< Back Review of Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems Summary EdTrust recently published a report using what it calls an "equity analysis" to critique states' accountability plans, recommending several steps states might take to improve their systems. But a new review explains how that report rehashes old arguments for the original No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Publication Date November 19, 2024 Authors Nicholas Munyan-Penney, Abigail Jones, and Shayna Levitan; Derek Gottlieb, University of Northern Colorado Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's Proposals for Reforming ESSA Reveals How Little Has Been Learned from the Recent Past An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: EdTrust report fails to support its recommendations for ensuring increased equity in state accountability plans. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 19, 2024) - EdTrust recently published a report using what it calls an "equity analysis" to critique states' accountability plans, recommending several steps states might take to improve their systems. But a new review explains how that report rehashes old arguments for the original No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In his review of Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems , Derek Gottlieb of the University of Northern Colorado details the shortcomings of the report's vision for how high-quality accountability structures would look and perform. The report, Prof. Gottlieb explains, calls for publicizing information that we have seen-through NCLB and related laws and policies-to be incomplete or gamed. The report also points to the potential for targeting resources that have proven to be chronically inadequate. Such tactics never achieved systemic equity or excellence when packaged as NCLB, yet this report, which relies heavily on indicators and tools that EdTrust has developed or compiled itself, does not see the historical record of failure as a reason to abandon the approach. To get on board with the report's analysis and recommendations, one would have to valorize its vacuous (and largely undefined) notion of "equity", gloss over the many failures and perverse outcomes of federal educational oversight across the decades, and ultimately place an implausible amount of faith in the power of rules alone-unsupported by additional resources-to transform the educational destinies of the nation's most vulnerable children. In critiquing state ESSA plans, Professor Gottlieb concludes, the report offers nothing more original than the very same strategy that gave rise to ESSA in the first place. Find the review, by Derek Gottlieb at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems , written by Nicholas Munyan-Penney, Abigail Jones, and Shayna Levitan and published by EdTrust, at: https://edtrust.org/rti/reassessing-essa-implementation-an-equity-analysis/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Derek Gottlieb (503) 568-2004 derek.gottlieb@unco.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of K-12 School Choice Calculator Summary A new calculator from two voucher-advocacy organizations is offered as a tool to assist state policymakers and choice advocates in providing more accurate estimates of the expenses of adopting publicly financed private-school choice (i.e., voucher) programs. But several factors suggest it should be used with caution and caveats. Publication Date March 18, 2024 Authors Bruce Baker, University of Miami Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Flawed School Choice Calculator Has Limited Utility, if Used Judiciously An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: A tool offered as a way to estimate the cost of adopting voucher programs is a step forward but still needs work. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (March 19, 2024) - A new calculator from two voucher-advocacy organizations is offered as a tool to assist state policymakers and choice advocates in providing more accurate estimates of the expenses of adopting publicly financed private-school choice (i.e., voucher) programs. But several factors suggest it should be used with caution and caveats. Bruce Baker, professor and chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami, describes these factors in his review of the K-12 School Choice Calculator , which is provided online by the Reason Foundation and EdChoice's Fiscal Research and Education Center. Baker explains that there is one overarching problem that state policymakers have long faced in trying to make sense of competing claims about the fiscal bottom line for vouchers: How are they to estimate which percentage of voucher users will be students leaving public versus staying in private schools? The new calculator does not, and cannot, answer that question. However, using the calculator can reveal to policymakers the high additional state expenditures triggered when-as recent evidence shows to be the case, particularly with expanded or “universal” voucher programs-disproportionate numbers of students already enrolled in private schools accept proffered public subsidies through voucher, education savings account, or tuition tax credit programs. Baker's review finds that many of the assumptions included with the new calculator are reasonable, but it also has faults that should be addressed. The calculator overstates the spending reductions that result when a current public-school student switches to a private school-first, by overestimating student-level variable spending and second, by assuming that local revenues as well as state aid would be reduced. It also ignores overhead expenses of operating such a program. The calculator, then, will provide skewed results even if the user's assumptions prove accurate about the percentages of voucher users who are leaving public versus those staying in private schools. Even those skewed results, however, can be more useful than mere guesswork. Dr. Baker therefore acknowledges the potential for the calculator to assist policymakers in refining their projections of program expenditures if used judiciously, bringing their estimates closer to the unfolding reality. Find the review, by Bruce Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find K-12 School Choice Calculator , published by the Reason Foundation and EdChoice, at https://www.schoolchoicecalculator.com/ . 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 Bruce Baker: (848) 932-0698, bdb119@miami.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 Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. Summary A recent Bellwether report explores how much public financing charter schools receive and whether they are funded fairly compared to traditional public schools, specifically in the District of Columbia. After finding disparities, it offers a series of recommendations to reduce those disparities, but upon review these findings and recommendations are not well-supported. Publication Date January 20, 2025 Authors Krista Kaput, Titilayo Tinubu Ali, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Clive Belfield; Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Does Not Provide Useful Comparisons of Funding Between Charters and District Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Bellwether report fails to offer a rigorous or methodical investigation of funding allocations and disparities. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 21, 2025) - A recent Bellwether report explores how much public financing charter schools receive and whether they are funded fairly compared to traditional public schools, specifically in the District of Columbia. After finding disparities, it offers a series of recommendations to reduce those disparities, but upon review these findings and recommendations are not well-supported. In his review of Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. , Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York determines that the report's oversimplistic analyses account for the unfounded conclusions. Using tabulations of funding across charter and public schools to describe funding disparities in DC from 2022 to 2025, the report finds that the district's public schools are more generously funded-that they have access to additional funding streams, received extra pandemic funding, have more capital funding, and pay teachers much higher salaries. Although these tabulations themselves appear to be accurate, there is no proof that charter schools are underfunded in relation to their services and needs-or that they should, in fact, be funded at the same dollar amounts as public schools. Schools in these two sectors are responsible for providing different services and serving different students, and they often receive resources from different sources. In sum, the report does not apply a valid method of comparison and thus provides no way to determine if DC charter schools are funded at the "right level" or what that level should be. As a result, Professor Belfield concludes, it is of limited use to policymakers-except perhaps within the district as an introductory or preliminary study. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Resource Realities: A Comparative Analysis of Charter and District School Funding in Washington, D.C. , written by Krista Kaput, Titilayo Tinubu Ali, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/publications/resource-realities/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Clive Belfield (718) 997-5440 clive.belfield@qc.cuny.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

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

< Back Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case for school principals AND “School Leaders Matter” Summary This report attempted to estimate how much “high” and “low” effective principals affect student achievement. The study also explored patterns of change in the composition of schools’ teaching staffs, as well as the movement of principal talent across schools. Publication Date March 4, 2013 Authors Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Principal Report Has Limited Utility To Guide Policy and Practice, Review Finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 5, 2013) – The role of a principal as an educational leader is an important role in today's era of increased school accountability. A recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research attempted to estimate how much "high" and "low" effective principals affect student achievement. The study also explored patterns of change in the composition of schools' teaching staffs, as well as the movement of principal talent across schools. A new review of the study and of accompanying less-technical material published in Education Next found that estimating principal effectiveness is simply not possible given current methodology and sample size restrictions. Terry Orr, director of the Future School Leaders Academy at the Bank Street College of Education, reviewed Estimating the Effect of Leaders on Public Sector Productivity: The Case of School Principals , and a related article, "School Leaders Matter" from Education Next . Orr has published widely on school leadership preparation program and graduate evaluation, and served on New York State's Educator Evaluation taskforce. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Press related to the study's release claimed that data from Texas show that students can gain between two and seven months of additional learning in schools with "effective" principals. The researchers used three value-added models in their study. Orr's review confirmed the results "that principals have a positive, independent influence on achievement and that the size of this influence varies by school poverty rates." However, Orr found methodological flaws, which "raise serious questions about the actual effect sizes principals might register on student test scores and thus the validity of such analysis." Furthermore, Orr cites more recently released studies of value-added indicators of principal effectiveness, "All found that isolating principal effects requires controlling for school effects, which can only be done with principals who are new to the position who can be compared to prior principals of the same school." This is of concern, as multiple states have adopted principal evaluation systems that included similar estimates of principal effectiveness relative to changes in student test scores. Orr concludes, "Taken together, the report has limited utility to guide policy and practice." Find Estimating the Effect of Leaders on Public Sector Productivity: The Case of School Principals on the web: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17803 Find "School Leaders Matter" on the web: http://educationnext.org/school-leaders-matter/ Find the "Review of Two Articles on Principal Effects" by Terry Orr on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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 is also available on the National Education Policy Center 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: Margaret Terry Orr, (212) 875-4546, morr@bankstreet.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications 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 September 9, 2008 Authors W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., National Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Research Areas Early Childhood Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (Sept. 10, 2008)—Amid a contentious debate over the value of preschool programs, a new policy brief, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications examines what researchers currently know about the short- and long-term effects of preschool. The brief concludes that preschool can strongly benefit children’s learning and development. But it also finds that the quality of programs varies dramatically and that increased public investment in preschool education should be focused on program designs that have been demonstrated to be highly effective. The policy brief is written by W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University in New Jersey. It was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Preschool programs have become increasingly common over the last several decades. Recommendations for or against various forms of universal, publicly funded preschool have emerged in the current presidential campaign. For example, Senator Barack Obama is proposing grants to encourage states to institute universal, voluntary preschool programs, while John McCain’s campaign has called for a more limited federal role, providing information and databases to help parents choose a preschool education program. Barnett’s brief offers a solid research foundation upon which this policy debate can proceed. In his brief, Barnett explains that well-designed preschool programs have been shown to produce long-term improvements in school success—raising students’ achievement test scores, reducing the rates of students being retained in grade, reducing the assignment of students to special education programs, and raising student educational attainment. He also finds that these well-designed programs are extraordinarily cost effective, with their long-term payoffs far exceeding their costs. The strongest evidence suggests that children from all socioeconomic backgrounds reap long-term benefits from preschool, Barnett says. And he notes that the strongest benefits are received by economically disadvantaged children. However, Barnett also warns that current public policies for child care, Head Start, and state pre-Kindergarten programs offer no assurance that American children will attend such highly effective preschool programs. Some attend no preschool and others attend educationally weak programs. Although there are exceptions, highly effective preschool programs are generally characterized by small class sizes and the use of well-educated, adequately paid teachers, and Barnett recommends that policymakers stick with those approaches. Preschool teachers should undergo intensive supervision and coaching and “should be involved in a continuous improvement process for teaching and learning.” Preschool programs also should regularly monitor children’s learning and development. Because preschool programs vary so much in quality, Barnett counsels against simply raising child care subsidies. Instead, he recommends greater public investment in effective preschool education programs, with a focus on state and local pre-K programs with high standards, which have been found to be the most effective. Such programs “need not be provided by public schools,” he notes; public, private and Head Start programs all “have produced similar results when operating with the same resources and standards as part of the same state pre-K program.” Finally, Barnett recommends that policies expanding preschool access to children under four give priority to disadvantaged children because an earlier start and longer duration appear to produce better results. Find Steve Barnett’s report, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications 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 website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: W. Steven Barnett – (732) 932-4350; wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the Nation Summary The Bush presentation claims that six "reforms" caused gains in fourth-grade reading scores in Florida. Publication Date June 29, 2011 Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Jeb Bush's education foundation makes unsupported claims, ignores facts to push agenda Foundation for Excellence in Education's presentation makes numerous unsupported and unsupportable claims EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 30, 2011) — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's so-called education reforms that he's pushing through presentations to state lawmakers rest on unsupported claims and hand-picked evidence, according to a new academic review released today. Bush's presentation, "Florida's Formula for Student Achievement," was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by William J. Mathis, managing director of Colorado-Boulder's National Education Policy Center (NEPC). The review was produced by the NEPC with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Released under the banner of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, the Bush presentation claims that six "reforms" — assigning simplistic letter grades to schools; high-stakes testing; imposing new graduation requirements; bonus pay for teachers; alternative teacher credentialing; and schools of choice —caused gains in fourth-grade reading scores in Florida. Instead of a comprehensive and objective consideration of the impact of Florida's policies, Bush's presentation "is clearly an advocacy tool designed for advancing a particular set of reform proposals," Mathis wrote in his review. This has resulted in a misleading presentation, with Bush promoting several policies that reputable research has shown to be ineffective or even harmful. "Fundamentally, Mr. Bush's presentation is based on the fallacious causal claim that his selected set of loosely coupled reforms introduced in Florida between 1992 and 2011 caused fourth-grade reading score gains," Mathis wrote in his review. "No evidence is provided to sustain this linkage. Further, this claim ignores the fact that some of the favored reforms were implemented as late as 2010, and some are not yet implemented." Moreover, Bush's presentation resembles and shares graphics with a report by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank whose report has been repackaged for various states. The Heritage report's lead author is now on Bush's staff. Policymakers should ignore Bush's salesmanship and look instead to solid, objective research evidence, Mathis said. Find Mathis' review and a link to Bush's presentation at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Bush's Michigan presentation is available from the review's author. A similar PowerPoint presentation from Mr. Bush is available on the web at: http://www.excelined.org/docs/Oklahoma%20Education%20Presentation.pdf The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-florida-formula --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William Mathis: (802) 383-0058, William.Mathis@colorado.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, TBattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict Summary A recent Fordham Institute report surveys more than 5,000 school board members across over 3,000 districts, finding they are disproportionately White, college educated, and often current or former teachers, with politics and beliefs that largely mirror both the U.S. public and their local communities. Publication Date March 25, 2026 Authors David M. Houston and Michael T. Hartney; Carrie Sampson, Arizona State University; Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MARCH 26, 2026 New Report Surveying School Board Members Offers Nuanced Snapshot but Falls Short on Guidance An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's findings highlight demographic imbalances and modest opinion gaps, while its Foreword draws partisan and unsupported conclusions. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 26, 2026) - A recent Fordham Institute report surveys more than 5,000 school board members across over 3,000 districts, finding they are disproportionately White, college educated, and often current or former teachers, with politics and beliefs that largely mirror both the U.S. public and their local communities. In their review of Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict , Arizona State University professors Carrie Sampson and Jeanne M. Powers find the report offers a useful snapshot of board composition, political orientation, and perceptions. A key strength of the report is its use of nationally representative and enrollment-based weighting, yielding a relatively nuanced picture. These data show modest differences between board members and the public on perceptions of school quality, school choice, and teachers' unions. The report flags these gaps, along with the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic Americans, as concerns. Yet the report offers no guidance for addressing them. It also suffers from some leading and ambiguous question wording, raising concerns on findings about charter schools and school quality. The reviewers caution that the main body of the report is accompanied by an especially problematic Foreword, which misrepresents the study and advances unsubstantiated claims using partisan language, overstating some findings, and ignoring others. For instance, the Foreword frames board members' relatively lower support for charter schools under a heading asking whether boards are "the most anti-charter groups in the country." Overall, Sampson and Powers conclude the results are informative but offer little for policymakers, in large part because the report lacks clear recommendations. Find the review, written by Carrie Sampson and Jeanne M. Powers, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict , written by David M. Houston and Michael T. Hartney and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/whos-board-school-boards-and-political-representation-age-conflict NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Carrie Sampson Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar Summary An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. In his review, Peter W. Cookson, Jr. found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." Cookson further states: "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." Publication Date June 6, 2014 Authors Andrew Smarick & Juliet Squire; Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Georgetown University Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds State Education Agency report is earnest but oversimplifies Report called for less state involvement in school reform EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 17, 2014) – A recent report from the Fordham Institute and Bellwether Education Partners argues that states should get out of the reform business directly and hand it over to an "ecosystem of nonprofit organizations." It proposes a governance overhaul to replace the role of State Education Agencies in school improvement. An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. Peter W. Cookson, Jr. of Georgetown University reviewed The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar 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 outlines the responsibilities of SEAs and suggests that they struggle to deliver. It cautions against strengthening SEAs to meet new accountability obligations. In his review, Cookson found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." He also calls into question the validity of the findings and recommendations, because the data are subjective in nature. Cookson says "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." On a positive note, Cookson says that the report "is a useful document for those who are engaged in educational reform because it lays out an argument for change that needs to be addressed honestly by those who support it and those who do not." In his conclusion, Cookson finds value in this flawed work because it pushes us to question our own unexamined assumptions. He says, "The report is an earnest attempt, but conflates the people's work with the work of reformers-for-hire." Read this review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar on the web: http://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-education-agency-at-the-helm-not-the-oar 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: Peter W. Cookson, Jr., (202) 403-6203, pcookson@air.org Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines academic outcomes in Ohio’s nonprofit and for-profit charter schools. It also explores whether differences in contracted services in for-profits appear to correlate with differences in their outcomes. Publication Date November 30, 2022 Authors Stéphane Lavertu and Long Tran; Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University Research Areas School Funding; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release For-Profit Charter Schools in Ohio Get a Mixed Grade in an Honest Reading of Recent Study An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Much of the report's analysis would be impossible in states with weaker transparency laws, illustrating the necessity for oversight and transparency in all states with charter schools and non-traditionally managed schools supported by taxpayer dollars. EAST LANSING, MI (December 1, 2022) - A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines academic outcomes in Ohio's nonprofit and for-profit charter schools. It also explores whether differences in contracted services in for-profits appear to correlate with differences in their outcomes. Joshua Cowen of Michigan State University reviewed For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes and found a solid study accompanied by unfounded claims about the study's findings and significance. The study itself finds that for-profits typically contract for either staffing or other services and that those contracting for staffing perform especially poorly. Overall, it finds Ohio's charters to perform well, but it finds that for-profit schools perform slightly lower academically than their nonprofit counterparts, and they perform worse than traditional schools in some areas as well. Based on these findings, the report includes cautions about overregulation of for-profit charters but also raises concerns about virtual charters and charter schools that contract out for nearly all services. Those are the report's findings-but the report also includes an enthusiastic Foreword written by Fordham's leaders (as opposed to the report's authors). The Foreword departs from the study itself to draw the implication that charter schools should not be regulated "based on the [for-profit] tax status of their management organizations." In reality, the report includes negative findings such as fewer students in for-profit charters earning diplomas, and it reinforces concerns about for-profit schools—particularly those that contract out for staff. Professor Cowen also cautions that the report is limited in its focus on only Ohio, which has substantially more transparency than many states require for school choice options. He concludes that its relevance to policymakers is "mainly as a blueprint for the kind of oversight and transparency requirements all states with charter schools should require, and much of the Fordham analysis would be impossible in other states with weaker transparency laws." As a result, the report offers little to inform policy and practice in dissimilar or nationwide contexts. "Both the Fordham report and this NEPC review of it speak to the larger issue and indeed the larger problem of privatization in American education," said Professor Cowen. "Oversight and transparency requirements are enormously important." Find the review, by Joshua Cowen, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes , written by Stéphane Lavertu and Long Tran and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/for-profit-charter-schools-evaluation-spending-outcomes 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://greatlakescenter.org . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: 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 Joshua Cowen: (517) 355-2215, jcowen@msu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Segregation, Race, and Charter Schools: What Do We Know? Summary A report from the Center on Children and Families at Brookings attempted to compare various research findings on school segregation with a focus on expanding urban charter schools. The report argued that school quality is the primary determinant of student achievement, and that instead of addressing school segregation, policy should focus on improving the schools that students of color and low-income students attend. Publication Date December 18, 2016 Authors Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, Richard V. Reeves, Edward Rodriguez; Erica Frankenberg, Penn State University College of Education Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Recent report on school integration has limited utility for policymakers, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 19, 2016) - An October report from the Center on Children and Families at Brookings attempted to compare various research findings on school segregation with a focus on expanding urban charter schools. The report argued that school quality is the primary determinant of student achievement, and that instead of addressing school segregation, policy should focus on improving the schools that students of color and low-income students attend. However, an academic review of the report finds the report has limited use for policymakers. Erica Frankenberg, Penn State University College of Education, reviewed the report, Segregation, Race, and Charter Schools: What Do We Know? , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Dr. Frankenberg's research has examined how the design of school choice policy affects racial and economic student stratification. This has included examining the segregation trends in charter schools as well as analyzing state and federal policy to understand why such patterns of segregation exist in charter schools. Overall, Frankenberg says, "This report is more a distraction than a contribution." Despite its claimed attempt to investigate research findings on school segregation, the report suggests that policy attend to school quality via school choice. In her review, Frankenberg finds that the report presents a false choice between school integration and creating high-quality urban charter schools. She indicates that the report is limited because of its selective review and interpretation of the literature on race and poverty, and its questionable conclusions that are not reflective of the research consensus. Frankenberg concludes, "because most forms of school choice further segregation, the report's recommendation will likely only further segregation and inequality for students." Find the full review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can find the original report from Brookings on the web at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/segregation-race-and-charter-schools-what-do-we-know/ 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: Erica Frankenberg, (814) 865-5862, euf10@psu.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More