo. Using the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) database, the CEP report found no advantage for either public or private schools. The study examined schools serving disadvantaged students in urban settings. Using the Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS) database, the Friedman report presents evidence that private schooling produces a benefit that Lee describes as “very small in absolute terms and its practical significance is questionable.” The Friedman report presents its findings in a way that makes this benefit appear more significant by applying the same gains found in the last two years of high school to all 12 years of schooling. Lee points out that without additional research, “these assumptions cannot be reasonably made.” Lee notes that the specific findings of the two studies do not, as a practical matter, greatly differ. Setting aside some concerns he raised regarding each study, Lee explains the small practical significance of the benefits presented in the Friedman analysis. He further explains that even though the CEP analysis shows no overall private school benefits, it does show some that two types of private schools show some positive outcomes: non-religious private high school students obtained higher SAT scores than public school students, and Catholic schools run by holy orders such as the Jesuits had nominal positive academic effects. Lee also presents his own, independent cross-examination of the two data sources and shows that the public-private high school gaps in math achievement gain scores were almost null (in the NELS) or too small to be practically significant (in the ELS). He concludes that much of the apparent differences between the reports can be accounted for by their use of different datasets, time periods, and target populations, among other things. In the end, Lee says, while both reports may prompt discussion over the nature of school success and the values underlying school choice, both seem unlikely to adequately guide educational policymakers, practitioners or parents due to their inability to fully account for observed gaps (or the lack thereof) between public and private schools. The most that can be concluded from the two reports taken together is that “students generally learn in public high schools about as well as in private high schools, but … there are still many unanswered questions about potential differences in the finer details.” Find the complete review by Jaekyung Lee as well as links to the CEP and Friedman reports at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict Summary A recent Fordham Institute report surveys more than 5,000 school board members across over 3,000 districts, finding they are disproportionately White, college educated, and often current or former teachers, with politics and beliefs that largely mirror both the U.S. public and their local communities. Publication Date March 26, 2026 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Authors David M. Houston and Michael T. Hartney; Carrie Sampson, Arizona State University; Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MARCH 26, 2026 New Report Surveying School Board Members Offers Nuanced Snapshot but Falls Short on Guidance An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's findings highlight demographic imbalances and modest opinion gaps, while its Foreword draws partisan and unsupported conclusions. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 26, 2026) - A recent Fordham Institute report surveys more than 5,000 school board members across over 3,000 districts, finding they are disproportionately White, college educated, and often current or former teachers, with politics and beliefs that largely mirror both the U.S. public and their local communities. In their review of Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict , Arizona State University professors Carrie Sampson and Jeanne M. Powers find the report offers a useful snapshot of board composition, political orientation, and perceptions. A key strength of the report is its use of nationally representative and enrollment-based weighting, yielding a relatively nuanced picture. These data show modest differences between board members and the public on perceptions of school quality, school choice, and teachers' unions. The report flags these gaps, along with the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic Americans, as concerns. Yet the report offers no guidance for addressing them. It also suffers from some leading and ambiguous question wording, raising concerns on findings about charter schools and school quality. The reviewers caution that the main body of the report is accompanied by an especially problematic Foreword, which misrepresents the study and advances unsubstantiated claims using partisan language, overstating some findings, and ignoring others. For instance, the Foreword frames board members' relatively lower support for charter schools under a heading asking whether boards are "the most anti-charter groups in the country." Overall, Sampson and Powers conclude the results are informative but offer little for policymakers, in large part because the report lacks clear recommendations. Find the review, written by Carrie Sampson and Jeanne M. Powers, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict , written by David M. Houston and Michael T. Hartney and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/whos-board-school-boards-and-political-representation-age-conflict NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Carrie Sampson Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the Nation Summary The Bush presentation claims that six "reforms" caused gains in fourth-grade reading scores in Florida. Publication Date June 30, 2011 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Jeb Bush's education foundation makes unsupported claims, ignores facts to push agenda Foundation for Excellence in Education's presentation makes numerous unsupported and unsupportable claims EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 30, 2011) — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's so-called education reforms that he's pushing through presentations to state lawmakers rest on unsupported claims and hand-picked evidence, according to a new academic review released today. Bush's presentation, "Florida's Formula for Student Achievement," was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by William J. Mathis, managing director of Colorado-Boulder's National Education Policy Center (NEPC). The review was produced by the NEPC with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Released under the banner of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, the Bush presentation claims that six "reforms" — assigning simplistic letter grades to schools; high-stakes testing; imposing new graduation requirements; bonus pay for teachers; alternative teacher credentialing; and schools of choice —caused gains in fourth-grade reading scores in Florida. Instead of a comprehensive and objective consideration of the impact of Florida's policies, Bush's presentation "is clearly an advocacy tool designed for advancing a particular set of reform proposals," Mathis wrote in his review. This has resulted in a misleading presentation, with Bush promoting several policies that reputable research has shown to be ineffective or even harmful. "Fundamentally, Mr. Bush's presentation is based on the fallacious causal claim that his selected set of loosely coupled reforms introduced in Florida between 1992 and 2011 caused fourth-grade reading score gains," Mathis wrote in his review. "No evidence is provided to sustain this linkage. Further, this claim ignores the fact that some of the favored reforms were implemented as late as 2010, and some are not yet implemented." Moreover, Bush's presentation resembles and shares graphics with a report by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank whose report has been repackaged for various states. The Heritage report's lead author is now on Bush's staff. Policymakers should ignore Bush's salesmanship and look instead to solid, objective research evidence, Mathis said. Find Mathis' review and a link to Bush's presentation at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Bush's Michigan presentation is available from the review's author. A similar PowerPoint presentation from Mr. Bush is available on the web at: http://www.excelined.org/docs/Oklahoma%20Education%20Presentation.pdf 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 publications. The project is made possible in part by the 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-florida-formula --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William Mathis: (802) 383-0058, William.Mathis@colorado.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, TBattaglieri@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 'So Hard, but So Rewarding:' How School System Leaders are Scaling up Strategic School Staffing Models Summary Following the pandemic, pervasive challenges have plagued the teaching profession, including teacher shortages, burnout, job dissatisfaction, and attrition. A new report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education proposes what it calls "strategic school staffing models" as a solution, though its evidence for this conclusion is lacking. Publication Date July 11, 2024 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Authors Lisa Chu, Lydia Rainey, & Steven Weiner; Elizabeth Stringer Keefe, Stonehill College Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release "Strategic Staffing" Models Remain Unproven An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Recent report's central claim is that so-called strategic staffing models are a reliable way to address teacher workforce shortages and other challenges, but it provides little to no research evidence to support this claim. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JULY 11, 2024) - Following the pandemic, pervasive challenges have plagued the teaching profession, including teacher shortages, burnout, job dissatisfaction, and attrition. A new report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education proposes what it calls "strategic school staffing models" as a solution, though its evidence for this conclusion is lacking. In her review of " So Hard, But So Rewarding:" How School System Leaders Are Scaling Up Strategic School Staffing Models , Stonehill College professor and Dean of Graduate and Professional Studies Elizabeth Stringer Keefe finds that its sweeping recommendations are disproportionate to the study's quite limited research evidence. The report analyzes findings from interviews of 42 school leaders across six systems it identifies as implementing strategic school staffing models, which the report describes as "radically rethinking who they hire to educate students, how they design the job, and how they support educators to stay in the profession." The findings address issues such as how such models could be scaled, what challenges and supports leaders encountered, how the work can be supported, and the role of the school leader in strategic systems change. The report concludes that, despite piloting and promising results, strategic school staffing initiatives remain "fragile" and are a recipe for leader burnout and potential failure to scale. However, the report has multiple conceptual, design, and methodological flaws, including a lack of research evidence to support the report's assertions, conclusions, and recommendations. As a result, Dr. Stringer Keefe concludes that the report offers little actionable guidance for policymakers, school leaders, practitioners, or other stakeholders. Find the review, by Elizabeth Stringer Keefe, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find " So Hard, But So Rewarding:" How School System Leaders Are Scaling Up Strategic School Staffing Models , written by Lisa Chu, Lydia Rainey, & Steven Weiner and published by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, at: https://crpe.org/how-school-system-leaders-are-scaling-up-strategic-school-staffing-models/ 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 Elizabeth Stringer Keefe (508) 565-1049 stringerkeefe@stonehill.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems Summary NEPC’s new policy brief, The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems, synthesizes research on the fiscal impacts of charter and voucher school policies on public school systems. Authors David S. Knight of the University of Washington and David DeMatthews of the University of Texas at Austin also discuss recent developments, including the influx of voucher policies, often promoted by large philanthropic donations and messaging campaigns. Publication Date November 21, 2024 Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors David S. Knight, University of Washington; David DeMatthews, University of Texas at Austin Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Shifting Public Funding Away From Neighborhood Schools Has Very Real Impacts Key Takeaway: Expansion of costly school voucher programs and the incautious growth of charter schools will create continuing fiscal challenges for both state governments and local school districts. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 21, 2024) - The U.S. Department of Education projects nationwide enrollment declines over the next decade, which will lead to budget cuts for school districts, especially in areas serving vulnerable populations-at the same time that federal COVID-19 stimulus funds are ending. As enrollment drops, districts can lower long-term costs by reducing new hiring, engaging in the painful process of personnel layoffs, or, in extreme cases, by closing schools. Short-term savings are even more elusive, leading to some very difficult policy choices. Within this context, many states are choosing to fund parallel systems, with some public dollars going to neighborhood schools run by school districts, some going to charter schools run by private parties, and some going to private schools that are generally run by religious institutions. Rather than commit new funding for district-run K-12 schools, many state legislators have invested taxpayer funds in the school-choice expansion of vouchers and charter schools. In 2023 alone, lawmakers in nine states adopted voucher-expansion legislation, and many states have expanded charter school authorizations as well, despite limited enrollment growth. This approach is inefficient, and it places a unique burden on those neighborhood public schools. NEPC’s new policy brief, The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems , synthesizes research on the fiscal impacts of charter and voucher school policies on public school systems. Authors David S. Knight of the University of Washington and David DeMatthews of the University of Texas at Austin also discuss recent developments, including the influx of voucher policies, often promoted by large philanthropic donations and messaging campaigns. The brief examines the connections between decreasing school enrollment, school privatization, and public-school funding cuts. Research shows, for example, that charter school growth and voucher programs have negatively affected funding of district-run public schools. Meanwhile, a network of philanthropists and wealthy donors have reshaped the political economy of school finance in the face of declining public-school enrollments, advocating for voucher programs, charters and privatization. Sustaining adequate and equitable school finance systems requires local, state, and federal action. In the longer term, educational stakeholders across all levels have significant responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the public education system. The brief concludes by offering specific recommendations for sustaining adequate and equitable educational finance systems. Find The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems , by David S. Knight and David DeMatthews, at: https://greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu David S. Knight: (206) 221-3456 dsknight@uw.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 Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Education Summary A recent report from Bellwether considers the role of generative AI (GenAI) in education, posing the question: When does the ease afforded by GenAI enable deeper learning, and when is ease merely a shortcut with hidden costs? Publication Date October 21, 2025 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Amy Chen Kulesa, Marisa Mission, Michelle Croft, and Mary K. Wells; Thomas M. Philip, University of California, Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Asks Important Questions About the Benefits and Risks of AI in Schools, but Its Answers Are Poorly Grounded and Generic OCTOBER 21, 2025 Report Asks Important Questions About the Benefits and Risks of AI in Schools, but Its Answers Are Poorly Grounded and Generic An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Bellwether takes a balanced yet overly simplistic approach to evaluating the use of artificial intelligence in schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (OCTOBER 21, 2025) - A recent report from Bellwether considers the role of generative AI (GenAI) in education, posing the question: When does the ease afforded by GenAI enable deeper learning, and when is ease merely a shortcut with hidden costs? Thomas M. Philip of the University of California, Berkeley reviewed Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Educatio n. He found that while the report raises important questions, its analysis is limited. To explore its central question, the report examines how AI tools interact with students' memory and information processing, attention and engagement, motivation and mindset, and metacognition and self-regulation. However, Professor Philip finds that the report conflates the multiple meanings of "learning," leading to unjustified conclusions about AI's potential impact. In particular, by adopting an overly individualistic lens to learning, the report often overlooks the realities of complex classroom environments, making unfounded inferences about classroom use of AI-powered tools. Further, the report stops short of offering proactive recommendations to mitigate the known harms of GenAI, particularly for children and youth. As a result, while it highlights important questions that policymakers must consider, the report's usefulness as a guide for decision-making is quite limited. Find the review, by Thomas M. Philip, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Education , written by Amy Chen Kulesa, Marisa Mission, Michelle Croft, and Mary K. Wells and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/publications/productive-struggle/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Thomas M. Philip Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The (Mis)Treatment and (Non)Education of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in the United States Summary Beginning in 2014, an increasing number of children from northern Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) and Mexico, fleeing violence and poverty in their countries, have arrived and been apprehended at the U.S. border. Many of these children are unaccompanied or became so upon separation from a parent or another adult. NEPC is releasing today a policy brief addressing the education of these unaccompanied immigrant children (UICs), including their experiences prior to, during, and after apprehension at the border. The (Mis)Treatment and (Non)Education of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in the United States is authored by University of Houston assistant professor Ruth M. López. Publication Date March 8, 2021 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; General / Needs Review; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Ruth M. López, University of Houston Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Ruth M. López : (713) 743-9124, RMLopez3@uh.edu Another Border Crisis: The Neglected Education of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Policy brief explains the educational issues surrounding unaccompanied immigrant children in the United States. EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 9, 2021) - Beginning in 2014, an increasing number of children from northern Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras) and Mexico, fleeing violence and poverty in their countries, have arrived and been apprehended at the U.S. border. Many of these children are unaccompanied or became so upon separation from a parent or another adult. NEPC is releasing today a policy brief addressing the education of these unaccompanied immigrant children (UICs), including their experiences prior to, during, and after apprehension at the border. The (Mis)Treatment and (Non)Education of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in the United States is authored by University of Houston assistant professor Ruth M. López. Upon arrival, these children are expected to navigate everything from a complicated immigration legal system to overcrowded detention centers, abuse, and anti-immigrant sentiments. Considering this sociopolitical context, Professor López examines what the available research tells us about UICs' educational experiences in detention, in shelters or foster case, and in public schools. It also considers legal requirements as well as research about how schools and districts can support these children in asset-based and equity-centered ways. Using the theoretical frameworks of Critical Race Theory and Latino Critical Race Theory, she examines the ways UICs are framed, the legal and historical contexts that impact their lived reality, and their recent experience as immigrants to the United States. In the brief López shares the following: Before migration and in their interactions with various federal agencies, UICs often face traumatic experiences, including prolonged separation from their families. After navigating a complicated immigration system, where they may not receive proper services such as education, health, or legal support, UICs have the right to attend public schools once placed with a sponsor. However, the transition to schooling is not seamless and can present other unique obstacles that affect learning conditions. Humanitarian and legal offenses toward UICs predated the Trump administration, but Trump's immigration policies, particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, exacerbated these injustices. This legacy leaves the new administration—and others—with much to do to alleviate the trauma suffered by UICs and to ensure that they receive necessary educational and coordinated supports. To this end, Professor López concludes her brief with recommendations for national-level policymakers, district and school leaders, and researchers. Find The (Mis)Treatment and (Non)Education of Unaccompanied Immigrant Children in the United States, by Ruth M. López, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years Summary The report finds that after three years, students in the D.C. voucher program showed modestly higher reading scores, but no significant difference in math scores when compared with a control group of students who didn’t get vouchers. Publication Date May 21, 2009 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Martin Carnoy, Stanford University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, MI (May 21, 2009)—A recent evaluation report on Washington, D.C.’s voucher program finds that after three years voucher students showed modestly higher reading scores, but no significant difference in math scores when compared with a control group of students who didn’t get vouchers. A new review of the report, however, points out that any such effect is modest and provides little support for vouchers as a solution to the educational problems in D.C. The report, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years, was co-published by the University of Arkansas’ School Choice Demonstration Project and by the Institute of Educational Sciences at the National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Martin Carnoy of Stanford University, an economist and expert in voucher research. The D.C. program offers vouchers to low-income students in public schools, helping them attend one of about 60 participating private schools. The study analyzes reading and math achievement test scores of randomly selected applicants who were offered a $7,500 voucher during the first two years of the program, comparing these students with a control group of other applicants who were not offered vouchers. The study concluded that, after three years, students who used vouchers scored 5.27 points, or one-sixth of a standard deviation, higher than those who stayed in public schools on achievement tests in reading—a statistically significant difference—and less than 1 point higher in math, which was not statistically significant. However, Carnoy points out that analyses of subgroups of these students show that any positive voucher effect on reading was concentrated among female middle school students with higher initial reading scores. Moreover, while Congress created the voucher program primarily to benefit students attending D.C. schools designated as “needing improvement”—the study found that the voucher effect was focused on students who had not attended those schools. Carnoy summarizes the findings emphasized in the report as follows: “Sending low-income students to existing, predominantly religious (and even predominantly Catholic), small (average size, 265 students) private schools with small class sizes (average student-teacher ratio, 10.3 students) can modestly increase these students’ achievement (in reading but not mathematics) and results in greater parent satisfaction with their children’s school.” However, closer inspection of the results, Carnoy writes, suggests that the results showing a positive effect from vouchers are primarily due to the first cohort of students enrolled in the program. By the second year, available private school seating was reduced. And, due to research design limitations, the first cohort did not include elementary-level students – a group that, in the second cohort, did not appear to have benefited. Carnoy faults the study for not offering any detailed analysis of differences among the two cohorts of students enrolled in the program, which might shed light on factors other than vouchers influencing the results. Find Martin Carnoy’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: Martin Carnoy (650) 856-7722; carnoy@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Stuck Schools Summary This report aims at providing a framework for identifying schools that are simultaneously low-performing and low-improving and in most need of school turnaround strategies. Publication Date April 7, 2010 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Jaekyung Lee, University at Buffalo, SUNY Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release New review finds Education Trust report too flawed to be of much value EAST LANSING, Mi., (April 7, 2010) – A research report released by the Education Trust offers a framework for identifying low-performing schools purported to be most in need of targeted education reform strategies. A Think Twice review of the report finds that its reliance on misleading data and unreliable methodology renders it of little value to policymakers. The report, Stuck Schools , uses schools in Maryland and Indiana as examples to demonstrate its methods. The report sorts the schools using two variables – performance and improvement. First, schools are sorted by how well students perform, on average, over the first three years of the five-year study period. Then schools are sorted by how much they improve their proficiency over the five-year study period. The report's authors then identify those that are both low-performing and low-improving—the so-called "Stuck Schools" of the report's title. The report comes as the Obama Administration is shifting away from a school accountability system focused on school performance to one that has a focus on both performance and improvement. In his review of the report Professor Jaekyung Lee of the SUNY Buffalo finds numerous flaws. Although the report's authors never say so explicitly, they assume that schools improve in a straight line over time. That assumption, however, misses other patterns of growth, as Lee demonstrates by presenting the data from a Maryland school whose actual growth pattern is clearly not linear and that doesn't necessarily warrant its "stuck school" label. Lee also points out that some of the report's key results may be due to a norm-referenced methodology that guarantees "failed" schools independent of any true performance or improvement level by the school, as well as a well-known statistical artifact called "regression to the mean"—such that school improvement or decline would not be attributable to anything more than measurement error. And he questions the assumption that underlies the report's title and the schools' label as "stuck." That, Lee observes, "suggests that the schools themselves—rather than the structural and resource issues within which those schools carry on—should be blamed and 'turned around.'" Summing up his review, Lee writes: "The overall conceptual framework of the report helps bring more attention to the issues of validating and using school-level performance trend data for accountability." But he warns that the "report's methods are so simplistic, arbitrary and poorly fitting to the report's own assumptions that it is more harmful to sound policymaking than helpful." Find Jaekyung Lee's review as well as a link to Stuck Schools on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Jaekyung Lee (716) 645-1132; JL224@buffalo.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More