< Back Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance Summary The first year of the second Trump administration has seen a radical break from six decades of federal education policy, discarding the longstanding vision of equal access and human capital development in favor of a new, and as yet undefined, approach to American educational governance. In a new policy brief, Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance, Dr. Derek Gottlieb, a leading scholar of education policy, examines the educational purposes that administration officials have publicly articulated across a variety of platforms, along with the actions that the federal government has taken over the past year to achieve its goals. Publication Date April 21, 2026 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Derek Gottlieb Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Long-standing equity-focused framework is being replaced by executive-driven governance, creating uncertainty for schools nationwide and increasing the importance of participatory approaches. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (APRIL 21, 2026) - The first year of the second Trump administration has seen a radical break from six decades of federal education policy, discarding the longstanding vision of equal access and human capital development in favor of a new, and as yet undefined, approach to American educational governance. In a new policy brief, Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance , Dr. Derek Gottlieb, a leading scholar of education policy, examines the educational purposes that administration officials have publicly articulated across a variety of platforms, along with the actions that the federal government has taken over the past year to achieve its goals. Citing the supposed need to align education policy with "Presidential priorities," the administration has expanded executive authority over federal spending and legal rules. Meeting little resistance from either Congress or the Supreme Court, it has altered antidiscrimination enforcement, redirected congressionally approved funding, and revised university research contracts. Yet no single unifying vision has emerged. Instead, a patchwork agenda includes expanding parental choice through charter funding and a federal tax-credit scholarship, curbing grade inflation and campus activism, and reducing federal capacity for research and data. Much of these changes have at their core a sweeping reinterpretation of Equal Protection and Title VI and IX enforcement. The administration has applied these interpretations to limit initiatives supporting minoritized and vulnerable populations, while also targeting what it characterizes as ideological "indoctrination" in schools. At the same time, it has advanced a definition of "merit" that excludes consideration of structural inequality. Among the results are that educational institutions face heightened uncertainty, inclusionary practices risk federal investigation, funding streams have become less predictable, and public resources are increasingly diluted across both public and private sectors. More broadly, the executive branch now exerts unprecedented influence over institutional decision-making. Because educational institutions are operating under increasingly arbitrary rule, protecting mission-driven work will require stronger engagement with local constituencies - from civil-society and business groups to voters. Although federal authority rests on funding and enforcement, it has historically been constrained by state and local resistance. In this context, Dr. Gottlieb suggests that education leaders must build public trust through strategies such as participatory budgeting and stakeholder engagement to sustain institutional missions and navigate ongoing federal pressure. Find Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance , by Derek Gottlieb, 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 Renee Valladares Derek Gottlieb (262) 299-0325 derek.gottlieb@marquette.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 29, 2014 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Ana Menezes and Adam Maier; William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder 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 Section 504 Plans: Examining Inequitable Access and Misuse Summary In a policy brief released today by NEPC, Section 504 Plans: Examining Inequitable Access and Misuse, Maria M. Lewis of Penn State University and Raquel Muñiz of Boston College present research and emerging trends that should inform policymaking around Section 504. Publication Date June 8, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Authors Maria M. Lewis, Pennsylvania State University; Raquel Muñiz, Boston College Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Exploring How Power and Privilege Interact With Disability Laws in Education Key Takeaway : Policy brief offers recommendations to address the ways that disability law favors privileged families. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (June 8, 2023) - Although education is often rhetorically or aspirationally lauded as the great equalizer, far-reaching inequities persist. The legal process is one avenue to address inequities in education. However, the law can also exacerbate inequities. This is particularly the case when either privileged or under-resourced families navigate gray areas in the law, including federal laws related to students with disabilities-specifically, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. In a policy brief released today by NEPC, Section 504 Plans: Examining Inequitable Access and Misuse , Maria M. Lewis of Penn State University and Raquel Muñiz of Boston College present research and emerging trends that should inform policymaking around Section 504. The brief notes that Section 504 currently favors powerful and privileged families because of its broad eligibility criteria, a lack of funding to support implementation, and its substantial deference to the professional judgment of educators and external evaluators. Accommodations can be a powerful tool to promote equity for students with disabilities and it is important that all students who need accommodations have access to them. Federal disability law allows affluent parents, families, and students to leverage their power and privilege to pursue accommodations when needed-and even when they’re not. Consequently, the federal law can leave minoritized caregivers who lack resources-such as money to pay for private evaluators-unable to access 504 accommodations, including extended testing time, modified classroom assignments, and breaks. Lewis and Muñiz also explain how research and emerging trends have raised increasing concerns about unfairness and abuses of disability policies, particularly with regard to intersectional disadvantages and advantages that may emerge in the implementation of Section 504, depending on a student’s social identities. For example, a single individual may be disadvantaged by ableism and classism, or ableism and racism. The converse is also true: An individual with multiple privileged social identities may experience compounded advantages. Because many of these inequities are systemic, the authors conclude by providing recommendations that include policy actions at the federal, state, and local levels. Find Section 504 Plans: Examining Inequitable Access and Misuse , by Maria M. Lewis and Raquel Muñiz, 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 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: https://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 https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar : (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger : (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Maria M. Lewis : (814) 865-2966, mml25@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Closures and Student Achievement: An Analysis of Ohio’s Urban District and Charter Schools Summary This report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute investigated school closures in Ohio for urban district and charter schools. The report found that test scores of displaced district students showed greater gains in math and reading relative to students from non-closed schools and that displaced charter students showed gains in math but not reading. Among the findings of the report, closed schools were attended by greater percentages of African American students from low-income families. Additionally, the report noted that displaced students performed better if they transferred to schools with higher levels of performance. Publication Date June 16, 2015 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability; General / Needs Review Authors Deven Carleson and Stéphane Lavertu; Ben Kirshner, University of Colorado Boulder; and Matthew Gaertner, Pearson Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School closure report offers some guidance, if caution is taken, review finds Think Twice reviews recent Fordham analysis EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 16, 2015) – A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute investigated school closures in Ohio for urban district and charter schools. The report found that test scores of displaced district students showed greater gains in math and reading relative to students from non-closed schools and that displaced charter students showed gains in math but not reading. An academic review of the report finds that, despite the encouraging results, they leave un-addressed core questions about closure policy. Ben Kirshner, University of Colorado Boulder, and Matthew Gaertner, Pearson's Research and Innovation Network, reviewed School Closures and Student Achievement: An Analysis of Ohio's Urban District and Charter Schools 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. Among the findings of the report, closed schools were attended by greater percentages of African American students from low-income families. Additionally, the report noted that displaced students performed better if they transferred to schools with higher levels of performance. National and international media extoled the report's findings and suggested that closing schools could improve educational outcomes. However, the reviewers caution that readers should not draw strong or straightforward conclusions from the study. The reviewers cited three primary concerns: Availability of higher-quality receiving schools that are easily accessible to students ought to be a precondition for a decision to close a school. What counts as a better schooling option needs to be better defined, with the promise of safe, reliable transportation options. School closure does not provide a lasting solution to challenges associated with economic and racial segregation found in neighborhoods of concentrated poverty. Specifically, the reviewers suggest that alternative interpretations of the report call for a different set of policy solutions, which could focus on integration. The reviewers primary concern for the report focuses on the ability of parents and communities to make decisions about schools. "Until people's fundamental moral right to be part of decisions that affect their children's lives are taken seriously, discussions about improvement or lack of it in test score performance are insufficient." In their conclusion, the reviewers state: "we caution policymakers to ensure that there are better, accessible school options before accepting the conclusion that closure is a sound choice." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report on the web: http://edexcellence.net/publications/school-closures-and-student-achievement-an-analysis-of-ohio%E2%80%99s-urban-district-and 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: Ben Kirshner, (303) 492-6122, kirshner@colorado.edu Daniel 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 Still a Good Investment: Charter School Productivity in Nine Cities Summary The Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas has maintained, in an ongoing series of reports, that charter schools suffer from inequitable funding compared to public district schools. Their latest output extends this argument, claiming that despite receiving less revenue, charters achieve better results on standardized tests, making them the more cost-effective choice. However, the same methodological flaws identified in earlier reports continue, and worsen, in this one. Publication Date January 23, 2024 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Alison H. Johnson, Josh B. McGee, Patrick J. Wolf, Jay F. May, and Larry D. Maloney; Mark Weber, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Once Again, University of Arkansas Charter Funding Report Makes Unfounded Claims An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Glaring methodological flaws invalidate report’s assertions that charter schools achieve better results for less money than traditional public schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 23, 2024) - The Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas has maintained, in an ongoing series of reports, that charter schools suffer from inequitable funding compared to public district schools. Their latest output extends this argument, claiming that despite receiving less revenue, charters achieve better results on standardized tests, making them the more cost-effective choice. However, the same methodological flaws identified in earlier reports continue, and worsen, in this one. Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective reviewed Still a Good Investment: Charter School Productivity in Nine Cities and details the faulty methodology that undermines the validity of its conclusions. To substantiate its claim of superior performance by charter schools, the report references research conducted by the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO), combining its own school revenue database with CREDO’s results in a jumbled and invalid attempt to convert CREDO effect sizes from different states and grade levels into points on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Specifically, the report conflates NAEP scores with CREDO measures of growth when transforming the academic outcomes into a common scale. The report then compounds this error by using a simplistic "return on investment" measure that lacks the necessary complexity found in rigorous research on education cost modeling. It also is grounded in a weakly documented dataset of district and charter revenues. These data limitations, along with the erroneous transformation of the CREDO results into NAEP points and the simplistic ROI figure, thoroughly invalidate the report’s findings. The report, consequently, is yet another methodologically flawed document that should be ignored by policymakers and stakeholders. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find Still a Good Investment: Charter School Productivity in Nine Cities , written by Alison H. Johnson, Josh B. McGee, Patrick J. Wolf, Jay F. May, and Larry D. Maloney and published by the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform, at: https://scdp.uark.edu/still-a-good-investment-charter-school-productivity-in-nine-cities/ 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 Renée Valladares Mark Weber Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Public Education at a Crossroads: A Comprehensive Look at K-12 Resources and Outcomes Summary A growing and persuasive body of research has established the causal relationship between school funding and academic outcomes. The reality that money matters is not in serious dispute. But a new report from the Reason Foundation uses some superficial comparisons to try again to muddy the waters. Publication Date April 9, 2024 Research Areas School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Authors Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell; Clive Belfield, City University of New York Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Critical Shortcomings Weaken Education Funding Report An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's conclusions about the relationship between funding growth and academic outcome are undermined by methodological flaws and lack of meaningful insights. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 9, 2024) - A growing and persuasive body of research has established the causal relationship between school funding and academic outcomes. The reality that money matters is not in serious dispute. But a new report from the Reason Foundation uses some superficial comparisons to try again to muddy the waters. Clive Belfield, a professor at the City University of New York and Principal Economist at the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education, University of Pennsylvania, reviewed Public Education at a Crossroads: A Comprehensive Look at K-12 Resources and Outcomes , finding it to use poor methodology and analysis to lead to its vacuous conclusions-most pointedly that there “isn't a consistent relationship between funding growth and outcomes across states.” The report uses national education data, including NAEP test scores in math and reading, to describe trends in spending, teacher pay, and academic outcomes from 2002-03 up to the start of the pandemic. It describes trends of increasing revenue, declining teacher pay, and growing employment in non-instructional support positions. The report contends that to move forward in the aftermath of the pandemic, it is important to understand key pre-pandemic trends. But it offers no arguments as to how those trends provide appropriate context for post-pandemic educational policy. Simply restating readily available evidence, the report's conclusions fail to provide any valuable insights. Professor Belfield concludes, then, that the report's failure to consider state- and national-level economic, social, or demographic trends, combined with its deficient or nonexistent analysis, result in conclusions that policymakers would do well to ignore. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find Public Education at a Crossroads: A Comprehensive Look at K-12 Resources and Outcomes , written by Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell and published by the Reason Foundation, at: https://reason.org/k12-ed-spending/crossroads-report/ 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 The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date April 20, 2009 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, MI (April 20, 2009) – K-12 virtual education is becoming increasingly widespread in public education, but concerns remain about the benefits of full-time virtual schools as well as issues of cost, accreditation, evaluation and the increased commercialization of schooling, according to a new policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief, The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education , is by Gene V Glass, regents’ professor of education at Arizona State University. Glass surveys the current research literature on virtual education, examining issues such as the quality of online schooling and attitudes toward it on the part of the public and public officials. The most frequent form of virtual education, Glass writes, is “credit recovery” – online classes that make up for a previously failed course or for a necessary class that could not be scheduled conventionally. Glass reports that three meta-analyses of studies examining virtual education programs have concluded that there was no difference in achievement between students taught through online courses and those taught in traditional, face-to-face classroom settings. These existing studies overwhelmingly concentrated on distance education – online education used, for example, to provide services to students in extremely rural areas – so research should now focus on the newer applications of the model. These earlier studies also “focused on highly structured curricula such as science, math, and reading,” Glass notes. Little is yet known about how well students can learn from virtual courses on “less readily codified subjects” such as art, music or literary interpretation. The development of full-time virtual schooling also raises funding and other political issues, Glass explains. This policy debate tends to be dominated by “the commercial interests of large, private providers of courses and programs,” with public school districts and universities now entering the market. Glass concludes with a series of recommendations made to legislatures, state-level education officials and school boards: Adopt new regulations governing the provision of online K-12 schooling. Call for audits of providers of virtual education to help determine costs. Recognize legitimate accrediting agencies. Require credible assessment and evaluation. Find Gene Glass’s report, The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education , on the Web at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### 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: Gene V Glass – (480) 965 2692; glass@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Policy Makers Guide to The 65% Solution Proposals 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 1, 2006 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors 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 Giving Students the Chaff: How to Find and Keep the Teachers We Need Summary This report asserts that school choice, in the form of private-school vouchers and charter schools, will improve the quality of teachers. Publication Date October 25, 2006 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Raymond Pecheone & Ash Vasudeva, Stanford University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release CATO Report Linking School Choice with Improved Teacher Quality Ignores Contradictory Evidence October 25, 2006 For Immediate Release Education Research and Practice (517) 203-2940 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Raymond Pecheone, Stanford University (650) 723-4106 (e-mail) pecheone@suse.stanford.edu EAST LANSING, Mich. — A recently released policy analysis from the CATO Institute which asserts that school choice, in the form of private-school vouchers and charter schools, will improve the quality of teachers and relies on selectively cited research and ignores many other factors that have a bearing on teacher quality according to a Think Twice review of the report. The report, Giving Kids the Chaff: How to Find and Keep the Teachers We Need, by Marie Gryphon, claims that the current educational system is a major barrier to attracting highly qualified teachers because of compressed pay scales and the fact that public school administrators fail to hire and support the best applicants. School choice, she argues, will provide the incentives necessary to change such practices. In their review of the report, Raymond Pecheone and Ash Vasudeva of Stanford University find that Gryphon’s initial premise – that teacher quality plays an important role in improving educational outcomes – is well founded in the educational research literature. However, her subsequent conclusion – “competition and choice induce improved hiring practices and more flexible compensation policies, which in turn attract and retain high-qualified teachers” – lacks the same sort of broad-based evidentiary support, the reviewers write. “In the end, the report’s failure to consider alternative interpretations of empirical research on hiring and compensation undermines the validity of the findings and conclusions, as does the failure to identify research that does not corroborate an ‘achievement effect’ for charter and private schools.” The CATO report contends that administrators in school districts where there is competition, in the form of charter schools or other school-choice programs, “gave quality higher priority in the hiring and retention process.” Pecheone and Vasudeva note, however, that a more accurate and compelling explanation for variation in teacher quality in these districts may be that teachers self-select into schools with better working conditions. “If teacher self-selection into schools (rather than managerial hiring policies and practices) is chiefly responsible for placement, then improving school working conditions should be the priority,” Pecheone and Vasudeva say. “While it may be argued that schools competing for talented teachers will improve working conditions to attract them, this argument ignores resource disparities between and across schools and districts as well as the communities in which they are located.” Find the complete review by Raymond Pecheone and Ash Vasudeva as well as a link to the CATO Institute report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Cost-Effectiveness of Wisconsin's Private School Choice Programs Summary A recent report from School Choice Wisconsin claims that Wisconsin's voucher programs are highly "productive," achieving better academic outcomes at lower costs than public schools. A closer examination, however, calls into question the validity of these assertions. Publication Date December 12, 2023 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Stephen Kotok, St. John’s University; Stephen Kotok, St. John's University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's Claims of Voucher Success Undermined by Flawed Methodology and Limited Research Basis An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Wisconsin families and policymakers deserve a more accurate, less biased assessment of the state voucher program. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (December 12, 2023) - A recent report from School Choice Wisconsin claims that Wisconsin's voucher programs are highly "productive," achieving better academic outcomes at lower costs than public schools. A closer examination, however, calls into question the validity of these assertions. Stephen Kotok of St. John's University reviewed The Cost-Effectiveness of Wisconsin's Private School Choice Programs , and identified substantial methodological shortcomings that undermine its conclusions, including reliance on biased comparisons and limited financial accounting. While comparing the cost and academic performance of voucher recipients in Wisconsin to public school students, the report overlooks important considerations regarding true school funding costs, and fails to assess the voucher program against an appropriate comparison group of students. The funding calculation fails to account for special needs students, additional school fees, and state oversight expenses. The report also ignores recent studies examining the effectiveness of voucher programs in other states and showing starkly negative outcomes for the voucher recipients. Professor Kotok explains that the Wisconsin-specific claims are undermined by the reality that students are not randomly assigned to vouchers or admitted through a lottery, so it is very problematic to compare students and their academic results without controlling for other variables. He agrees that while voucher costs and their impact are important policy questions, this report does not contribute to answering those questions. Find the review, by Stephen Kotok, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Cost-Effectiveness of Wisconsin's Private School Choice Programs , published by School Choice Wisconsin, at: https://schoolchoicewi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/The-Cost-Effectiveness-of-Wisconsins-Private-School-Choice-Programs.pdf 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 Stephen Kotok (718) 990-2654 kotoks@stjohns.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back ESEA Reauthorization: How Can We Build upon No Child Left Behind’s Progress for Students with Disabilities in a Reauthorized ESEA Summary A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) links benchmarks for inclusion in state testing and stringent accountability with improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities. While noting that causal claims could not be made, the report then proceeded to try to convince readers of exactly such claims. The report compared 2000 to 2013 NAEP test scores along with NCES national-level data and found increased test scores, decreased dropout rates, and increased graduation rates for students with disabilities, as well as improved outcomes for Black and Hispanic students with disabilities. Publication Date June 8, 2015 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Authors Chelsea Straus; Edward Fierros & Katherine Cosner, Villanova University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds CAP report fails to connect accountability pressures to improved outcomes for students with disabilities EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 8, 2015) – In April, a report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) linked benchmarks for inclusion in state testing and stringent accountability with improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities. While noting that causal claims could not be made, the report then proceeded to try to convince readers of exactly such claims. An academic review out today explains that causal arguments are nowhere near possible given the relatively weak data and analyses used in the report. Edward Fierros, Associate Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Education and Counseling at Villanova University, along with Katherine Cosner, a graduate student at Villanova University, reviewed ESEA Reauthorization: How We Can Build upon No Child Left Behind's Progress for Students with Disabilities in a Reauthorized ESEA 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. The report compared 2000 to 2013 NAEP test scores along with NCES national-level data and found increased test scores, decreased dropout rates, and increased graduation rates for students with disabilities, as well as improved outcomes for Black and Hispanic students with disabilities. Despite the report's suggestions that tougher accountability and higher expectations produced these better educational outcomes, the reviewers found little to justify the claims. "While these student outcomes did indeed improve for students with disabilities during this time period," the reviewers note "the report is wrong to assert that improvements were caused by NCLB or NCLB-type reforms." Among the shortcomings identified by the reviewers, the report neglected to examine state outcomes or results by locale, to consider other factors that may have influenced the results over these 13 years, or to review possible differences by subgroups of students with differing disabilities. The reviewers recommend that an analysis that is more focused on state- and local-level outcomes would have helped reveal what the national average scores can hide. Additionally, the review indicates that the report used simple descriptive bar charts in place of more sophisticated and appropriate analytic methods. It also found "there is not a single reference to a peer reviewed or generally accepted research report" in the CAP analysis despite an abundance of available research. In their conclusion, the reviewers state, "In sum, the simplistic presentation of aggregate descriptive data does not provide compelling or useful data for policy purposes." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the CAP report on the web: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NCLB-StudentsDisability-brief1.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Edward G. Fierros, (610) 519-6969, edward.fierros@villanova.edu Daniel 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 Teach for America: A Review of the Evidence Summary This policy brief offers a comprehensive review of research on the Teach For America program and its impact on student achievement. The authors argue that the research is decidedly mixed at best. The brief includes recommendations for policymakers and school districts regarding TFA. Publication Date June 9, 2010 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Julian Vasquez Heilig, University of Texas at Austin Su Jin Jez, Ph.D., California State University, Sacramento Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., June 9, 2010 -- Teach For America has generated glowing press reports, but the evidence regarding whether this alternative teacher-training program works is very unclear, according to a policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief, Teach For America: A Review of the Evidence , is written by professor Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas at Austin, and professor Su Jin Jez of California State University, Sacramento. It offers a comprehensive overview of research on the Teach For America (TFA) program, which recruits graduates of elite colleges to teach for two years in hard-to-staff low-income rural and urban schools. Overall, Jez and Heilig argue, the impact of TFA teachers on student achievement is decidedly mixed and dependent upon the experience level of the TFA teachers and the group of teachers with whom they are compared. Studies show that TFA teachers perform fairly well when compared with one segment of the teaching population: other teachers in the same hard-to-staff schools, who are less likely to be certified or traditionally prepared. Compared with that specific group of teachers, TFA teachers "perform comparably in raising reading scores and a bit better in raising math scores," the brief's authors write. Conversely, studies which compare TFA teachers with credentialed non-TFA teachers find that "the students of novice TFA teachers perform significantly less well in reading and mathematics than those of credentialed beginning teachers," Heilig and Jez write. And in a large-scale Houston study, in which the researchers controlled for experience and teachers' certification status, standard certified teachers consistently outperformed uncertified TFA teachers of comparable experience levels in similar settings. The evidence suggests that TFA teachers do get better—if they stay long enough to become fully credentialed. Those experienced, fully credentialed TFA teachers "appear to do about as well as other, similarly experienced, credentialed teachers in teaching reading ... [and] as well as, and sometimes better than, that comparison group in teaching mathematics," Heilig and Jez write. However, more than half of TFA teachers leave after two years, and more than 80 percent after three. So it's impossible to know whether those who remain have improved because of additional training and experience—or simply because of "selection bias:" they were more effective than the four out of five TFA teachers who left. The authors note that this high turnover of TFA teachers also results in significant recurring expenses for recruiting and training replacements. Heilig and Jez urge schools and districts to devote resources to a number of proven remedies for improving achievement, including mentoring programs that pair novice and expert teachers, universal pre-school and reduction in early grade class size. The authors conclude, "Policymakers and stakeholders should consider TFA teachers for what they are – a slightly better alternative when the hiring pool is comprised primarily of uncertified and emergency teachers – and continue to consider a broad range of solutions to reshape our system of education to ensure that all students are completing schools with the education they need to be successful." Find the policy brief, Teach For America: A Review of the Evidence, on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . 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: Julian Vasquez Heilig (512) 471-7551; jvh@austin.utexas.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More