< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking—Public Funding of School Choice Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research and describes important issues and questions policymakers should consider in determining public funding of alternatives to conventional public schools. This three-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date December 12, 2012 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Calls for Increased Scrutiny in Funding 'Choice' Schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 13, 2012) – The fourth in a new series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research describes important issues and questions that policymakers should consider in determining public funding of alternatives to conventional public schools. 'Choice' schools include charter schools, conventional vouchers, neovouchers, magnet schools, open enrollment, and across-district school choice. In regards to the funding of 'choice' schools, Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, suggests, "Issues such as democratic governance, accountability of public funds, quality control and church/state concerns must be carefully deliberated." In Public Funding of School Choice , Mathis further explains, "When lawmakers do decide to allocate public funding to choice schools, as they have increasingly done over the past couple of decades, they must then engage in a new level of scrutiny regarding the structure, level and conditions of these subsidies." Mathis notes that the specific costs as well as the specific needs of students will vary from school to school, meaning the funding requirements can correspondingly vary widely. Similarly, wide variations among states in funding levels, funding sources, regulatory scrutiny, and the details of choice mechanisms complicate the decisions policymakers face. Mathis also explains that recipients of public funding should be open to rigorous scrutiny that emphasizes equity, transparency, and the assurance that the funding is reaching the intended students. Public Funding of School Choice is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. This brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publications/options --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Reform With Results for New Jersey Schools Summary This report presents findings on the effectivenss of New Jersey's Abbott v. Burke court decisions. The report argues that the reforms ordered by the court have failed to increase student achievement despite what it terms dramatic spending increases. Based on this, the report argues for instituting such reforms as charters schools, changes to union contracts and vouchers. Publication Date February 9, 2011 Authors Alan R. Sadovnik, Rutgers University Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Lexington Institute's New Jersey Report of Little Value to Policymakers February 10, 2011 Shortcomings of current school reforms are exaggerated while problems with the report's favored reforms are ignored, according to new review EAST LANSING, MI (February 10, 2011) – A review released today finds fundamental errors in a Lexington Institute report that condemns existing reforms in New Jersey and instead suggests its own reforms, such as merit pay for teachers and private school vouchers. According to the reviewer, the report offers only a one-sided presentation of the issue and ignores relevant research. The report, Reform with Results for New Jersey Schools , by Lori Drummer and Don Soifer, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Alan R. Sadovnik, a professor of education, sociology, and public administration and affairs at Rutgers University, Newark and co-director of the Institute on Education Law and Policy and the Newark Schools Research Collaborative The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Lexington report claims to analyze the impact of reforms instituted as a result of New Jersey's Abbott v. Burke school funding litigation in the 1990s. The Abbott reforms included pre-school for three- and four-year-olds, funding to build new and renovate existing schools, and supplemental funding for up to 31 low-income school districts. The report states that these reforms have failed to significantly improve educational achievement, especially for African American students. It recommends replacing the reforms associated with Abbott with a variety of school-choice policies as well as tying teacher pay to student test results Sadovnik found that the report largely avoids research-based conclusions, cherry-picks evidence, and "is a straightforward advocacy document for market-based and competition-oriented reforms." As one example of the report's research flaws, it overstates the per-pupil spending in Newark by $4,000 by crediting to the district money passed through to charter schools and to pre-kindergarten programs. Further, while advocating expansion of the charter school sector, the report ignores "a body of research indicating that Newark charter schools perform at similar levels to district schools, after controlling for family background and other variables," according to Sadovnik. "Even an advocacy report has an obligation to reach conclusions based on all of the available evidence, not simply that which supports its point of view." Lacking the sort of "carefully collected evidence" and sound social science methodology that should drive school reform, Sadovnik concludes that "this report will be useful only to those already predisposed to its point of view." Find Alan Sadovnik's review and a link to the Lexinton Institute report on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-reform-with-results . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Alan R. Sadovnik: (973) 353-3882 or sadovnik@andromeda.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071 or greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Navigating the Math Wars: A Practical Guide to the Divides and Debates Influencing Math Instruction Summary The review examines current debates over math instruction and argues that a report intended to clarify them instead reinforces polarization and lacks sufficient nuance about classroom practice. Publication Date July 28, 2026 Authors Deborah Loewenberg Ball, University of Michigan Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Teacher Workforce; Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release “Math Wars” Report Focuses on Current Debates but Falls Short on Attention to Practice BOULDER, CO (July 28, 2026) — The Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) recently published a report analyzing contemporary disputes about effective math instruction. A review released today explains that the report provides a helpful review of current debates yet fails to provide useful guidance for education and policy leaders. Deborah Loewenberg Ball of the University of Michigan reviewed Navigating the Math Wars: A Practical Guide to the Divides and Debates Influencing Math Instruction, examining its analysis of what it describes as five key areas of disagreement over effective mathematics instruction. The report frames the disputes as (a) conceptual understanding or procedural fluency, (b) inquiry-based or direct instruction, (c) productive struggle or scaffolded support, (d) standard algorithms or invented strategies, and (e) the link between timed practice and math anxiety. Although the report concludes that these disagreements are less polarized than public discourse suggests, Professor Loewenberg Ball contends that its framing nevertheless reinforces the notion of enduring "Math Wars". The report's use of broad labels such as “inquiry-based” and “explicit” instruction obscures important similarities and differences in how mathematics is actually taught in classrooms. Professor Loewenberg Ball also points out that the analysis would have been strengthened by a stronger historical and critical analysis of recurring debates in mathematics education, including how the current context differs from the past. Although, as noted, the report does provide a useful overview of current public and professional debates about mathematics instruction, it ultimately falls short of providing the nuanced discussions of instructional practice that would support students’ mathematical understanding, fluency, reasoning, and engagement. 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: http://www.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 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 Return to the Evidence Summary In a report released today, Julian Vasquez Heilig and Su Jin Gatlin Jez update the research on Teach For America (TFA). The organization has received hundreds of millions of dollars and generated considerable public attention for sending college graduates, who do not typically have an education background, to teach in low-income rural and urban schools for a two-year commitment. Despite glowing accolades, the impact of this alternative teacher-training program is hotly debated. In a follow up to a previously released brief, two noted education professors address public concerns about TFA and offer a template for the general public to conduct citizen research on TFA locally. Publication Date January 6, 2014 Authors Julian Vasquez Heilig, University of Texas – Austin Su Jin Gatlin Jez, Sacramento State University Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Teach For America: A Return To The Evidence New brief points to investments in other evidence-based educational reforms EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 7, 2014) – Teach For America (TFA) has received hundreds of millions of dollars and generated considerable public attention for sending college graduates, who do not typically have an education background, to teach in low-income rural and urban schools for a two-year commitment. Despite glowing accolades, the impact of this alternative teacher-training program is hotly debated. In a follow up to a previously released brief, two noted education professors address public concerns about TFA and offer a template for the general public to conduct citizen research on TFA locally. Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas at Austin and Su Jin Gatlin Jez of California State University, Sacramento authored the brief, Teach For America: A Return to the Evidence . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) published the brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. As local communities make decisions about educational reforms, it is important to understand the true impact of TFA on student achievement on test scores, the increased costs districts and communities face, and whether or not TFA is at least as effective as other reforms. The brief concludes that TFA is less effective than other well-studied reforms. Peer-reviewed research on the impact of TFA teachers on student test scores continues to produce a mixed picture, with results affected by the experience and certification level of the TFA teachers and their comparison groups. Heilig and Jez find that available information regarding TFA varies by community, as do the results. According to the authors, TFA should not be considered a panacea, or major factor for improving teacher quality in hard-to-staff schools. Instead of trying to understand whether or not TFA teachers are as good as non-TFA teachers, the authors propose a shift in thinking about the impact of TFA – a shift toward substantially improving student learning rather than continuing to focus on reforms that have inconsistent results that, at best, result in marginal improvements. Heilig and Jez call for increased attention on programs that are more likely to "move the needle" on America's educational quality. The authors advise that policymakers and districts invest strategically in evidence-based reforms that are already improving student success by larger margins than the mixed evidence on TFA. Based on a review of the evidence available, Heilig and Jez propose the following to districts in regards to hiring TFA: Support TFA staffing only when the alternative hiring pool consists of uncertified and emergency teachers or substitutes. Consider the additional costs of TFA teachers and press for contractual five-year commitments to improve student test-score achievement and reduce costly teacher turnover. Require TFA teachers to receive additional teacher training that is based on well-supported best practices in in-service teacher professional development. Independently obtain contracts and data to compare finder fees, placement, and attrition rates of TFA teachers, and various costs by community. In conclusion, Heilig and Jez maintain that, "Policymakers and stakeholders should consider TFA teachers for what they are – a slightly better alternative when the hiring pool is comprised of primarily uncertified and emergency teachers." Overall, the authors recommend that attention should be prioritized on attracting America's most talented college students to teaching as a profession and not a temporary solution. Find the brief, Teach For America: A Return to the Evidence, on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Julian Vasquez Heilig is currently an Associate Professor of Educational Policy and Planning and African and African Diaspora Studies (by courtesy) at the University of Texas at Austin. He is also a Faculty Affiliate of the Center for Mexican American Studies and the Warfield Center for African and African American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Su Jin Gatlin Jez is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration at California State University, Sacramento. She also serves as the Associate Director of the Independent Education Doctorate Program, a joint effort of the Department of Public Policy and Administration and the College of Education's Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, and is a Faculty Associate with the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy. 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: Julian Vasquez Heilig, (512) 475-8586, jvh@austin.utexas.edu Su Jin Gatlin Jez, (916) 278-5955, jez@csus.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 Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world’s best Summary America Achieves report calls for additional international testing. The authors of the report consider recent PISA results a "wake up call to America’s middle class" and contend in response that U.S. high schools should start taking part in a new international test that is to compare the academic knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds- around the world. Publication Date June 3, 2013 Authors Martin Carnoy, Stanford University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review of America Achieves Report Cites No Evidence To Support Call For Additional International Testing EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 4, 2013) – A recent report remarks that U.S. students are performing inadequately on the math and science portions of the PISA (Program of International Student Assessment) exam, an international test run by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). The authors of the report consider the PISA results a "wake up call to America's middle class" and contend in response that U.S. high schools should start taking part in a new international test that is to compare the academic knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds- around the world. However, a review of the report released today finds no evidence to support the report's arguments. Martin Carnoy of Stanford University reviewed Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world's best . The report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Carnoy points out that with its report, America Achieves, an educational reform advocacy group, promotes the idea that individual school performance participation on such international tests offers a valid means of comparing improving the school effectiveness of various national school systems and the effectives of national education systems. Yet he notes that the report itself fails to support this claim, and the claim is also not supported by PISA reports or the broader literature on school improvement and educational reform. The America Achieves report "is not grounded in research but rather is an assertion that measurement, by itself, is an effective reform tool." And it makes that assertion without ever explaining how the test in question would be linked to curricula or strategies tailored to teaching mathematics and science, or to specific teacher professional development strategies. "Thus the report is of no utility to policymakers," Carnoy concludes. Find Martin Carnoy's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world's best , published by America Achieves, on the web at: http://www.americaachieves.org/docs/OECD/Middle-Class-Or-Middle-Of-Pack2.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible with the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-middle-class-or-middle-of-pack -###- 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: Martin Carnoy, (650) 906-7469, carnoy@stanford.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways Summary Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways, a recent report from the Center of American Progress, offers a set of recommendations for middle school career and technical education (CTE) programs. Publication Date December 7, 2020 Authors Meg Benner and Scott Sargrad; Marisa Saunders, UCLA Center for Community Schooling, and Cynthia Estrada, UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies Research Areas Technology & AI; Community Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Helpful Report on Middle School CTE Programs Comes Up Short on Confronting Inequities An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: While the report makes broadly appealing recommendations, it misses the opportunity to directly confront stratified opportunities within middle school career and technical education programs. EAST LANSING, MI (December 8, 2020) - Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways , a recent report from the Center of American Progress, offers a set of recommendations for middle school career and technical education (CTE) programs. The included recommendations are sound, although the report fails to provide much-needed evidence that connects the implementation of middle school CTE to increased access to high-quality pathways. Marisa Saunders, from the UCLA Center for Community Schooling, and Cynthia Estrada, from the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, reviewed the new report and determined that its recommendations are helpful but come up short in confronting patterns of stratification, whereby marginalized students are being denied access to high-quality pathways that integrate an academic and CTE curriculum. The report does document inequitable access to these high-quality pathways. In particular, it explains how many students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds and minoritized populations, have not been provided the academic preparation needed to access pathways that prepare students for postsecondary education and career. In the face of these trends, the report contends that well-designed middle school CTE programs that support college and career exploration and guidance can prepare students for high-quality pathways and address current patterns of differential access. Yet while the report offers appealing recommendations for states and districts as they move to implement middle school CTE, Saunders and Estrada explain in their review that the suggestions do not directly address the key challenge. The report's landscape analysis identifies college and career exploration standards that emphasize career development. Middle school CTE programs following the report's suggestions may therefore fail to prepare middle school students with the academics or knowledge they need to access high-quality pathways. In fact, beyond improved academic preparation, middle school CTE programs must provide the necessary student supports and resources that can ensure all students succeed in these programs. Accordingly, the reviewers conclude, the report is helpful but incomplete and could lead states, districts, and schools to implementation strategies and practices that fall into familiar routines that maintain the harmful status quo for students from marginalized backgrounds. Find the review, by Marisa Saunders and Cynthia Estrada, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways , written by Meg Benner and Scott Sargrad and published by the Center for American Progress, at: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2020/07/31111946/Strong-Building-Blocks2.pdf?_ga=2.154356856.1745955946.1599782721-695044446.1546624010 NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Marisa Saunders: (310) 866-2263, m.saunders@ucla.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Education Olympics 2008: The Games in Review Summary This report parallels the Olympics by awarding medals to top performing countries based on international assessments in reading, math and science. The report makes the claim that the low rankings of the U.S. on these tests will weaken the U.S. economy and jeopardize its future global standing. Publication Date October 14, 2008 Authors Edward G. Fierros, Villanova University Mindy Kornhaber, Penn State University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice 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 Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment Summary Critiques of public education have intensified in recent years. While public schools do indeed have real areas in need of growth and improvement, many of today’s attacks are generated and amplified by organizations seeking to manufacture crises. These narratives often ignore counterevidence, and they use deceptive language to portray the system as broadly failing, even hopeless. To examine these destructive critiques, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California authored a policy brief, The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment, released today by NEPC. The brief identifies five core narratives used to portray a failing education system: claims of underachievement, inefficiency, inequality, lack of school choice, and indoctrination. Publication Date March 2, 2026 Authors Huriya Jabbar, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California; Daniel Espinoza, University of Southern California Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: New policy brief identifies five core narratives fueling disinvestment and privatization of America’s public schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 3, 2026) - Critiques of public education have intensified in recent years. While public schools do indeed have real areas in need of growth and improvement, many of today’s attacks are generated and amplified by organizations seeking to manufacture crises. These narratives often ignore counterevidence, and they use deceptive language to portray the system as broadly failing, even hopeless. To examine these destructive critiques, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California authored a policy brief, The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment , released today by NEPC. The brief identifies five core narratives used to portray a failing education system: claims of underachievement, inefficiency, inequality, lack of school choice, and indoctrination. The brief warns that overstated crisis narratives fuel a cycle of disinvestment: Eroding public confidence leads to reduced funding and enrollment, which strains schools and invites further criticism. This cycle weakens the public system while advancing privatization of what has long been considered a public good. Each of the five core narratives is poorly grounded, according to Jabbar and Espinoza. The "achievement" attack rests on disappointing test scores while downplaying the powerful influence of poverty and inequality on student performance. Polling consistently shows that parents rate their own public schools highly, even as they accept the broader myth that public schools nationwide are failing, revealing a gap between lived experience and manufactured narrative. Charges of inefficiency similarly rely on narrow test score measures and attacks on unions, despite evidence that increased funding improves student achievement, especially for low-income students. Claims that public schools exacerbate inequality ignore research showing that inequitable funding and broader social conditions drive disparities, and that public education remains essential to addressing them. Advocates of vouchers and expanded school choice argue that families lack options, yet recent research finds large-scale voucher programs tend to lower student outcomes and increase segregation. Allegations of indoctrination depend on sensationalized examples that ignore the largely uncontroversial, inclusive nature of most classroom instruction. Amid COVID-19 disruptions, culture wars, rapid voucher expansion, immigration enforcement in schools, and federal policy and funding threats, the danger to public education is acute. Without correction, manufactured crises will continue to justify underinvestment, deepen inequality, and roll back hard-won gains in equity and student outcomes. Jabbar and Espinoza call on policymakers to counter manufactured narratives with evidence and to work toward reversing prior disinvestment by promoting equitable funding of instruction and facilities. Find The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment , by Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza, 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 Huriya Jabbar Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform (18th edition) Summary The 18th edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Report Card draws on ratings from market-orientated advocacy groups to grade states in areas such as allowances for charter schools, availability of vouchers, and permissiveness for homeschoolers. Publication Date May 8, 2013 Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois T. Jameson Brewer, University of Illinois Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ALEC's Report Card Receives Failing Marks Policymakers should insist on referencing evidence-based research EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 9, 2013) – Ranking states is a popular tool for education advocacy groups, with the goal of advancing a policy agenda based on ideologically driven pre-packaged reforms. These report cards receive considerable media attention, although few reflect research-based evidence on the efficacy of particular polices. The 18th edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform is no different according to an academic review. Christopher Lubienski, associate professor of education policy and Director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois, and T. Jameson Brewer, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois, reviewed ALEC's Report Card for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Lubienski and Brewer find that ALEC draws its grades exclusively not from research organizations, but from like-minded market-orientated advocacy organizations. "Furthermore, when studies are highlighted in this report, they do not represent the peer-reviewed research on a given issue, are often of extremely poor quality, and generally unsuited for supporting their claim." In their review, Lubienski and Brewer provide two key areas – alternative teacher certification and school choice – to highlight gaps between ALEC's agenda and empirical evidence. Despite multiple claims that a "growing body of research indicates…" – the report offers absolutely no supporting evidence. Math results, which have a lower pass rate, were used to compare traditionally-certified teachers to alternatively-certified teachers. Meanwhile alternatively-certified teachers were portrayed using their reading results. "Many of the grades given to states reflect the level to which pro-market policies have been implemented while the grades systematically ignore meaningful measurements of equality and outcomes" according to the review. Readers of ALEC's Report Card should consider it a statement of policy preferences and not an overview of research on education reforms. The reviewers conclude, "At best, the report serves as an amalgamation of other like-minded think tanks' assessments of states' adoption of pro-market policies, and thus offers nothing new … it provides little or no usefulness to policymakers." Find the report by Lubienski and Brewer on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find ALEC's Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform (18th edition) on the web: http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also available 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: Christopher Lubienski, (217) 333-4382, club@illinois.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Small Class Sizes for Improving Student Achievement in Primary and Secondary Schools: A Systematic Review Summary A 2018 report from Campbell Collaboration, analyzing research literature estimating the impact of class size reduction on reading and math achievement, has recently been gaining renewed attention, thanks in part to a Washington Post piece by Michael Bloomberg. Publication Date November 20, 2023 Authors Trine Filges, Christoffer Scavenius Sonne-Schmidt, and Bjørn Christian Viinholt Nielsen; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Exploring Impact of Smaller Class Size on Student Achievement is Too Limited to Provide Strong Guidance An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: By using only a small fragment of available research on the effects of class size, the report significantly limits its usefulness. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 21, 2023) - A 2018 report from Campbell Collaboration, analyzing research literature estimating the impact of class size reduction on reading and math achievement, has recently been gaining renewed attention, thanks in part to a Washington Post piece by Michael Bloomberg . But the body of evidence the report uses is far too limited for the report to be of use to policymakers. So concludes Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, in his review of Small Class Sizes for Improving Student Achievement in Primary and Secondary Schools: A Systematic Review . To reach its findings, the Campbell report conducted an international survey of all research evidence up to 2017-identifying 148 relevant studies. It then narrowed this down to 10 studies meeting its methodological standards. A weighted analysis of the 10 studies-seven of which are from the U.S. and four of which are studies of Tennessee’s STAR-produced estimates of how smaller class size affects achievement. The report found a small positive, statistically significant impact on reading achievement and a small negative, but statistically insignificant, impact on math achievement. Beyond these 10 studies, the report provides a comprehensive catalog of research on class size reduction, and it provides a thorough assessment of each study’s methods. Professor Belfield contends, however, that the methodology uses an extremely narrow view of what research is valid for determining the impact of reducing class size. More than 90% of studies relevant to the research question were not included. In addition, while related research has appeared in many countries, only three countries are represented in the body of evidence. The result is a very limited analysis of an already narrowed question. Finally, Professor Belfield concludes, the report's repeated assertions that reducing class size is "costly" are unexplained and unsupported, potentially misleading policymakers about the reform’s potential. These limitations mean the study offers policymakers very little useful guidance for policy or practice. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Small Class Sizes for Improving Student Achievement in Primary and Secondary Schools: A Systematic Review , written by Trine Filges, Christoffer Scavenius Sonne-Schmidt, and Bjørn Christian Viinholt Nielsen, and published by the Campbell Collaboration, at: https://doi.org/10.4073/csr.2018.10 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 English Language Learners and Parental Involvement Summary Dr. William Mathis summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research and urges policymakers to adopt a series of measures that would welcome and involve the parents of English language learners in U.S. schools to improve the achievement of those students. This two-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date March 18, 2013 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Enhancing Education for English Learners through Parental Involvement EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 19, 2013) – The seventh in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research urges policymakers to adopt a series of measures that would welcome and involve the parents of English language learners in U.S. schools to improve the achievement of those students. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, prepared the brief, Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – English Language Learners and Parental Involvement . Previous sections of Research-Based Options have included: teacher evaluation, common core standards, early childhood education, choice funding, dropout strategies and effective school expenditures. The enrollment of English language learners (ELLs) in U.S. schools has more than doubled over the last two decades, most of whom are native born. The data show we deny these children equitable opportunities to learn to the detriment of them and their communities, and to the detriment of our larger societal health. As part of his examination of related research, Mathis points to an earlier policy brief, also funded by the Great Lakes Center, by Beatriz Arias and Milagros Morillo-Campbell that outlines a series of best practices for schools to establish two-way communication with ELL families and to involve those families in the life of the school, in community collaboration, in school governance, and in their children's schoolwork. To accomplish this will require the school to embrace the culture of the community, both in its activities calendar and in its interactions with the parents. School personnel should communicate with parents in their native languages and also provide parents avenues to learn English as well as techniques to help them with their children's education. To these recommendations for schools, Mathis adds recommendations for policymakers. Adequacy studies identifying resource inequities in serving ELL learners need to be updated and turned into legislation to rectify those problems. He also points to two additional policy needs: to provide adequate professional development that embraces and builds upon the students' cultural backgrounds; and to review and revise state laws and regulations so that school evaluation systems adequately account for high concentrations of ELL students. States must ensure staff, funding, and instructional materials are all of sufficient quality to address ELL students' needs. Mathis's two-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. The brief is produced by the National Education Policy Center and was made possible with support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php Also find William Mathis's brief on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back New York Charter Schools Outperform Traditional Selective Public Schools: More Evidence that Cream-skimming is Not Driving Charters’ Success Summary The Manhattan Institute’s Marcus Winters released a report that explored the extent to which charter schools’ success could be attributed to “cream-skimming” from struggling public schools in New York. The report claimed that NYC’s charter schools performed better than selective non-charter public schools. The report found that the charter schools performed no differently in ELA and significantly better in math. The report concluded that the success of NYC’s charter schools could not be explained by cream-skimming. Publication Date May 8, 2017 Authors Macus A. Winters; Sarah A. Cordes, Temple University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Understanding "cream-skimming" in NYC charters will require better data, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 9, 2017) — In March, the Manhattan Institute released a report that explored the extent to which charter schools' success could be attributed to "cream-skimming" from struggling public schools in New York. The report claimed that NYC's charter schools performed better than selective non-charter public schools. An academic review of the report released today finds that the report is of limited use for policy and practice. Sarah A. Cordes, Temple University, reviewed the report, New York Charter Schools Outperform Traditional Selective Public Schools: More Evidence that Cream-skimming is Not Driving Charters' Success , for the Think Twice think thank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report compared the aggregate test scores in math and English of NYC's charter middle schools with a set of selective non-charter public middle schools, finding that the charter schools performed no differently in ELA and significantly better in math. The report concluded that the success of NYC's charter schools could not be explained by cream-skimming. In her review, Cordes says that the conclusions of the report seem logical, but the report suffers from two primary flaws: It assumes that selective school applicants are higher performing and more motivated than charter school applicants; and The report relies on a single year of data to make comparisons. In her conclusion, she says that this report misses the mark in response to evaluating cream-skimming in NYC charter schools. She writes, "Addressing the question of cream-skimming in NYC charter schools will require the use of longitudinal student-level data and much more rigorous methods." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report on the web: https://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/new-york-charter-schools-outperform-traditional-selective-public-schools-10128.html 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: Sarah A. Cordes , (215) 204-6332, sarah.cordes@temple.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