< Back The six research summaries supporting the "Blueprint for Reform" Summary Released by the DOE in May, these six research summaries support the education reform proposals included in the Obama administration's "Blueprint for Reform" for ESEA reauthorization. Publication Date October 5, 2010 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Clive Belfield, Gene V Glass, W.Steven Barnett, Kevin G. Welner, Paul Shaker, Beth Warren, Janette Klingner, William J. Mathis, Diane Ravitch 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 Charting New Territory: Tapping Charter Schools to Turn Around the Nation’s Dropout Factories Summary This report advocates for turning struggling public schools into charter schools. Publication Date September 13, 2011 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Tina Trujillo, University of California, Berkley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Center for American Progress Report Biased, Ignores Facts Report cherry-picks evidence to promote charter school agenda, new review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 13, 2011) — A Center for American Progress (CAP) report that advocates for turning struggling public schools into charter schools is biased and ignores extensive contrary evidence, according to a new academic review released today. The report, Charting New Territory: Tapping Charter Schools to Turn Around the Nation's Dropout Factories, was written by Melissa Lazarín, CAP's associate director of education policy. Lazarín's report was thoroughly reviewed by Dr. Tina Trujillo, an assistant professor at the University of California, Berkeley, for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Charting New Territory argues that charter school operators should have a more prominent role in "fixing" America's consistently low-performing high schools. The report based this recommendation on the experiences of the Los Angeles and Philadelphia school districts. However, Lazarín overlooks preliminary research on Philadelphia's charter "turnarounds," which showed an increase in the number of uncertified, inexperienced teachers. Lazarín's report calls for expanding Charter Management Organization autonomy over all aspects of school operation. The recommendations include weakening union contracts, ensuring financial support for turnaround schools, relaxing regulations on these schools, and cultivating greater public support for such arrangements. However, the report's recommendations and findings were based mainly on conversations with charter school operators, district administrators, education "reform" consultants and charter school advocates lacking previous turnaround experience, according to Trujillo's review. Trujillo also found that the report also drew heavily on a variety of non-scientific sources such as blog posts, charter operators' marketing materials, and ideologically oriented think tank publications, thus making it a dangerous guide for policymakers looking to turn around struggling schools. Furthermore, the "reforms" suggested in Lazarín's report would do nothing more than turn our nation's neediest schools into "laboratories for educational experiments, notwithstanding existing evidence that the experiments will not succeed," according to Trujillo. Trujillo's review and a link to Lazarín's report are available at www.greatlakescenter.org . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-charting-new-territory . --###-- 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: Tina Trujillo: (510) 642-6272, trujillo@berkeley.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 Due Diligence and the Evaluation of Teachers: A Review of the Value-Added Analysis Underlying the Effectiveness Rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District Teachers by The Los Angeles Times Summary This report, by Richard Buddin, is a value-added analysis of elementary teachers in the LAUSD. Buddin asserts that teacher quality can validly be measured using student performance on the reading and math portions of the California Standardized Test. Buddin's analysis was the focus of an article in the LA Times which included a database of LAUSD teachers by name and their individual rankings which were based on Buddin's model. The reviewers found that Buddin's analysis is a deeply flawed and an inaccurate measure of teacher effectiveness. Publication Date February 8, 2011 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Authors Derek Briggs and Ben Dominque, University of Colorado at Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release L.A. Times teacher rankings deeply flawed, new report finds February 8, 2011 "How Effective Are Los Angeles Elementary Teachers and Schools?" report is an inaccurate measure of teacher quality EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 8, 2011) –— A widely reported analysis done of teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District is a deeply flawed measure of teacher effectiveness, according to a report released today. On Aug. 14, 2010, the Los Angeles Times published a controversial article that highlighted the results of a study conducted by Richard Buddin, senior economist at the RAND Corporation. Buddin's analysis erroneously asserted that teacher quality can be validly measured using student performance on the math and reading portions of the California Standardized Test. In conjunction with the article, the L.A. Times published a database of LAUSD teachers by name and their individual effectiveness ratings, which were based on Buddin's flawed analysis. The review of Buddin's analysis was performed by Derek C. Briggs, chair of the Research and Evaluation Methodology Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Colorado-Boulder doctoral student Ben Domingue. Key among their findings was that Buddin's analysis failed to consider several critical factors that impact student achievement, such as long-term achievement patterns and influence from their peers. Buddin's model led to overly broad and simplistic generalizations about teacher effectiveness, often resulting in negative consequences for many potentially effective teachers and their students, Briggs and Domingue found. Buddin's approach, known as "value-added modeling," can lead to a number of false positives and negatives – many average teachers may have been falsely categorized as either effective or ineffective. Briggs and Domingue developed a stronger alternative model that included students' long-term achievement patterns and peer influence. The researchers then compared the results of their model and Buddin's, and found that only 60.8 percent of teachers would retain the same effectiveness rating in both models for math outcomes, while only 46.4 percent of teachers would retain the same effectiveness rating for reading outcomes. Notably, Briggs and Domingue found that Buddin's model could not be independently replicated, thus casting doubts about the scientific validity of the study altogether. According to a Jan. 10 New York Times article, the New York City Board of Education is planning to follow Los Angeles' lead and publish ratings of 12,000 New York City teachers, based on an approach similar in nature to Buddin's. Briggs and Domingue's report, "Due Diligence and the Evaluation of Teachers: A Review of the Value-Added Analysis Underlying the Effectiveness Rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District Teachers by the Los Angeles Times," 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. Find Briggs's and Domingue's complete report and a link to Buddin's analysis at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . On Monday, Feb. 7, 2011, the LA Times, published a story about Briggs's and Domingue's report. That story included false statements and was generally misleading. Accordingly, along with the release of this report, a "Fact Sheet" about the Times' article has been published: http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/FactSheet_0.pdf Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/due-diligence --###-- 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: Derek C. Briggs: (303) 492-6320, Derek.Briggs@colorado.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, 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 What Do We Know About the Outcomes of KIPP Schools? Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date November 10, 2008 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Jeffrey R. Henig, Ph.D., Teachers College, Columbia University 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 Spend Smart: Fix Our Broken School Funding System Summary This report asserts that the Connecticut system for public school funding is broken and should be fixed by adopting a very simple weighted student funding formula where the money follows the student to whatever type of school he/she attends. Publication Date April 14, 2011 Research Areas School Funding Authors Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ConnCAN report makes false claims, harms low-income students April 14, 2011 New review finds "Spend Smart: Fix Our Broken School Funding System" report of little value for policymaking EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 14, 2011) - A report on school funding in Connecticut public schools unfairly boosts charter schools and would divert funding from low-income students, according to an independent review released today. The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) recently released a study claiming the Connecticut system for financing public schools should be reformed by adopting an overly simplified, weighted formula that allows money to follow a student to his or her school of choice. Legislation (SB 1195) has also been introduced in the Connecticut Legislature based on the flawed principles outlined in this report. A thorough review of the ConnCAN study was conducted by Bruce Baker, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University and a member of the editorial boards of The Journal of Education Finance and Education Finance and Policy. Baker's review revealed the ConnCAN report is largely devoid of substantiated facts and includes patently false assertions. According to Baker, the ConnCAN report's findings would lead to substantial funding disparities for low-income students and be a boon for charter schools, which serve few of Connecticut's lowest-income children and children who are English-language learners (ELL). The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ConnCAN's report fails to prove that a weighted student funding formula would improve equity among public schools, according to Baker. The study also overlooks a vast amount of literature on student need-based costs, which suggest that schools with a large percentage of ELL students or in high-poverty districts may require additional funds to ensure student success. ConnCAN's flawed funding formula includes only one adjustment for student need - shares of children qualifying for free or reduced lunch. The ConnCAN report ignores many other sources of need, such as English-language proficiency, Baker notes. ConnCAN's report inaccurately argues that only one measure of student need is required, due to a correlation between ELL enrollment and low-income enrollment. When reviewing the correlation between ELL students and subsidized lunches, Baker found that it was far too weak to be adequately addressed by a single adjustment for student need. In addition to incorrectly categorizing ELL students with students who receive subsidized lunches, the ConnCAN report also uses an inaccurate poverty threshold that fails to distinguish the difference between free and reduced lunch families, making the weighted funding formula even more inaccurate. Baker found that by eliminating the weighted funding formula for ELL students and not distinguishing between free and reduced lunches, ConnCAN's report was able to maximize funding for charter schools. Notably, Connecticut's charter schools serve very few ELL students and children from the state's lowest-income families. The Think Twice think tank review project, 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 in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find Baker's complete review and a link to the ConnCAN report, at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-spend-smart . --###-- 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: Bruce Baker: (732) 932-7496 ext. 8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, 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 A Meta-Analysis of the Literature on the Effect of Charter Schools on Student Achievement Summary A report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) attempted to examine whether charter schools have a positive effect on student achievement. The report reviewed 52 studies selected by the authors and found charters to be serving students well, particularly in math. The CRPE report is an update of prior reports that examine the achievement of charter schools as compared to traditional public schools. Publication Date September 30, 2014 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Julian R. Betts & Y. Emily Tang; Francesca López, University of Arizona Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Charter Meta-Analysis Report Overstates Conclusions Review finds overall outcomes for charters and public schools are largely indistinguishable EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 30, 2014) – A recent report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) attempted to examine whether charter schools have a positive effect on student achievement. The report reviewed 52 studies selected by the authors and found charters to be serving students well, particularly in math. An academic review out today finds the conclusions of the report to be overstated. Francesca López, University of Arizona, reviewed A Meta-Analysis of the Literature on the Effect of Charter Schools on Student Achievement 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 CRPE report is an update of prior reports that examine the achievement of charter schools as compared to traditional public schools. In her review, López says, "The report does a solid job describing the methodological limitations of the studies reviewed, then seemingly forgets those limits in the analysis." Specifically, López finds fault with the authors' use of lottery-based studies, cautioning that inclusion limits the study's usefulness in broad comparisons of all charters vs. public schools. Her review finds several problems that prevent it from being of use to policymakers: Claims of positive effects when they are not statistically significant Exaggeration of the magnitude effects Reliance on simple vote-counts from a selected sample of studies Unwarranted extrapolation of the available evidence López concludes her review with, "A more honest reading of the results would be that they are consistent with the large body of charter school studies: the overall outcomes for charters and public schools are largely indistinguishable." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A Meta-Analysis of the Literature on the Effect of Charter Schools on Student Achievement on the web: http://www.crpe.org/publications/meta-analysis-literature-effect-charter-schools-student-achievement 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: Francesca López, (520) 621-0307, falopez@email.arizona.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 The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute considers the impacts of vouchers as related to competition in Ohio public schools, increased racial segregation, and local district financial resources. It presents these three issues as the chief concerns of voucher critics and finds few harmful impacts. Publication Date February 21, 2023 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability Authors Stéphane Lavertu and John J. Gregg; Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Ohio Vouchers Overstates Benefits and Downplays Negatives An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report largely serves to provide new data for policymakers who already support vouchers, failing to accurately address the concerns of voucher opponents. EAST LANSING, MI (February 21, 2023) -A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute considers the impacts of vouchers as related to competition in Ohio public schools, increased racial segregation, and local district financial resources. It presents these three issues as the chief concerns of voucher critics and finds few harmful impacts. In Michigan State University professor Joshua Cowen’s review of The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics , he finds that the questions it asks are far too limited. While the report is methodologically sound for the narrow questions it poses, Professor Cowen contends that they are outdated with respect to current concerns raised by voucher critics, which focus on substantially decreased student achievement among students using vouchers. The report also relies on more permissive standards for statistical inference than peer-reviewed articles would typically allow. Moreover, the Foreword, written by Fordham staff, gives the clear impression that the report is merely an effort to provide new data for privatization advocates, rather than to respond to legitimate concerns raised by voucher critics. The Foreword dismisses criticisms as "Chicken Little" and "sky-is-falling" histrionics, and in doing so undermines the work of the authors it hired to write the study. Ultimately, Professor Cowen concludes, those who are ideologically predisposed to embrace voucher policies will doubtless find much to appreciate in this report. It does little, however, to assuage the primary concerns of those dedicated to serving children through community-based public education, and thus has little value in the debate over the use of vouchers as a public policy tool to improve education. Find the review, by Joshua Cowen, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics , written by Stéphane Lavertu and John J. Gregg and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/edchoice-impact-report-12-14-22-web-final.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://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 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: https://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 Review of Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape Summary In recent years, at least a dozen states have created private school choice (aka voucher) programs that are universal—placing few or no restrictions on wealth or other factors that might limit which families can participate. A FutureEd report examines the expansion of such programs, and provides a generally useful, up-to-date compilation of basic facts and trends around universal voucher programs in 10 states. Publication Date September 30, 2025 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Bella DiMarco; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Provides Useful but Incomplete Portrait of Universal Vouchers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Future Ed report offers sound descriptions of universal voucher programs across 10 states. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (SEPTEMBER 30, 2025) - In recent years, at least a dozen states have created private school choice (aka voucher) programs that are universal-placing few or no restrictions on wealth or other factors that might limit which families can participate. A Future Ed report examines the expansion of such programs, and provides a generally useful, up-to-date compilation of basic facts and trends around universal voucher programs in 10 states. Indiana University professor and Director of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Christopher Lubienski reviewed Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape . While noting the report's disregard for relevant existing research, Professor Lubienski nonetheless found it useful for its clear, up-to-date descriptive data. Lubienski cautions that the report forgoes important questions such as the value of choice in democratic systems, the impact on equity and segregation, or the necessity of requiring taxpayers to fund the religious choices of some families. Instead, it poses questions on several immediate, empirical issues, such as the following: (a) which students and schools participate, (b) students' prior enrollment, (c) retention/satisfaction, (d) student performance, (e) finance, and (f) the impact on public schools. It concludes with the question of how universal programs can navigate academic issues, social goals and taxpayer concerns. At times, the report veers into the realm of implicit policy recommendations, and on rarer occasions it makes recommendations not tied to the evidence, Lubienski notes. Nevertheless, Professor Lubienski finds the report to be a generally valuable resource, compiling recent data on universal choice programs across these states and occasionally posing provocative questions for policymakers. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape, written by Bella DiMarco and published by Future Ed , at: https://www.future-ed.org/directional-signals-a-new-analysis-of-the-evolving-private-school-choice-landscape/ 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 Christopher Lubienski (812) 856-8389 clubiens@iu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress NCLBs School Evaluation System Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date January 1, 1970 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report concludes school evaluation system is fundamentally flawed FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE East Lansing, Mich., Sept. 25, 2006— Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the main indicator of academic achievement under No Child Left Behind, is an unproven, unrealistic and underfunded system for improving student performance in the nation’s public schools, according to a policy brief funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. AYP –and the accompanying penalties for failure –should be suspended and additional research into its effectiveness should be conducted before schools invest any more time or money or suffer anymore consequences for failure to achieve it, according to the policy brief titled The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate yearly Progress, NCLB’s Evaluation System by Professor William J. Mathis of the University of Vermont. The AYP requirement is the driving force behind NCLB. It uses yearly gains in standardized test scores to measure school and student achievement. Failure by a school to meet yearly performance goals triggers sanctions and “corrective action” plans. The goal of AYP is that every child masters their state’s standardized tests by 2014. According to Mathis, a University of Vermont researcher, “AYP is not an effective instrument for measuring school performance and it is not sparking school reform as promised. Corrective action must be taken to prevent more harm to students and schools, and to develop a tool that will do the job.” The policy brief reveals that: The meager improvements in test scores are unlikely to be the result of the AYP process and are too modest to achieve the goal of 100 percent mastery by 2014; Funding is inadequate to effectively implement the program, particularly for high poverty schools; The AYP process is driving schools to focus only on subjects that are tested at the expense of other important instruction; The nation’s poor and diverse schools are hit hardest by the negative effects of AYP. Many of the brief’s conclusions mirror an earlier study released by the Great Lakes Center which found that nearly every school in the Great Lakes states will be labeled as “failing” by 2014 due to inadequate funding, lack of flexibility and other problems associated with the AYP requirement of NCLB. The full policy brief is available at http:// www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: William J. Mathis (802) 247-5757 (e-mail) wmathis@sover.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking— Common Core State Standards Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current research findings on the likely effect of the widespread adoption of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). 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 October 11, 2012 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Explores the Likely Results of Common Core State Standards EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 11, 2012)— According to a recent PDK/Gallup Poll, seventy-five percent of Americans believe that the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) will provide more consistency in the quality of education between school districts and states, and fifty percent believe the CCSS will improve the quality of education in their community. But a new brief out today, summarizing the current research findings on the likely effect of the widespread adoption of the CCSS, suggests a different outcome may emerge. 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. Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, wrote the brief. Development of the CCSS was led by the National Governors' Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO)—with financial support from the Gates Foundation. Through conditions placed on federal grants and on NCLB waivers, the U.S. Department of Education has pushed states to adopt these "college and career ready standards," with 46 of the states having adopted the CCSS in whole or in part. Mathis notes that there is no research directly on the CCSS program since it has yet to be implemented. Based on past experience with state standards and the experience of other nations, however, we know that the effects of the CCSS will depend much less on the standards themselves than on how they are used. He identifies two factors that are particularly crucial, "the first is whether states invest in the necessary curricular and instructional resources and supports, and the second concerns the nature and use of CCSS assessments developed by the two national testing consortia." Mathis warns that standards themselves don't teach. Nor does the international benchmarking of these standards have any effect. Alone, they do not create strong incentives to change what happens in the classroom. In his advice to policymakers he states, "For the CCSS to be meaningful depends directly on whether it is adequately supported." Regarding the two national assessment consortia, Mathis questions whether the testing consortia have the financial resources to implement high-quality and higher-order assessments on time. He concludes that the adoption of standards and assessments alone "is unlikely to improve learning, increase test scores or close the achievement gap." Keep an eye instead on the support and the assessments, he says. This two-page brief is part of the multipart brief Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking. Find the brief on the GLC website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This report is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . 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 Report Advocates Privatizing Schools Overseas, but Without Convincing Evidence Summary A new report, Beyond the Mirage: How Pragmatic Stewardship Could Transform Learning Outcomes in International Education Systems, prescribes a shift in the leadership role of education ministers - from providers and guarantors of education to pragmatic stewards of education systems. Focusing on the organization of education sectors in the Global South, the report contends that this shift from "provider" to "steward" will address the need for higher quality education, rather than simply providing access to education. The "pragmatic stewardship" advocated in the report involves strategies that increasingly incorporate private actors. Accordingly, the report draws on four case studies of different types of private-sector involvement in education as examples of a recommended broader shift by education ministers. Publication Date October 31, 2019 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Katelyn Donnelly, Arvind Nagarajan, and Ross Lescano Lipstein; Frank Adamson, California State University, Sacramento Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Advocates Privatizing Schools Overseas, but Without Convincing Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Little support is provided for claims in ideologically biased report. EAST LANSING, MI (October 31, 2019) - A new report, Beyond the Mirage : How Pragmatic Stewardship Could Transform Learning Outcomes in International Education Systems , prescribes a shift in the leadership role of education ministers – from providers and guarantors of education to pragmatic stewards of education systems. Frank Adamson, of California State University, Sacramento, reviewed the report and found that its use of questionable evidence and possible conflicts of interest were enough to "render the report's recommendations unsubstantiated." While the report appears to have strong funding behind it, no information is available about the publisher or organization producing the publication. Focusing on the organization of education sectors in the Global South, the report contends that this shift from "provider" to "steward" will address the need for higher quality education, rather than simply providing access to education. The "pragmatic stewardship" advocated in the report involves strategies that increasingly incorporate private actors. Accordingly, the report draws on four case studies of different types of private-sector involvement in education as examples of a recommended broader shift by education ministers. Professor Adamson argues that all four cases contain limitations – some discussed, others not – that undermine their suitability as successful examples of divesting public education systems of their primary role as guarantors and providers of education. Moreover, while the report claims to be "non-ideological" and "beyond the mirage" of the education privatization debate, the funders of the report have a material stake in a main program cited as evidence, raising concerns about conflicts of interest. For these reasons, Professor Adamson concludes that education ministers should "take the suggestions in this report with a grain of salt." Find the review, by Frank Adamson, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Beyond the Mirage: How Pragmatic Stewardship Could Transform Learning Outcomes in International Education Systems , written by Katelyn Donnelly, Arvind Nagarajan, and Ross Lescano Lipstein, at: https://www.seeingbeyondthemirage.com NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), 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 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: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Frank Adamson: (916) 278-4639, adamson@csus.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The State of High School Education in Wisconsin: A Tale of Two Wisconsins Summary This report calls for sweeping reforms in the state’s effort to reduce the widening achievement gap between rich and poor schools districts by increasing rigor in coursework. Publication Date February 17, 2006 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors William Mathis, University of Vermont 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