< Back Review of Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. Summary A recent Bellwether report explores how much public financing charter schools receive and whether they are funded fairly compared to traditional public schools, specifically in the District of Columbia. After finding disparities, it offers a series of recommendations to reduce those disparities, but upon review these findings and recommendations are not well-supported. Publication Date January 20, 2025 Authors Krista Kaput, Titilayo Tinubu Ali, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Clive Belfield; Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Does Not Provide Useful Comparisons of Funding Between Charters and District Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Bellwether report fails to offer a rigorous or methodical investigation of funding allocations and disparities. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 21, 2025) - A recent Bellwether report explores how much public financing charter schools receive and whether they are funded fairly compared to traditional public schools, specifically in the District of Columbia. After finding disparities, it offers a series of recommendations to reduce those disparities, but upon review these findings and recommendations are not well-supported. In his review of Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. , Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York determines that the report's oversimplistic analyses account for the unfounded conclusions. Using tabulations of funding across charter and public schools to describe funding disparities in DC from 2022 to 2025, the report finds that the district's public schools are more generously funded-that they have access to additional funding streams, received extra pandemic funding, have more capital funding, and pay teachers much higher salaries. Although these tabulations themselves appear to be accurate, there is no proof that charter schools are underfunded in relation to their services and needs-or that they should, in fact, be funded at the same dollar amounts as public schools. Schools in these two sectors are responsible for providing different services and serving different students, and they often receive resources from different sources. In sum, the report does not apply a valid method of comparison and thus provides no way to determine if DC charter schools are funded at the "right level" or what that level should be. As a result, Professor Belfield concludes, it is of limited use to policymakers-except perhaps within the district as an introductory or preliminary study. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. , written by Krista Kaput, Titilayo Tinubu Ali, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/publications/resource-realities/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Clive Belfield (718) 997-5440 clive.belfield@qc.cuny.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Educational Innovation and Diversification in School Choice Plans Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date February 29, 2008 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? Summary A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called “neovouchers.” The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Publication Date August 23, 2017 Authors Martin F. Lueken; Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release More balanced and empirically robust assessments needed to estimate costs and benefits of subsidizing private school choice programs, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 24, 2017) — A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. The report analyzed savings from tax-credit scholarship programs. However, an academic review of the report questions the calculation method and claims made regarding the estimated financial savings for state governments. The report, The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? , was reviewed by Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called "neovouchers." The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Huerta and Koutsavlis in their review note that because states do not collect or publish data on scholarship recipients, no formal accounting exists. As a result, they recommend that policymakers "develop statutory language that will allow researchers to develop better and more accurate answers to thorny policy questions." They add that the findings of the report are too speculative to provide useful guidance for policymakers. In their conclusion, they write: "When weighing the implementation of TCSPs, policymakers must look beyond measures of cost efficiency and seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments that would allow them to make informed decisions about how to proceed with effective and equitable school reform polices." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the EdChoice report at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/tax-credit-scholarship-audit/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 678-4199, lah2013@tc.columbia.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents Summary This report is billed as a guide for Michigan school officials and other interested in privatizing school services. Publication Date February 18, 2008 Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds Mackinac Center report offers little evidence for privatization, ignores arguments against the practice EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 19, 2008) – A report last year billed as a guide for Michigan schools and others on privatizing school services offers little evidence to support its premise that privatizing those services saves money or is otherwise beneficial according to a new review of the document. Issued by the Mackinac Center, the report is entitled, “A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media, and Residents.” It was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Clive Belfield, an economist at Queens College, City University of New York. The “Privatization Primer” argues for contracting out schools’ food, transportation and custodial services and offers guidelines for carrying out that task. Belfield credits the report for providing credible surveys of the current breadth of contracting-out practices and describes “practical steps for issuing and monitoring contracts” that might be helpful to districts who wish to pursue the strategy. But, Belfield concludes, its usefulness stops there. The report, he says, “does not offer a balanced framework for assessing the costs and benefits of contracting out.” It ignores transaction costs, reports only on officials’ perception of the advantages of contracting out while omitting any discussion of disadvantages, and fails to acknowledge that research evidence on the practice in education “is far from conclusive.” In fact, Belfield finds little evidence to support the underlying assumption that privatizing these services does save districts money. Throughout the document, Belfield notes, the author fails to consider any evidence that might contradict his assumptions about the benefits of contracting out. “For example, no investigation is made either of the number of terminated contracts or of the failed attempts to hire a contractor at lower cost than existing public realm provision of these services,” Belfield writes. “Similarly, no mention is made of the likelihood that private contractors will ‘cherry-pick’ the easiest services and leave the public enterprise to provide the more expensive ones.” “The report may be successful in persuading districts to consider contracting out,” Belfield says, “but this change may not be financially or otherwise appropriate for any given district.” Find the complete review by Clive Belfield as well as a link to the Mackinac Center 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: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219; (email) 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 Fast Start: Training Better Teachers Faster, with Focus, Practice, and Feedback Summary The report recommends giving new teachers the tools they need to be successful and proposes a five-week pre-service preparation model. The recommendations include several strategic changes: (1) a narrower curriculum focused only on the most essential teaching skills; (2) an emphasis on practicing skills instead of just learning about them; and (3) intensive coaching that provides regular, specific feedback on changes to instructional techniques. Publication Date May 28, 2014 Authors Ana Menezes and Adam Maier; William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release As teacher prep debate heats up, 2 high-profile reports lack research foundation and ignore contradictory evidence EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 29, 2014) – As policymakers debate teacher training programs at the state and federal levels, a new review warns that two high-profile reports on the issue should be treated with skepticism because they lack a research foundation and ignore contradictory evidence. As a result, the reports propose recommendations that may be ineffective or even lead to lawsuits. Dr. William J. Mathis of the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed Time to Improve: How Federal Policy Can Promote Better Prepared Teachers and School Leaders from the New America Foundation and Fast Start: Training Better Teachers Faster, with Focus, Practice and Feedback by TNTP. Mathis produced the review for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "Policymakers should be wary of these two reports because they cast more smoke than light on the issue of preparing our teachers," said Mathis. He found that the authors of these two reports simply failed to support their findings. The TNTP report uses anecdotes and vignettes to make its case that traditional teacher preparation programs are ineffective, with supervised practice being the best way to develop good teachers. Mathis also found that TNTP's report is designed to advance a formulaic 5-week program of three principles, four skills and four techniques more akin to a PowerPoint presentation than a thoughtful presentation of research evidence. Meanwhile, the New America report's methodology is so flawed statistically and programmatically that implementation of its recommendations may result in lawsuits on due process grounds. It proposes a top-down, regulatory approach to evaluate teacher preparation programs, with K-12 student test scores being a key criterion. Poor performing programs would be subject to revocation of state approval and the withdrawal of federal funds. With their lack of solid research evidentiary support and their disregard for the demonstrable flaws in their proposed remedies, Mathis concludes, "neither proposal provides useful guidance for teacher preparation policy." Read this review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Time to Improve on the web: http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/time_to_improve Find Fast Start on the web: http://tntp.org/key-issues/view/fast-start Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back An Analysis of the Use and Validity of Test-Based Teacher Evaluations Reported by the Los Angeles Times: 2011 Summary Catherine S. Durso of the University of Denver prepared the research brief for the National Education Policy Center. The brief was funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Publication Date June 19, 2012 Authors Catherine S. Durso,University of Denver Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release A review finds LA Times 2011 teacher effectiveness rankings remain unreliable, risk being misused High-stakes standardized tests only a snapshot of student's learning EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 20, 2012) – The Los Angeles Times' second attempt to rate the performance of teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) still provides readers with unreliable data and potential misuse, according to an academic review released today. Catherine Durso of the University of Denver prepared the review titled An Analysis of the Use and Validity of Test-Based Teacher Evaluations Reported by the Los Angeles Times: 2011 . The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In her analysis, Durso addressed the variances of teacher ratings, specifically the imprecision and inconsistency of teacher scores. She found limitations on the use of teacher-linked effects in producing a single classification scale. The newspaper used a value-added model (VAM) and also rated teachers in one of five categories (least effective, less effective, average, more effective, and most effective). The series was based on a study carried out independently by Dr. Richard Buddin, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation. LAUSD uses the term Average Growth over Time (AGT) to represent VAM. Though demographics, classroom size and other outside factors were taken into account, the data produced broad "error bands" that essentially created a range score for each teacher, only the midpoint of which was used to rate teachers in a single effectiveness category. The single effectiveness rating was published with limited caution to readers. The single-scale the newspaper used to rate the effectiveness of teachers drew the greatest concern, "particularly the effectiveness classification categories published in the Teacher Ratings that the lay reader will be drawn to, and these are unreliable," Durso wrote in her review. She found that the potential for misuse of effective classification categories could prove to be harmful. Although the newspaper's data efforts were an improvement over a similar series (also based on the value-added model) that ran in 2010, isolating the causal effect of a teacher on a student from the influence of peers and situations outside of school remains challenging. Additionally, the majority of teachers in the Times' rankings were represented by data for three years or less and 26 percent of the teachers were in their first year. Using estimates from this smaller data sample yields less precise results. "Even when multiple years of data are employed, the lack of predictive power limits the usefulness of the estimates to a parent considering whether an assigned class will improve a child's test-based performance," Durso stated. Durso recommends, "Comparison of teacher-linked effects must be understood as comparing teachers and their work environments, not just teachers." Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find a link to the LA Times series here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/teachers-investigation/ The National Education Policy Center provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project was made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The reviews are also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Catherine Durso, (303) 871-3598, cdurso@cs.du.edu 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 Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place? Disentangling the Intersections of Student Behavior, School Discipline, and School Safety in the Post-COVID Era Summary A new policy brief addresses growing concerns about student behavior, educators' perceptions of that behavior, and the management of perceived misbehavior in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. These issues, already urgent before the pandemic, have intensified as schools contend with increased need, trauma, and behavioral challenges. Publication Date May 19, 2025 Authors Richard O. Welsh, Vanderbilt University; Kathryn James McGraw, Vanderbilt University Research Areas School Climate & Student Support; Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Safety Is Not School Discipline, and a New Policy Brief Examines Why That's Important Key Takeaway: New brief calls for separating school discipline from school safety and implementing distinct, research-based approaches to address post-pandemic student behavior. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 20, 2025) - A new policy brief addresses growing concerns about student behavior, educators' perceptions of that behavior, and the management of perceived misbehavior in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. These issues, already urgent before the pandemic, have intensified as schools contend with increased need, trauma, and behavioral challenges. The brief, Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place? Disentangling the Intersections of Student Behavior, School Discipline, and School Safety in the Post-COVID Era , is authored by Richard O. Welsh and Kathryn James McGraw of Vanderbilt University. It examines the historical and contemporary relationship between student behavior and school safety, and it offers policy recommendations for creating safer, more supportive schools. Welsh and McGraw stress the need to distinguish school discipline from school safety. While the two are often linked, they are not the same. Discipline typically involves non-violent, everyday behavioral issues, while safety addresses incidents of harm or clear threats. Yet policymakers frequently treat them as a single challenge, leading to solutions that misidentify the root of the problem. This conflation can be traced back to 1990s federal legislation, including the Gun-Free Schools Act and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. These laws introduced a "tough-on-crime" approach in schools that promoted exclusionary discipline as a tool for ensuring safety. Over time, schools increasingly adopted practices from the criminal justice system, such as hiring school resource officers and installing surveillance technologies. Though framed as safety measures, these strategies and an overall punitive approach to misbehavior are more often applied to routine behavioral issues. They have failed to improve safety outcomes while disproportionately impacting students of color. The pandemic intensified existing disparities and placed additional strain on students and educators. Verbal and physical aggression has increased, while mental health support has lagged. In response, some states and districts have doubled down on exclusionary discipline and securitization, giving educators greater discretion to remove students and implementing stricter measures that largely ignore the root causes of misbehavior. Welsh and McGraw argue that treating school safety and school discipline as the same issue leads to ineffective and inequitable outcomes. They call for clearly separating the two in policy and practice to better support student well-being and improve school climate. The twin policy goals of keep students and staff safe, and restoring instructional time lost to exclusionary discipline while addressing the needs of both students and educators will require thoughtful reforms grounded in current research and the realities of today's schools. Accordingly, the brief concludes with recommendations for adopting supportive, evidence-based strategies for behavior management aimed at making schools safer and reducing disparities in disciplinary outcomes. By treating school discipline and school safety as distinct yet related issues, schools and districts can pursue more inclusive, effective solutions. Find Stuck Between a Rock and a Hard Place? Disentangling the Intersections of Student Behavior, School Discipline, and School Safety in the Post-COVID Era , by Richard O. Welsh and Kathryn James McGraw, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu Richard O. Welsh richard.welsh.1@vanderbilt.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Equal or Fair? A Study of Revenues and Expenditures in American Charter Schools Summary This report is the most comprehensive to date on the question of whether charter schools are inadequately funded compared with traditional public schools. Miron and Urschel find that though charter schools typically do get less funding than traditional public schools, this is primarily because traditional schools have additional obligations including special education, student support services, food and transportation services which charter schools do not provide (or spend less on). Publication Date June 28, 2010 Authors Gary Miron and Jessica L. Urschel Western Michigan University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich., June 29, 2010 – A new study finds that charter schools typically get less funding than traditional public schools. And it also reveals that the primary reason charters tend to get less funding is because traditional public schools must offer far more special education, transportation and student support services. Spending on those programs and services—often not available in charter schools—accounts for much or all of the difference in funding each receives. This finding is one of several that Professor Gary Miron and his co-author Jessica Urschel make in Equal or Fair? A Study of Revenues and Expenditures in American Charter Schools , released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The study comes amid a growing debate over the question of whether charter schools are inadequately funded compared with traditional public schools. In recent years, numerous charter school advocates have cited the purported funding gap to help explain charter schools' achievement results compared with traditional public schools. Miron and Urshel point out that, compared with traditional public schools, charter schools spend proportionally more on administration – in the percentage of overall spending that goes to administrative costs, as well as in the salaries they pay administrative personnel. Overall, however, charter schools spend less than traditional public schools: less on instruction, less on student support services and less on teacher salaries and benefits. Equal or Fair? is the most comprehensive study to date on the question. It uses data from the U.S. Department of Education on revenue sources and spending patterns of charter schools and traditional public schools and districts across the nation. It also examines patterns across nine different comparison groups, ranging from traditional public schools to various sub-groups of charter schools. "On first appearance, charter schools receive less revenue per pupil ($9,883) than traditional public schools ($12,863)," Miron and Urschel find. Yet, they add, this direct comparison "may be misleading." States vary considerably in the way they channel funds to charter schools. Moreover, public schools provide – and receive funds for – certain services that most charter schools do not provide (or spend far less on) including special education, student support services and transportation and food services. This largely explains the differences in revenues and expenditures for charters compared with traditional schools. "When charter schools and traditional public schools have similar programs and services and when they serve similar students, funding levels should be equal in order to be considered fair," they write. "However, as long as traditional public schools are delivering more programs, serving wider ranges of grades, and enrolling a higher proportion of students with special needs, they will require relatively higher levels of financial support. Under these circumstances, differences or inequality in funding can be seen as reasonable and fair." Find Equal or Fair? A Study of Revenues and Expenditures in American Charter Schools by Gary Miron and Jessica Urschel on the web at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Miron_CharterFunding.htm This policy brief was produced by the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers Summary This report claims that public school teachers are paid 52 percent more than fair market rates and that teachers are less intelligent than other workers of comparable education and experience. Publication Date January 30, 2012 Authors Jeffrey H. Keefe, Rutgers University Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Overpaid Teachers Report from Heritage/AEI is Based on Bad Stats and Groundless Assumptions EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 31, 2012) – A recent report from the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers, claims public school teachers are paid 52 percent more than fair market rates. While attention-grabbing, this contention is based on a faulty assessment that relies on "an aggregation of spurious claims" to make its case, according to a new Think Twice review. The Heritage/AEI report pits the wages and benefits of teachers against those of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers and concludes that teachers are overpaid. But in his review of the report, Professor Jeffrey H. Keefe of Rutgers University's School of Management and Labor Relations, finds that it rests on a series of flawed and one-sided assumptions and sloppy statistical analyses. Using these assumptions, the authors stand normal conclusions on their head. While the straightforward evidence suggests that teachers are undercompensated by about 19 percent compared with their non-teacher peers in the workforce, the report concludes that they are instead overpaid by more than twice that percentage. Central to the original report's argument is the claim that teachers are less intelligent than other workers of comparable education and experience. The report bases this claim on the lower scores of teachers on the Armed Forces Qualifications Test (AFQT). Yet the AFQT is simply not an intelligence test. Further, the authors claim that AFQT scores alone can be used to compare teacher and non-teacher populations. But that conclusion relies on a data sample that's too small to provide any meaningful long-term analyses or conclusions, Keefe points out. In fact, "measured cognitive ability is correlated only weakly with wages and explains little of the variance in wages across individuals and time," Keefe writes. That is, people aren't generally paid based even on a valid IQ test; they tend to be paid based on factors such as their preparation, skills, reliability, knowledge, and experience. "The only reliable comparison in this report is its starting point: there is a 19 percent [compensation] penalty for teachers." Other statistical missteps in the report include its erroneous calculations for benefits costs, both during employment and after retirement, which leads the authors to contend that benefit costs for teachers amount to more than their salary costs, thus more than doubling teachers' overall costs. Keefe's review explains why this is "a claim that cannot be reasonably supported." The review, which was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, also uncovers in the report a significant miscalculation that doubles the supposed monetary value embedded in the customary "summers off" work schedules of teachers. The report also asserts, notwithstanding recent widespread teacher layoffs, that teachers enjoy a substantial benefit of disproportionate job security, and the authors then proceed to pull, out of thin air, a monetized value of this asserted benefit. Keefe warns that the study isn't merely useless, but that it will lead to "headline-grabbing claims of dramatic overpayment of teachers" that, in turn, will result in ill-informed and harmful policy decisions that further undercut support for public education. "Any discussion of teacher compensation should be based on high-quality evidence," Keefe warns, adding that "this report does not advance that discussion." Find Jeffrey H. Keefe's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers on the web at: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/CDA11-03.pdf . Think Twice, 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 funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also available on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-assessing-compensation --###-- 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: Jeffrey H. Keefe, (732) 932-1749, jkeefe@rci.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri, (248) 444-7071, 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 Measuring the Impacts of Teachers I (NBER No. 19423) & II (NBER No. 19424) Summary This NBER working paper - split in two parts - studied the impact of teachers on long-term outcomes using value-added scores. The reports addressed a key question: Are teachers' impacts on students' test scores ("value added") a good measure of their quality? Economists Raj Chetty, John Friedman, & Jonah Rockoff claim in a two-part paper that higher value-added scores for teachers lead to greater economic success for their students later in life. The paper drew widespread media and politicians' attention, including the president's. Publication Date April 9, 2014 Authors Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff (both papers); Moshe Adler, Columbia University & Empire State College, SUNY Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice Review of Measuring the Impacts of Teachers I & II Review Exposes Flaws in Influential yet Controversial Reports on Teacher's Value-Added EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 10, 2014) – Economists Raj Chetty, John Friedman, & Jonah Rockoff claim in a two-part paper that higher value-added scores for teachers lead to greater economic success for their students later in life. The paper drew widespread media and politicians' attention, including the president's. An academic review out today shows that the authors' methods fail in several significant ways and that the paper's claim is unjustified. Moshe Adler of the department of Urban Planning at Columbia University and the Harry Van Arsdale, Jr. Center for Labor Studies at Empire State College, SUNY reviewed the reports for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Adler's review covers Measuring the Impacts of Teachers I: Evaluating Bias in Teacher Value-Added Estimates and Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood . The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) published both papers as working papers. In his review Adler found five problems that invalidate the paper's main claim: The paper fails to mention the existence of a crucial conflicting result that was reported in an earlier version of the same paper. The paper claims that there was insufficient data to investigate whether teacher value-added has an effect on income at any age after the age of 28. This claim is untrue. The method used to calculate the effect of teacher value-added on income at age 28 is biased and misleading The paper makes assumptions that inflate its main result, but these assumptions are contradicted by the evidence The studies that the paper cites in support of its methodology don't actually provide that support. In conclusion, Adler writes, "The two papers under review here use questionable techniques to reach conclusions that are not supported by the data. These problems rend the papers of no value in guiding educational policy." Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find both reports on the National Bureau of Economic Research website: http://www.nber.org/papers/w19423 ; http://www.nber.org/papers/w19424 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 publication. The project is made possible with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Moshe Adler, (917) 453-4921, ma820@columbia.edu 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 Review of Searching for the Tipping Point: Scaling up Public School Choice Spurs Citywide Gains Summary A recent Progressive Policy Institute report purports to examine the impact of charter schools on the achievement of students who remain enrolled in district-run public schools. Based on the data in the report, however, it shows only a weak relationship between the presence of charter schools and increases in achievement for all students, which contradicts the report's claims. Publication Date December 2, 2024 Authors Tressa Pankovits; David R. Garcia, Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: PPI report misleads on the impact of charter schools on district-run public schools, using incomplete research methods to support its policy recommendations. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (December 3, 2024) - A recent Progressive Policy Institute report purports to examine the impact of charter schools on the achievement of students who remain enrolled in district-run public schools. Based on the data in the report, however, it shows only a weak relationship between the presence of charter schools and increases in achievement for all students, which contradicts the report's claims. The report is centered around a graph that depicts a strong positive relationship between the percentage of students enrolled in charter schools and decreases in the achievement gap (as measured in test scores) for all low-income students in selected cities. In his review of Searching for the Tipping Point: Scaling up Public School Choice Spurs Citywide Gains, David R. Garcia of Arizona State University ran a correlation analysis using the data provided in the report and discovered that the relationship depicted in the graph is, in fact, weak (r = 0.4). Further, while the report recognizes that correlations do not indicate causation, it still erroneously asserts that the presence of charter schools in a city, alone, has a "spillover effect" related to improvements in the academic achievement of students who are not enrolled in those charter schools. Garcia's review points to other concerns as well, but he concludes that the report's major flaw is its incorrect depiction of a strong relationship, in the districts studied, between the presence of charter schools and decreases in the achievement gap. Also, the policy recommendations are based on an enormous, unsubstantiated causal leap, and the report makes no effort to close this gap in logic in support of its recommendations. The report should not be considered a credible contribution to policy. Find the review, by David Garcia, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Searching for the Tipping Point: Scaling up Public School Choice Spurs Citywide Gains, written by Tressa Pankovits and published by Progressive Policy Institute, at: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/searching-for-the-tipping-point-scaling-up-public-school-choice-spurs-citywide-gains / NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares David Garcia Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Who Chooses Schools and Why? The Characteristics and Motivations of Families who Actively Choose Schools Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date January 6, 2008 Authors Natalie Lacireno-Paquet, Ph.D., WestEd, with Charleen Brantley University of Massachusetts, Boston Research Areas General / Needs Review; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 7, 2008) — School choice reforms, such as charter schools and vouchers, give parents the opportunity to decide which school is best for their children. Families who choose their children’s schools say that academic quality is the main basis for their decision. But according to a new policy brief funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, their choice behavior suggests that race and class may more strongly influence their decision than academic quality. The brief, Who Chooses Schools, and Why? The Characteristics and Motivations of Families who Actively Choose Schools is authored by Natalie Lacireno-Paquet with assistance from Charleen Brantly. It offers a comprehensive look at how the school choice process takes place. Lacireno-Paquet and Brantley report that families who actively choose their children’s schools rely as much or more on social networks than on official sources of information in making their choices. They also find that White parents tend to avoid schools with high concentrations of non-White students, while minority parents who exercise choice tend to avoid schools with high numbers of low-income students. “Parents overwhelmingly say they are looking for a better education but much, though not all, of the research examined suggests that parents are paying more attention to the social and racial demographics of potential choice schools than they are to measures of academic quality,” Lacireno-Paquet and Brantley conclude. “The evidence on behavior, or the way in which parents make their choices, doesn’t match very well with what parents say are their preferences. This suggests that race and class play a key role and that parents may view the racial or peer composition of a school as a proxy for quality. This is not encouraging to those who view choice as a way to potentially eliminate the barriers to truly integrated schools.” These and other findings were derived from a review of extensive research into the many choice options currently available to parents: home-schooling, private schools, vouchers, and public school choice programs such as open enrollment, charter schools, and magnet schools. “Who Chooses Schools, and Why?” explores research concerning demographics and other characteristics of families who actively exercise school choice, as well as parents’ motivations for doing so. Lacireno-Paquet and Brantley note that the demographics of people who choose schools vary considerably depending on the specific form of choice involved. For example, while private school choosers are mostly White and non-poor, voucher programs tend to be “means-tested,” with the result that most voucher students are poor and minority. Among charter schools, meanwhile, enrollment trends by race and income can vary widely among states and districts, the two researchers report. Home-schooling families are more likely to be White (like private school families), but also more likely than private school families to be of low- or moderate incomes. As a result of their findings, Lacireno-Paquet and Brantley make six recommendations, focused on the specific design of choice policies. In a nutshell, they call on policy makers to be cognizant of past experiences and to carefully craft future policies to accomplish desired goals. 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: Natalie Lacireno-Paquet – (781) 481-1133; npaquet@wested.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More