< 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

< Back Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy Summary This report argues that schools can save money by increasing class sizes without seriously affecting student achievement. Publication Date June 16, 2011 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Authors Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Northwestern University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brookings Institution report calls for larger class sizes, uses misleading data New review finds "Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy" report mischaracterizes prior research EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 16, 2011) –—A Brookings Institution report that suggests schools can save money by increasing class sizes without seriously affecting student achievement is based on a misleading summary of research on the benefits of class-size reduction, according to a new review released today. The Brookings report, Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, associate professor in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report contends that the nation can save $12 billion annually by allowing class sizes to increase by one student, and that negative impacts from larger classes can be offset by better instruction that would result from laying off "least-effective" teachers. In her review, Schanzenbach found that the Brookings report mischaracterizes prior research on the benefits of class-size reduction. The Brookings report consists mainly of a literature review of class-size research, and its "primary contribution is in summarizing what it deems to be high quality studies on the impact of class-size reduction," according to Schanzenbach. While the report correctly states that only valid research should be used when assessing the benefits of class-size reduction, it "does not uniformly apply these standards to its literature review, and as a result the report presents misleading results," Schanzenbach said. The Brookings report also claims that increasing class sizes is an effective cost-savings mechanism, asserting that allowing average class sizes to rise by one student will net a savings of $12 billion a year, or 2 percent of total spending on K-12 public education. Yet increasing the size of every class by one student isn't guaranteed to save money on teachers, even if schools get rid of the "least effective" ones, as is proposed in the report. Schanzenbach offers the example of a hypothetical K-5 school with 24 classrooms: 100 students divided among 4 teachers in each grade. Reducing the teaching force by one would bring the average pupil-teacher ratio from 1:25 to 1:26. Yet it would be impossible to simply increase the resulting class sizes by a single student; instead, while most grades would have four teachers and a class size of 25, one grade would be cut to three teachers and class size would jump from 25 to 33.3. "Among the children in this grade, the negative impacts would be striking," Schanzenbach said. The Brookings report also ignores or mischaracterizes a growing body of research showing long-term benefits from smaller class sizes. A landmark study of 79 Tennessee elementary schools found that reducing the average class size from 22 students to 15 students vastly improved math and reading scores, especially among low-income and African American students. Even the Brookings Institution called the Tennessee study, known as Project STAR, "the most influential and credible study" of class-size reduction. While Schanzenbach credits the report for making "the important point that class-size reduction may be more effective for disadvantaged students and young students," she found that it fails to make the case that increasing class sizes can be cost-effective, while having no serious effect on achievement. Find Diane Whitemore Schanzenbach's review and a link to the Brookings report at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected 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-class-size-brookings --###-- 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: Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach: (847) 491-3884, dws@northwestern.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 The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity Summary Housing, land use, and zoning policies are often siloed in such a way that they are considered and addressed separately from school segregation and students' opportunities to learn. But these policy areas can interact in powerful ways. Professor Genevieve Siegel-Hawley of Virginia Commonwealth University explores how in a new NEPC policy brief, The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity, in which she examines the potential of housing and land use policy reform to address school segregation. Professor Siegel-Hawley describes the key role that has been played by discriminatory land use planning and zoning regulations. These laws contributed to the unequal wealth distribution currently afflicting the nation, and those inequities-as well as those laws themselves-now shape access to an array of public goods, including schools. Neighborhood-based school assignment creates a direct link between segregated housing and segregated schools. More positively, zoning initiatives in recent years have proliferated to roll back the use of land for exclusionary purposes, with important implications for schools. Publication Date February 13, 2024 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Authors Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, Virginia Commonwealth University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Policy brief explains research findings on the effects of land use and housing policy on school segregation, arguing for coordinating policy across all three sectors. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (February 13, 2024) - Housing, land use, and zoning policies are often siloed in such a way that they are considered and addressed separately from school segregation and students' opportunities to learn. But these policy areas can interact in powerful ways. Professor Genevieve Siegel-Hawley of Virginia Commonwealth University explores how in a new NEPC policy brief, The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity , in which she examines the potential of housing and land use policy reform to address school segregation. Professor Siegel-Hawley describes the key role that has been played by discriminatory land use planning and zoning regulations. These laws contributed to the unequal wealth distribution currently afflicting the nation, and those inequities-as well as those laws themselves-now shape access to an array of public goods, including schools. Neighborhood-based school assignment creates a direct link between segregated housing and segregated schools. More positively, zoning initiatives in recent years have proliferated to roll back the use of land for exclusionary purposes, with important implications for schools. This policy brief attempts to break down the siloes separating land use and zoning policies from school segregation discussions and interventions. Drawing on multiple bodies of literature, it explores what we know about the potential of housing and land use policy reform to address school segregation-and why doing so matters. The research reviewed here illuminates the close historical and legal relationship between school and housing segregation and the clear links between land use policy and school and housing segregation. Studies also show that where land use or housing reforms have enabled greater access to less segregated schools, historically marginalized students' outcomes have improved. Although the reforms and, by extension, the research, are somewhat limited, it suggests that land use and housing policy has the potential to more broadly reduce school segregation and improve student outcomes. To this end, Professor Siegel-Hawley concludes with recommendations for federal and state policymakers to offer pathways to diverse, well-resourced schools for historically marginalized families, along with oversight and enforcement that considers school-housing interrelationships. Find The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity , by Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, 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 ( 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 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 Renée Valladares Genevieve Siegel-Hawley Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2008 Summary Cobb's review of this report praises it for its technically sound analysis and results that are descriptively useful. However, Cobb cautions that any real claims about whether the voucher program is actually causing higher graduation rates must depend upon a much stronger research design. Publication Date March 31, 2010 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Casey D. Cobb, University of Connecticut Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release New review recognizes report's usefulness, but warns about causal suggestion EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 31, 2010) – A recent report from School Choice Wisconsin finds that students who attended private high schools under the Milwaukee voucher program had higher graduation rates than their Milwaukee Public Schools counterparts. A new Think Twice review praises the report as technically accurate and descriptively useful, but notes that any real claims about whether the voucher program is actually causing higher graduation rates would depend on a much stronger research design. The report, Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2008 , was reviewed by Casey Cobb, Director of the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Connecticut's Neag School of Education. The Milwaukee report compares the graduation rates of a sample of students attending traditional Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) high schools with a sample of high school students enrolled in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, which pays for low-income families in MPS to send their children to private schools. Examining six years of data, it finds that voucher students' graduation rates exceeded those of MPS students in five of the six years. "The methods used in the report are statistically precise and explained in very clear detail," Cobb writes in his review. For the most part, the data on graduation rates "represent reasonable estimates," he notes. But one key assumption--that net migration in or out of the public and private school programs was zero--was not supported by any direct evidence, Cobb observes. This could present a source of bias, because net in-migration tends to bias a graduation rate figure upward, while net out-migration biases the figure downward. More importantly, any claims that the voucher program causes higher graduation rates "must be based on stronger research designs." The report does acknowledge that limitation, and it directs readers to a forthcoming longitudinal study of the program that is not yet complete, Cobb notes. Yet then it undermines that caution by stating that, if the MPS graduation rate had equaled that of the choice program, 3,352 more MPS students would thus graduated. "Although mathematically accurate, such extrapolation invites causal inferences," which would mislead readers, Cobb concluded. Find Casey Cobb's review and a link to the full School Choice Wisconsin report on the web at: 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: Casey D. Cobb (860) 486-0253; casey.cobb@uconn.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 How to Regulate Critical Race Theory in Schools: A Primer and Model Legislation Summary The Manhattan Institute recently released a report that manufactures a case against Critical Race Theory (CRT), building on a foundation of right-wing talking points. The report offers model legislation as a tool for countering schools’ purported CRT-inspired indoctrination. It contends that CRT is the foundation of a widespread effort by public schools to forcibly indoctrinate students and teaching staff to support an anti-conservative, anti-civil rights, anti-White, and anti-American agenda. However, as Professor Brown explains, the report’s errant conclusions were derived from misleading anecdotal evidence and a misrepresentation of important literature. Publication Date December 14, 2021 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Authors James Copland; Kevin D. Brown, Indiana University Maurer School of Law Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release False and Misleading Information About CRT Prevents Report From Being a Serious Guide to Lawmaking An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's partisan misrepresentation of Critical Race Theory would, if heeded, prevent schools from teaching accurately about the history of slavery and racism. EAST LANSING, MI (December 14, 2021) - The Manhattan Institute recently released a report that manufactures a case against Critical Race Theory (CRT), building on a foundation of right-wing talking points. Professor Kevin D. Brown, the Richard S. Melvin Professor of Indiana University Maurer School of Law reviewed How to Regulate Critical Race Theory in Schools: A Primer and Model Legislation , examining several of the ways that the report mischaracterizes CRT. The report offers model legislation as a tool for countering schools' purported CRT-inspired indoctrination. It contends that CRT is the foundation of a widespread effort by public schools to forcibly indoctrinate students and teaching staff to support an anti-conservative, anti-civil rights, anti-White, and anti-American agenda. However, as Professor Brown explains, the report's errant conclusions were derived from misleading anecdotal evidence and a misrepresentation of important literature. He details how the report is less about sound policy than it is about creating partisan talking points and unproductive controversy. He also cautions that the model legislation might, if adopted, lead to contentious anti-discrimination litigation. For these reasons, Professor Brown concludes, the Manhattan report does not provide serious guidance to lawmakers interested in understanding or legislating about issues related to race in schools. Find the review, by Kevin D. Brown, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find How to Regulate Critical Race Theory in Schools: A Primer and Model Legislation , written by James Copland and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/copland-crt-legislation.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Kevin D. Brown: (812) 855-6145, brownkd@indiana.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice: 2019 Edition Summary A recent report from EdChoice presents itself as a yearly updated list and synthesis of empirical studies exploring the impacts of school vouchers across a set of outcomes. But a new review of the report finds that it fails to provide a robust summary of the research literature on vouchers and their full range of positive and negative impacts. Publication Date June 11, 2019 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Andrew Catt, Paul DiPerna, Martin Lueken, Michael McShane, and Michael Shaw; T. Jameson Brewer, of the University of North Georgia Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Voucher Report Uses Shaky Methods to Misrepresent Research An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Questionable methodology and misrepresentation of the research result in a misleading report not useful for decision-making or research purposes. EAST LANSING, MI (June 11, 2019) - A recent report from EdChoice presents itself as a yearly updated list and synthesis of empirical studies exploring the impacts of school vouchers across a set of outcomes. But a new review of the report finds that it fails to provide a robust summary of the research literature on vouchers and their full range of positive and negative impacts. T. Jameson Brewer, of the University of North Georgia, reviewed The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice: 2019 Edition . EdChoice's report attempts to convince readers that a solid body of research evidence shows voucher benefits such as an increase in test scores, parental satisfaction, increased civic values, improvements in racial segregation, and fiscal benefits through governmental cost savings. What Dr. Brewer found instead was a limited collection of cherry-picked studies, largely from non-peer-reviewed sources, and primarily authored by voucher advocates. The report's misrepresentation of the existing research, combined with its use of the questionable methodology of simply counting up results categorized as positive or negative, results in an overall appearance of stacking the deck to create an illusory compilation of studies that profess to bolster EdChoice's predetermined commitment to cheerleading school vouchers. Find the review, by T. Jameson Brewer, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice: 2019 Edition , written by Andrew Catt, Paul DiPerna, Martin Lueken, Michael McShane, and Michael Shaw, and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/123s-of-School-Choice.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net T. Jameson Brewer: (404) 941-4530, jameson.brewer@ung.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain Private Ventures in Need of Public Regulation Summary This policy brief focuses on virtual schooling, the fastest growing alternative to traditional K-12 education in the U.S.. The expansion in virtual schools (especially full-time virtual schools) is taking place despite the absence of any data on the effectiveness of full-time cyber programs and with little government oversight. The authors offer recommendations for state legislators and other policymakers. These recommendations are contained in model legislation which accompanies the policy brief. Publication Date October 25, 2011 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Gene V Glass and Kevin G. Welner (Policy Brief) Justin Bathon (Model Legislation) Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Full-time cyber schools expanding despite no evidence of their effectiveness, new report finds Study finds more questions than answers about the benefit of full-time virtual schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 25, 2011) — Full-time virtual schools are expanding despite no high-quality evidence that they are effective, according to a new report released today. Cash-strapped states and school districts are using online education — including full-time virtual schools with no face-to-face contact between students and teachers — as a lower-cost alternative to traditional public schools. In states such as Florida, virtual schools are used as a loophole in laws that limit the size of classes. According to the report, authored by University of Colorado education professors Gene V Glass and Kevin G. Welner, full-time "cyber schools" are now operating in 27 states. In at least one case in Arizona, a private firm outsourced essay grading to low-paid workers in India. "Private operators are gaining access to large streams of public revenue to run cyber schools," Glass said. "But school districts are not getting full information on the actual costs of these programs, so it's not clear if taxpayer money is being used effectively — or properly." Cyber schools are subject to only minimal government oversight, according to the report. "We have to make sure that cyber schools don't become just a cheap way of providing second-rate service to disadvantaged schools and students," Glass said. "No matter where they live or in what form they receive instruction, all students deserve quality teachers, supported by a rigorous program of accreditation and accountability," Welner said. As virtual schools continue to grow, Glass and Welner offered several recommendations for state legislators and other policymakers. The recommendations are contained in model legislation also released today by University of Kentucky educator professor and attorney Justin Bathon. These recommendations include: Financial audits of cyber schools to determine their actual per-student expenses, so school districts can determine appropriate reimbursement. Authentication of student work: An online instructor, whether located in the U.S. or abroad, has no way to determine whether work submitted via computer was performed by the student enrolled in the class. Trusted organizations should be engaged to administer in-person exams, as is currently the practice at several virtual schools. Accreditation: To avoid abuses that have been found in other proprietary schools – such as truck driving and cosmetology academies – traditional high school accrediting agencies and state and federal departments of education should work together to develop a rigorous approach to accreditation of both part- and full-time cyber schools. The full report, "Online K-12 Schooling in the U.S.: Uncertain Private Ventures in Need of Public Regulation" and the model legislation were produced by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. To read Glass and Welner's full report and to view Bathon's model legislation, go to: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Both are also available on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/online-k-12-schooling --###-- 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: Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Gene V Glass, 480-294-1120, gene.glass@colorado.edu Justin Bathon, 859-257-7845, justin.bathon@uky.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools? Summary Legislatures across the United States continue to pass policies to add or expand school choice. Within this context, the Fordham Institute, an advocate of school choice expansion, has published a report asserting that charter schools have not negatively affected students in traditional public schools. However, a review of this report finds that though it could contribute to the conversation, its conclusions are highly misleading. Publication Date June 20, 2024 Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Stéphane Lavertu; Bryan Mann, University of Kansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Despite a Sound Analysis of School Choice, Report Offers Misleading Conclusions An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's analysis contributes to the charter school debate but fails to support its bold claim that the debate is over. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JUNE 20, 2024) - Legislatures across the United States continue to pass policies to add or expand school choice. Within this context, the Fordham Institute, an advocate of school choice expansion, has published a report asserting that charter schools have not negatively affected students in traditional public schools. However, a review of this report finds that though it could contribute to the conversation, its conclusions are highly misleading. In his review of Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools? , University of Kansas professor Bryan Mann determines the report to have little value to policymakers. This is in large part because the report's conclusions extend well beyond the scope of its statistical analysis. The Fordham report concludes that the presence of charter schools leads to modest improvements in traditional schools' attendance and graduation rates and, therefore, that charters and similar approaches should be expanded in Ohio. That is, the report argues that lawmakers should increase the charter-school footprint, based solely on a limited analysis of these two performance indicators. This argument aligns with other advocates' "competitive effects" arguments-the idea that district-run schools will adjust to marketplace pressure and improve. However, the study's statistical analysis actually reveals null findings in performance indicators, allowing for counterfactuals that undermine its core arguments. The study's own findings do not justify the report's bold conclusions. Even though there is significant scholarly debate on the extent and nature of competitive effects, Professor Mann details how the report misuses its limited findings to declare that debate "over." The competitive-effects issue remains unresolved. Thus, because of its unsupported leap from findings to conclusions, policymakers should avoid using the report to make high-stakes-and costly-decisions that expand charter schools in Ohio. Find the review, by Bryan Mann, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools?, written by Stéphane Lavertu and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/research/did-emergence-ohio-charter-schools-help-or-harm-students-who-remained-district 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 Bryan Mann: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Missouri The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Indiana The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Texas The High Cost of South Carolina’s Low Graduation Rates The High Cost of Low Graduation Rates in North Carolina Summary These five sister reports have been published by the Friedman Foundation over the past two years. They assert that private-school voucher programs can reduce the social costs of dropping out while increasing graduation rates. Publication Date January 9, 2008 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding Authors Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORTS CLAIMING VOUCHERS CAN REDUCE DROPOUT RATES FOUND TO BE OF POOR QUALITY Reviewer says the conclusions reached by Friedman Foundation reports are flawed and untrustworthy EAST LANSING , Mich. (Jan. 9, 2008) – A series of five reports released over the past two years asserts that dropout rates can be reduced by implementing private-school voucher programs. A new review of those reports, however, finds that they are of little value because they ignore the abundance of relevant research and offer no means by which to gauge the alleged benefits of vouchers against other alternatives. The five reports, each specific to a given state – Missouri, Indiana, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina – follow a parallel structure and were written by Brian Gottlob and published by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida. Among their more serious flaws, Dorn finds that all five reports: largely ignore existing research on dropping out and school competition; present a superficial calculation of the costs of dropping out; improperly rely on a single, imperfect 1998 article as the entire basis for their calculations on the purported impact of voucher programs on improving graduation rates; and ignore possible alternative approaches for raising graduation rates, instead focusing exclusively on private school voucher programs. According to Dorn, “the reports make no mention of the extensive literature exploring graduation, dropping out and the factors that shape educational attainment.” As a result, “each report obscures other program options that policymakers could consider.” These other options include preschool programs, intervention in middle and high school grades, changes in child labor laws, reduction in class sizes and modification of exit-exam requirements. Dorn notes that dropping out is a serious problem which deserves serious rather than superficial analysis. He concludes by advising state policymakers who are interested in increasing graduation rates to bypass these reports and instead seek out “the available, well-researched scholarship on the topic,” much of which he identifies in the review. Find the complete review by Sherman Dorn as well as a link to the Friedman Foundation 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: Sherman Dorn – (813) 205-6143; sherman.dorn@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Reform With Results for New Jersey Schools Summary This report presents findings on the effectivenss of New Jersey's Abbott v. Burke court decisions. The report argues that the reforms ordered by the court have failed to increase student achievement despite what it terms dramatic spending increases. Based on this, the report argues for instituting such reforms as charters schools, changes to union contracts and vouchers. Publication Date February 10, 2011 Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education Authors Alan R. Sadovnik, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Lexington Institute's New Jersey Report of Little Value to Policymakers February 10, 2011 Shortcomings of current school reforms are exaggerated while problems with the report's favored reforms are ignored, according to new review EAST LANSING, MI (February 10, 2011) – A review released today finds fundamental errors in a Lexington Institute report that condemns existing reforms in New Jersey and instead suggests its own reforms, such as merit pay for teachers and private school vouchers. According to the reviewer, the report offers only a one-sided presentation of the issue and ignores relevant research. The report, Reform with Results for New Jersey Schools , by Lori Drummer and Don Soifer, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Alan R. Sadovnik, a professor of education, sociology, and public administration and affairs at Rutgers University, Newark and co-director of the Institute on Education Law and Policy and the Newark Schools Research Collaborative The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Lexington report claims to analyze the impact of reforms instituted as a result of New Jersey's Abbott v. Burke school funding litigation in the 1990s. The Abbott reforms included pre-school for three- and four-year-olds, funding to build new and renovate existing schools, and supplemental funding for up to 31 low-income school districts. The report states that these reforms have failed to significantly improve educational achievement, especially for African American students. It recommends replacing the reforms associated with Abbott with a variety of school-choice policies as well as tying teacher pay to student test results Sadovnik found that the report largely avoids research-based conclusions, cherry-picks evidence, and "is a straightforward advocacy document for market-based and competition-oriented reforms." As one example of the report's research flaws, it overstates the per-pupil spending in Newark by $4,000 by crediting to the district money passed through to charter schools and to pre-kindergarten programs. Further, while advocating expansion of the charter school sector, the report ignores "a body of research indicating that Newark charter schools perform at similar levels to district schools, after controlling for family background and other variables," according to Sadovnik. "Even an advocacy report has an obligation to reach conclusions based on all of the available evidence, not simply that which supports its point of view." Lacking the sort of "carefully collected evidence" and sound social science methodology that should drive school reform, Sadovnik concludes that "this report will be useful only to those already predisposed to its point of view." Find Alan Sadovnik's review and a link to the Lexinton Institute report on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . 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-reform-with-results . --###-- 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: Alan R. Sadovnik: (973) 353-3882 or sadovnik@andromeda.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071 or 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 Everyone Wins: How Charter Schools Benefit All New York City Public School Students Summary This report looks at the competition effects of New York City's charter schools and concludes that "students benefit academically when their public school is exposed to competition from a charter." Publication Date November 17, 2009 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Patrick McEwan, Wellesley College Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Charter Report Overstates Results November 17, 2009 'Everyone Wins' ignores factors besides competition to explain marginally improved public school achievement in NYC, according to reviewer EAST LANSING, Mi., (November 17, 2009) – A recently released Manhattan Institute report looks at the competition effects of New York City's charter schools and concludes that "students benefit academically when their public school is exposed to competition from a charter." A new review of that report finds that the report's findings are minimal and may be explained by factors other than charter-school competition. The report, Everyone Wins: How Charter Schools Benefit All New York City Public School Students , was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Patrick McEwan, professor of economics at Wellesley College. The report's focus reflects an important premise behind the market-competition approach to education reform. While critics of market theory contend competition from charter schools or other alternatives will end up penalizing the public schools that must educate most children, market advocates contend competition will help the entire school population. Competition, this argument runs, doesn't just expand choices for parents; it also prods existing public schools to improve in order to avoid losing students. Everyone Wins draws on three years of test score data in mathematics and English Language Arts (ELA) from New York City public schools as well as data on the percentage of students leaving public schools for charter schools. As McEwan explains, the report uses the rate of departures for charter schools as a proxy to measure increased "pressure on public school administrators to 'compete,' improve test scores, and staunch the flow of students to charter schools." Using appropriate statistical controls, the report finds that increasing competition does not appear to be associated with improved math test scores, while it has "small positive effects on ELA scores" that are "slightly larger among public school students with lower levels of achievement." In his review, McEwan observes that the report itself is modest in its conclusions and that it "correctly notes that the statistical findings do not necessarily imply that increases in the measure of competition cause test scores to rise..." However, the report's title suggests a much more positive definitive outcome, and the nuances are lost as well in the executive summary. McEwan praises the report on several counts: its use of "a high-quality, longitudinal dataset of student achievement," its use of appropriate statistical methods, and its contribution to "an established literature that finds roughly consistent effects of 'competition' that are often zero or slightly positive, depending on the state and method." But he also points out important limitations. The statistical methods used, "while appropriate...cannot control for several potential biases," McEwan writes. "As a result, the measured effects of competition could also reflect the influence of shifting peer quality, declining class size, or other unobserved variables." Other sources of market pressure, such as private schools or schools of choice, are also not considered in this report. The report notes in passing some of those limitations, but "does not make a serious attempt to assess their validity," the reviewer concludes. In the end, then, it does not deliver what it claims, and we do not know whether, in fact, "everyone wins." Find Patrick McEwan's review and a link to the Manhattan Institute report on the web at: 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: Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965; (email) 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 Review of: Making Next Year Count: Equity in School Accountability Summary The series correctly concludes that state accountability systems have not improved student achievement or closed achievement gaps over the last decade. Despite this conclusion, however, the series puzzlingly insists that state testing and accountability systems must be reinstated in 2020-21 and must focus on schools with the lowest performance levels. Publication Date October 15, 2020 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Technology & AI Authors Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O'Neal Schiess, and Andrew J. Rotherham; Edward J. Fuller, Penn State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Flawed Reports Insist Ineffective Accountability Systems Must Continue An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Series of reports fails to make a cogent argument for continuing the use of test-based accountability systems. EAST LANSING, MI (October 15, 2020) - A four-part series on accountability from Bellwether Education Partners explores school accountability systems from several different angles: their historical roots, their theory of change, and their impact on student outcomes, as well as the effect of COVID-related school closures on testing and accountability. These publications, collectively entitled, Making Next Year Count: Equity in School Accountability , were reviewed by Professor Edward J. Fuller of Penn State University, who found them problematic for a number of reasons. The series correctly concludes that state accountability systems have not improved student achievement or closed achievement gaps over the last decade. Despite this conclusion, however, the series puzzlingly insists that state testing and accountability systems must be reinstated in 2020-21 and must focus on schools with the lowest performance levels. Professor Fuller pointed out that underlying this conclusion was the reports’ failure to adequately review the existing literature. As a result, the reports overstate some research conclusions and ignore a large body of research about factors that influence student outcomes. Specifically, the reports do not acknowledge the critical need for access to quality educators and fiscal resources, which are foundational to any serious effort to improve student outcomes. Moreover, the reports focus very narrowly on test scores as the primary outcome of schooling and ignore outcomes such as critical thinking, media literacy, and civics that are more important than ever. For these reasons, Professor Fuller concludes, policymakers are advised to ignore this series and access more nuanced reviews and recommendations regarding school accountability in the coming years. Find the review, by Edward J. Fuller, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find the overview page for the series, Making Next Year Count: Equity in School Accountability, written by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O'Neal Schiess, and Andrew J. Rotherham and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/updated-making-next-year-count-equity-school-accountability Find the individual reports: The Historical Roots and Theory of Change of Modern School Accountability , by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O’Neal Schiess, & Andrew J. Rotherham: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-HistoricalRoots_Final.pdf The Impact of Standards-Based Accountability by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O’Neal Schiess, & Andrew J. Rotherham: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-Impact_Final.pdf Assessment and Accountability in the Wake of COVID-19 , by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O’Neal Schiess, & Andrew J. Rotherham : https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-COVID19_Final.pdf Refocusing the Priorities of Accountability , by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, & Jennifer O’Neal Schiess: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-RefocusingPriorities_Final.pdf NEPC Reviews (http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Edward J. Fuller: (814) 865-2233, ejf20@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More