< Back Review of Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin for 2024 Summary A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) examines publicly available test score data from Spring 2024 in Wisconsin to investigate the relative effectiveness and cost of school choice programs. Publication Date June 10, 2025 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Authors Will Flanders; Benjamin Shear, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report overstates its conclusions without sufficient data transparency or fiscal analysis. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JUNE 10, 2025) - A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) examines publicly available test score data from Spring 2024 in Wisconsin to investigate the relative effectiveness and cost of school choice programs. The report claims to provide evidence that private schools participating in the state's voucher programs and charter schools yield better academic results as compared with traditional public schools, but Benjamin Shear of the University of Colorado Boulder identifies several critical limitations in the data and analyses behind those claims. NEPC today published Professor Shear's review of WILL's Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin for 2024 . The report uses statistical adjustments to compare test scores across Wisconsin public schools, private "choice" (voucher-receiving) schools, and charter schools. Based on these analyses and the per-pupil funding amounts for each program, the report concludes that private and charter schools perform as well or better than traditional public schools-while receiving less public funding-ultimately claiming these schools offer "more bang for the buck." Professor Shear argues, however, that the statistical methods used cannot overcome the substantial underlying constraints of the data. Additionally, the report lacks transparency around key methodological decisions and fails to include a systematic fiscal analysis-undermining its conclusions about both the "bang" and the "buck" elements of cost-effectiveness. As a result, the report offers policymakers little to no practical guidance. If school choice policies are to be guided by cost-benefit analyses, those analyses should be comprehensive and should incorporate empirical evidence about how well the different schooling models are working. While the report does provide a helpful overview of the range of school choice options available in Wisconsin and raises important questions about their efficacy, its descriptive findings are of minimal use without greater transparency and rigor in its data and methods. Find the review, by Benjamin Shear, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin for 2024, written by Will Flanders and published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, at https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ApplestoApples202553.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org 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 Benjamin Shear Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Failure is Not an Option: How Principals, Teachers, Students, and Parents from Ohio’s High-Achieving, High Poverty Schools Explain Their Success Summary The report attempts to explain how principals, teachers, students, and parents sustain effective practices and what helps them to weather tough times. The report was compiled through interviews with nine high-achieving, high-poverty schools in Ohio and offers a description of key attributes and possible recommendations. Publication Date January 15, 2013 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Mark Paige, UMass Dartmouth Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Public Agenda Report Embraces "No Excuses" Rhetoric, Misleads Policymakers and the Public EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 15, 2013) – A recent report from Public Agenda attempted to study why some schools in high-poverty communities succeed while other fail. Carolin Hagelskamp and Christopher DiStasi completed the report, sponsored by the Ohio Business Roundtable, the Ohio Department of Education and The Ohio State University, for Public Agenda. The study looked at nine high-achieving, high-poverty Ohio schools – it summarizes key attributes and practices found through interviews. But a new review finds that the report, Failure Is Not an Option: How Principals, Teachers, Students, and Parents from Ohio's High-Achieving, High-Poverty Schools Explain Their Success , fails to propose remedies that address equity needs or poverty. The review finds that the report simplistically embraces "no excuses" reform rhetoric and offers a set of generic recommendations that are not sufficient to resolve inequities in schools. Mark Paige, who researches legal issues in education and education policy at the University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, prepared the review for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Paige points out that the report lacks an objective, concrete definition of "sustained success" and fails to acknowledge the influence of outside-of-school factors. Moreover, the report ignores overwhelming research on outside-of-school factors and data contained within the study itself. In his review, Paige suggests that the report does deserve some recognition, because it reiterates several of the "best practices" that contribute to improved teaching and learning. However, the report lacks any evidence to address the "no excuses" narrative: "that with dedicated teachers and administrators, schools alone can solve educational inequities." The report misleads policymakers and the public into thinking that a set of generic recommendations and attributes, found in successful schools, can overcome poverty and inequity. Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Failure is Not an Option on the web: http://www.publicagenda.org/pages/failure-is-not-an-option 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. This review is also 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: Mark Paige, (508) 910-9037, mpaige@umassd.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 Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era Summary In a new policy brief, Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era, authors Kevin G. Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), Carol C. Burris (Network for Public Education), and Preston C. Green III (University of Connecticut) warn that, without proactive legislative action, this radical transformation of states' charter sectors could be fully imposed within two years. Appendix Publication Date May 28, 2026 Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Authors Kevin G. Welner, Carol C. Burris, and Preston C. Green III Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: New brief outlines legal risks for states and offers a path for them to preserve charter schools' public accountability and civil rights protections. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 28, 2026) - Forty-two states plus the District of Columbia may soon confront sweeping changes to their charter school systems, as the U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to greenlight religious charter schools and to then shield those religious schools from anti-discrimination and other good-governance laws that apply to public schools. In a new policy brief, Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era , authors Kevin G. Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), Carol C. Burris (Network for Public Education), and Preston C. Green III (University of Connecticut) warn that, without proactive legislative action, this radical transformation of states' charter sectors could be fully imposed within two years. The brief describes an upcoming "one-two punch" from the Supreme Court. First, the Court will hear a case next term that is likely to find a free-exercise right for taxpayer-funded private religious schools to engage in faith-based discrimination. Arguments for faith-based exemptions from accountability and transparency rules will follow. Second, the Court is likely to hear a case in the following term, resulting in a decision that prohibits states from excluding religious charter schools-again grounded in the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. This charter-school trap, however, is set only for states that structure their laws to place private, independent organizations in the charter-governance role. As the brief explains, if governmental entities retain that governance role, the Court's free-exercise reasoning does not apply. Instead, the applicable law is the longstanding Establishment Clause bar on religious public schools. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia permit charter schools. Of these, 42 allow or require independently governed charter schools-the type that the Supreme Court's ruling might drastically transform. However, nine of those 42 states also allow charter schools to be governed by local school districts, and four states-Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Virginia-place all their charters under the governance of publicly elected school boards. This brief argues that these four are already protected from the Supreme Court's likely decisions. "State legislators can head the Court's radical change by strengthening the fundamental publicness of their charter schools," Welner explains. "Legislators can protect the charter-school sectors against the imposed transformation by changing how they are governed." According to Green, the solution is straightforward: "All charter schools should be created, staffed, and governed by public entities such as local school districts, ensuring they remain fully subject to constitutional and civil rights protections." The authors include key provisions for a state statute to guide this shift, offering a clear path for preserving accountability, transparency, and civil rights in an evolving legal landscape. Bringing charter schools into this legal safe harbor will, according to Burris, have other advantages as well: District-governed charters also offer practical advantages, including stronger financial oversight and reduced risk of mismanagement and fraud. Communities, via their elected school boards, will have a voice in whether and how to build charter schools that serve the community's best interests. Find Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Er a, by Kevin G. Welner, Carol C. Burris, and Preston C. Green III, 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 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Mounting Trouble with Education Savings Accounts Summary In NEPC's new policy brief, The Mounting Trouble with Education Savings Accounts, author Samuel E. Abrams, the director of NEPC's International Partnership for the Study of Educational Privatization, examines this surge in universal ESAs. Abrams describes their origins, rapid growth, and implications for accountability, equity, public school funding, and civic life. Publication Date April 17, 2025 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Samuel E. Abrams, Director of NEPC's International Partnership for the Study of Educational Privatization Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Surge in Education Savings Accounts Raises Grave Concerns About Oversight, Equity, Public School Funding, and Civic Life Key Takeaway: As more states adopt universal ESAs, questions grow about accountability, equity, public school funding, and civic life. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 17, 2025) - Since 2021, 12 states have authorized Education Savings Accounts as universal or near-universal vouchers to cover either tuition at minimally regulated private schools or pods (mini schools with children of like-minded parents); or costs associated with homeschooling, from books and online curricula to field trips and ancillary goods and services deemed essential. These ESAs make nearly all students eligible, regardless of family income. In NEPC's new policy brief, The Mounting Trouble with Education Savings Accounts , author Samuel E. Abrams, the director of NEPC's International Partnership for the Study of Educational Privatization, examines this surge in universal ESAs. Abrams describes their origins, rapid growth, and implications for accountability, equity, public school funding, and civic life. Advocates view this transformation as a breakthrough for market-driven reform and a long-overdue benefit for parents with children in private school who feel double-taxed, Abrams writes. But he sees grim consequences. State agencies are struggling to monitor spending across a wide range of goods and services. Public subsidies are generating tuition hikes at private schools and new taxpayer obligations. These subsidies are also supporting many private schools with significant barriers to enrollment, ranging from faith and sexual orientation to affordability. Exclusion based on faith and sexual orientation apply to employment, as well. Meanwhile, public schools are facing funding cuts as students leave for private schools, pods, or homeschooling. Such student attrition often leads to school closures. In rural areas, the impact can be severe. School closures in small towns mean not only significant travel for students to neighboring districts but also forfeiture of much local community activity, as schools in these towns function as hubs for substantial intergenerational engagement. Abrams calls on policymakers to rein in ESAs in states where they exist and to block their authorization in states considering their implementation. While state education departments may never fully keep pace with ESA oversight, Abrams recommends stronger tracking policies and transparency requirements, such as fuller public reporting on school outcomes and accessibility. Local officials, advocates, journalists, and researchers all have a role to play in informing the public and holding policymakers accountable. Find The Mounting Trouble with Education Savings Accounts , by Samuel E. Abrams, at: https://www.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 Samuel E. Abrams samuel.abrams@utu.fi Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect Summary A recent Brookings Institution report synthesizes findings from a year-long study of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education, concluding that its potential harms to young people's learning and development currently outweigh its benefits. Publication Date March 12, 2026 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Mary Burns, Rebecca Winthrop, Natasha Luther, Emma Venetis, and Rida Karim; William R. Penuel, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MARCH 12, 2026 Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report will help readers wrap their minds around issues concerning generative AI in education, but it provides little help in selecting and evaluating options for ensuring that AI is used to benefit rather than harm young people's well-being. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 12, 2026) - A recent Brookings Institution report synthesizes findings from a year-long study of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education, concluding that its potential harms to young people's learning and development currently outweigh its benefits. In his review of A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect , University of Colorado Boulder professor William R. Penuel found it to be a useful tool to anticipate potential benefits and harms of AI but found it weaker in offering any clear blueprint for changing the trajectory of AI in education. The report identifies three focus areas for action: promoting AI tools that support evidence-informed pedagogies; developing holistic AI literacy; and advancing trustworthy AI tool design, governance, and guidelines that prioritize safety, privacy, and healthy development. The report's strength lies in its breadth of perspectives and research. It provides decision makers with a wide range of ideas. But it offers little help in selecting and evaluating options for ensuring that AI is used to benefit rather than harm young people's well-being. Also, it does not systematically weigh evidence by quality or type, leaving readers to draw divergent conclusions. More concerning, decision makers are presented with numerous recommendations but minimal guidance on how to evaluate or implement them, including little clarity about which stakeholders should carry out its 12 proposed actions. Ultimately, Professor Penuel concludes, the report serves as a useful overview of the complex issues surrounding generative AI in education, though its impact is constrained by a reluctance to decisively assess whether future benefits can meaningfully outweigh current risks. Find the review, written by William R. Penuel, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect , written by Mary Burns, Rebecca Winthrop, Natasha Luther, Emma Venetis, and Rida Karim and published by the Brookings Institution, at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A-New-Direction-for-Students-in-an-AI-World-FULL-REPORT.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . 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 William R. Penuel Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back What's Trust Got to Do With It? A Communications and Engagement Guide for School Leaders Tackling the Problem of Persistently Failing Schools Summary This report offers strategies for building public and parental support for federal school turnaround strategies. Publication Date February 7, 2012 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Giving Parents the Runaround on School Turnarounds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 7, 2012) – Federal school "turnaround" strategies that call for firing teachers, replacing managers, or closing or converting public schools into charters are often met with resistance and anger among the parents whose children attend those schools. A recent study released by Public Agenda which focuses on how to market the concept of turnaround strategies fails to address the substantive concerns of resistant parents nor questions the soundness of these strategies as a way to improve schools, according to a new Think Twice review. The report, What's Trust Got to Do With It? A Communications and Engagement Guide for School Leaders Tackling the Problem of Persistently Failing Schools, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by William J. Mathis, an education researcher and former school superintendent who has studied school turnaround strategies. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "Turnarounds" are the most drastic sanction imposed by the 10-year-old No Child Left Behind Act, which prescribes them for schools that fail to make "adequate yearly progress" in student achievement for five consecutive years. When imposed, they are often met with fierce community opposition from parents who don't want to see their neighborhood school closed and who don't want to lose teachers they and their children have found supportive and helpful. In the face of such reaction, the authors of What's Trust Got to Do With It? focus on how to better sell the concept of turnarounds. They assume that resistant parents simply don't understand "how bad" their local schools are. These parents can, the report explains, be brought around to support what the authors characterize as "bold action to transform deeply inadequate schools, including closing or fundamentally reshaping the leadership, programs, and staffing at these schools." For the most part, the communications advice offered in the report is basic and is not troubling by itself. But as Mathis points out in his review, the report never treats seriously the substantive concerns of resistant parents; it never questions the fundamental strategy that it proposes communicating about . "While the report endorses and encourages the federally promoted turnaround approaches, it does not include a discussion of the considerable body of research that raises questions about the effectiveness of these models," Mathis writes. "In fact, the efficacy of all these turnaround reforms is simply assumed." Mathis criticizes the report for being "paternalist and arrogant" in its "criticism of parents not knowing what's good for them." "What's Trust Got to Do With It? is ironically titled," Mathis concludes. "Trust has everything to do with the problem. Yet, perhaps the greater problem is in the authors' complete lack of trust in the views of the parents." Find William Mathis's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find What's Trust Got to Do With It? on the web at: http://www.publicagenda.org/files/pdf/WHATS_TRUST_GOT_TO_DO_WITH_IT.pdf . Think Twice, a project of the NEPC, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-whats-trust . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 282-0058, wmathis@sover.net 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 Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: Learning from Florida's Reforms Summary This report contends that Florida's "far-reaching" education policies have caused test scores to increase and the achievement gap to narrow. In particular, the report focuses on fourth-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Publication Date November 30, 2010 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Madhabi Chatterji, Teachers College at Columbia University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Heritage Report is latest in series of misleading analyses EAST LANSING, Mi. (November 30, 2010) – Did a collection of Florida education policies—ranging from grade retention to school choice and virtual schools—improve achievement and narrow the test-score gap? A recent Heritage Foundation report is part of a larger campaign to convince us that the answer to that question is "yes"—but a new review finds serious flaws in the Heritage report which render it of little value to policymakers. The Heritage report, Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: Learning from Florida's Reforms , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Madhabi Chatterji, a professor of educational measurement and evaluation at Teachers College at Columbia University who has conducted considerable research of Florida schools. 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 Heritage report, authored by Matthew Ladner and Lindsey Burke, contends that Florida's "far-reaching" education policies have caused test scores to increase and the achievement gap to narrow. In particular, the report focuses on fourth-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). These research claims are also made by Dr. Ladner, the Vice President of Research at Arizona's free-market Goldwater Institute, in a dozen other reports and articles similar to the Heritage report reviewed by professor Chatterji. The claims, however, do not withstand scrutiny. "The report's key conclusions are unwarranted and insufficiently supported by research," Chatterji states in her review. Most importantly, she points out the very direct effects of the state's grade-retention policy, causing the report's comparisons to be largely meaningless. By analogy, consider growth in height instead of growth in test scores. If two states wanted to measure the average height of their fourth graders, but one state (Florida) first identified the shortest 20% of third graders and held them back to grow an additional year before measurement, the study's results would not be useful. That, in brief, is the key problem that professor Chatterji identifies with the Heritage report. Florida's retention policy, instituted in 2002, focuses on third graders, who are held back when their reading scores are low. The Heritage report focuses on NAEP fourth-grade reading scores. Low scoring readers—mostly black and Hispanic—were screened out of grade 4 tests, which resulted in inflated and erroneous fourth grade scores. The review also points out that NAEP scores at other grade levels and even NAEP scores in fourth-grade math do not show the same jump as NAEP fourth grade reading. That is, the report cherry-picks the best data. Also, even if scores in Florida are in fact increasing, the report's methods are too weak to allow for a causal inference. The report uses only descriptive test score trends to compare states and then make sweeping generalizations. Moreover, many other changes occurred in Florida during the period analyzed, including the phasing in of one of the nation's most ambitious class-size reduction reforms—yet the report never mentions these other possible causes of any improvements. "In sum, the report's analyses are highly biased and of very limited value," Chatterji concludes. "The major elements of Florida's education reform policies are in need of continuing and more careful examination, individually and collectively, before they can be recommended for wider policy adoption." "Notwithstanding the clear problems with Dr. Ladner's analysis, he has done an excellent job in marketing," says Kevin Welner, professor of education at the University of Colorado and director of NEPC, "He has repackaged his analysis for at least seven individual states, showing each state's purported failings relative to Florida. This is how policy gets made—and it isn't pretty." Find Madhabi Chatterji's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Chatterji_Fla.pdf Find Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: Learning from Florida's Reforms by Matthew Ladner and Lindsey Burke on the web at: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Closing-the-Racial-Achievement-Gap-Learning-from-Floridas-Reforms 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 think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous 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/learning-from-florida ### 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: Madhabi Chatterji (212) 678-3357; mb1434@columbia.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Better Data, Better Decisions: Informing School Choosers to Improve Education Markets and A Crisis We Can Solve: Connecticut’s Failing Schools and Their Impact Summary This report, published by AEI, asserts that choice is seen as a mechanism, and at times a panacea, for better educational quality. The report provides an overview of what families want from schools, where they get information on schools, and how they use information to make decisions. The report concludes that informed choice and the power of the market will produce better educational outcomes. The ConnCAN report makes a case that there is a desperate need to improve school quality in Connecticut’s neediest neighborhoods and promotes charter schools as the best and perhaps only method for increasing the number of high-quality educational seats in Connecticut. Publication Date January 5, 2015 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors John Valant; Erin McNamara Horvat, Temple University; and David Everington Baugh, Bensalem Township School District, Pennsylvania Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice project reviews two school choice reports AEI report has some value, while ConnCAN provides another advocacy document EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 5, 2015) – Two newly released reports advocated for school choice as a mechanism for improving educational outcomes. A review of both finds a recently released ConnCAN report is more opinion than fact, while a report from AEI provides useful information to help parents make informed decisions. However, the reviewers question whether simply having more information to make better decisions is sufficient to improve our educational system. Erin McNamara Horvat, Temple University, and David Baugh, superintendent of the Bensalem (PA) Township School District, reviewed Better Data, Better Decisions: Informing School Choosers to Improve Education Markets from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and A Crisis We Can Solve: Connecticut's Failing Schools and Their Impact from ConnCAN. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The ConnCAN report relies mainly on anecdotal evidence for its claims on behalf of school choice as the solution to the problems it identifies in Connecticut's systems. "It is merely a choice advocacy document and is therefore of little value to serious policy reform conversations or academic researchers," Horvat and Baugh write. The reviewers, on the other hand, find that the AEI report has more to offer: "It is grounded in solid scholarship and data from existing choice research as well as research conducted by its author. It makes useful suggestions regarding how choice might be more effectively implemented." They caution, however, that the AEI report "overreaches in its claims regarding the power of choice and of the market to reform schools and produce better educational outcomes." The reviewers also remind us that charter schools perform about the same as traditional public schools and call for a larger, more encompassing conversation about poverty and inequity in our educational system. Horvat and Baugh, in their conclusion, question whether "better decisions will lead to the kind of overall improvement our system requires in order to compete in the global economy and whether it allows us to fulfill the promise of democratic schooling for all." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Better Data, Better Decisions: Informing School Choosers to Improve Education Markets on the web: https://www.aei.org/publication/better-data-better-decisions-informing-school-choosers-improve-education-markets/ Find A Crisis We Can Solve: Connecticut's Failing Schools and Their Impact on the web: http://www.conncan.org/media-room/press-releases/2014-11-connecticut-education-in-crisis-40000-children-trapp 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: Erin McNamara Horvat, (215) 519-2190, horvat@temple.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Yearning to Break Free: Ohio Superintendents Speak Out Summary This report uses a survey of Ohio school superintendents to argue for an increase in district authority instead of increased school resources. The report suggests that academic achievement would improve if superintendents were freed from state mandates and union contracts. Publication Date May 3, 2011 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Catherine Horn and Gary Dworkin, University of Houston Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Ohio Superintendent Survey Doesn't Support Conclusions Ohio Superintendent Survey Doesn't Support Conclusions Fordham Institute report of little value for policymakers, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi. (May 3, 2011) - Based on a survey of school superintendents in Ohio, a recent Fordham Institute report argues for increased district authority instead of increased school resources. It suggests that even with limited resources, academic achievement would improve if superintendents were freed from state mandates and union contracts and had more control over the funding they receive. A new review of the report finds that it relies on a flawed survey and that its conclusions are problematic. The Fordham report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Catherine Horn and Gary Dworkin, education and sociology professors at the University of Houston. 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. Horn and Dworkin reviewed Yearning to Break Free: Ohio Superintendents Speak Out , a report based on a survey of 246 school superintendents, asking questions focused on reducing costs and expanding superintendents' autonomy. Horn and Dworkin find that the Fordham Institute report's "conclusions are problematic because of the combined effects of non-representative sampling, leading or inappropriately worded items, and the conflating of opinion and fact." The report offered no peer-reviewed literature to substantiate the methods used or the validity of its conclusions. The mail-in survey's weak response rate (40 percent of all invited superintendents), combined with an apparent failure to examination for possible sampling bias, further call its conclusions into question. Moreover, Horn and Dworkin point out multiple shortcomings with the design of the survey questionnaire. Perhaps most importantly to the report's main argument, respondents were forced to choose between "significant increases in school funding" or "significant expansion of management authority over staff." As the reviewers note, the first option is hardly realistic in today's economic climate. And when given the choice in another question, the superintendents offered an answer in some tension with the report's broad conclusion: "Despite the reported finding that superintendents prefer greater autonomy in personnel and school policies over increased funding, the majority of superintendents also contend that they would see a trade-off of more autonomy with a decrease in funding as undesirable," Horn and Dworkin write. Ultimately, the report's argument that granting superintendents greater autonomy, fewer mandates, and the right to hire and fire teachers and other employees at will would lift achievement scores lacks sufficient evidence, the reviewers note. "Merely because the superintendents [who responded] think that getting greater control over the hiring and firing of teachers will raise tests scores is not the same as empirical evidence that such a practice will raise scores." Find Horn's and Dworkin's report and a link to the Fordham Institute report at http://www.greatlakescenter.org The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-ohio-superintendents Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Catherine Horn: (713) 743-5032 clhorn2@uh.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Markets vs. Monopolies in Education: A Global Review of the Evidence Summary This report makes the claim that private schools around the world perform better than public schools and that the U.S. should embrace a free and competitive education marketplace. Publication Date September 30, 2008 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College/City University of New York Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review concludes that Cato’s simple tally of unscreened studies is not a useful way of summarizing research EAST LANSING, Mi. (Sept. 30, 2008)—A new report from the Cato Institute purports to show that private schools around the world perform better than public schools and that the United States should embrace a free and competitive education marketplace. A review of the Cato report, however, finds the report’s analysis to be faulty and the resulting policy conclusion to be unwarranted. The report, Markets vs. Monopolies in Education: A Global Review of the Evidence , was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Clive Belfield of Queens College/City University of New York, who is also co-director of the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Markets vs. Monopolies tallies up the conclusions reached by 55 domestic and international studies. It finds that, by a ratio of 8 to 1, private schools outperform public ones. It then presents the results of a closer look at a subset of studies, representing systems with the greatest market freedom, and finds that private schools again outperform public schools. From these findings, the report draws a series of broad policy recommendations: That the content of schooling does not need to be overseen by the state; that there should be universal access to minimally regulated education markets; and that parents should directly pay at least some of the cost of their children’s education. Belfield’s review strongly criticizes the report’s analysis as well as its findings. “Contrary to the basic assertion in the Cato report, there is little warrant for U.S. policymakers to draw policy conclusions from tallying the results of the body of very uneven international evidence. The large and growing body of U.S. evidence about school choice and marketization is more accessible, applicable and useful than figuring out how international evidence applies to the U.S.” Regarding the report’s simplistic “vote-counting” to analyze the studies’ conclusions, Belfield notes that “not all votes – not all studies – are necessarily equal.” Researchers have developed much more careful ways of analyzing and making sense of multiple studies that explore related phenomena. The danger, Belfield explains, is that many of the studies counted in the Cato study are substantially weaker than others, and their value is highly suspect. The Cato report also omits a number of relevant studies, raising “serious questions about the report’s methodological assumptions and about the usefulness of reviewing international evidence instead of relying on U.S. research,” Belfield writes. Belfield notes that even if the report’s fundamental findings of the experiences of other countries were accurate, it nonetheless cannot support the policy conclusions. The national systems surveyed, including those in Pakistan, India and Ghana are so different from the U.S. as to make comparisons questionable, and the report ignores such questions as the costs vs. benefit of market approaches, both in economic and social terms. “It is possible that private schools are superior to public schools when all the international evidence is counted,” Belfield writes. “We don’t know, and this report does little if anything to help answer that question.” But the best studies in the U.S. and abroad, which include rigorous controls for bias, show the purported private school advantage to range from small to non-existent, he concludes. “As such, expanding market forces is unlikely to yield dramatic improvements in the quality of the U.S. education system.” Find Clive Belfield’s review and a link to the Cato report on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Clive Belfield, (718) 997-5448; (email) Belfield@qc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents Summary This report is billed as a guide for Michigan school officials and other interested in privatizing school services. Publication Date February 19, 2008 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds Mackinac Center report offers little evidence for privatization, ignores arguments against the practice EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 19, 2008) – A report last year billed as a guide for Michigan schools and others on privatizing school services offers little evidence to support its premise that privatizing those services saves money or is otherwise beneficial according to a new review of the document. Issued by the Mackinac Center, the report is entitled, “A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media, and Residents.” It was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Clive Belfield, an economist at Queens College, City University of New York. The “Privatization Primer” argues for contracting out schools’ food, transportation and custodial services and offers guidelines for carrying out that task. Belfield credits the report for providing credible surveys of the current breadth of contracting-out practices and describes “practical steps for issuing and monitoring contracts” that might be helpful to districts who wish to pursue the strategy. But, Belfield concludes, its usefulness stops there. The report, he says, “does not offer a balanced framework for assessing the costs and benefits of contracting out.” It ignores transaction costs, reports only on officials’ perception of the advantages of contracting out while omitting any discussion of disadvantages, and fails to acknowledge that research evidence on the practice in education “is far from conclusive.” In fact, Belfield finds little evidence to support the underlying assumption that privatizing these services does save districts money. Throughout the document, Belfield notes, the author fails to consider any evidence that might contradict his assumptions about the benefits of contracting out. “For example, no investigation is made either of the number of terminated contracts or of the failed attempts to hire a contractor at lower cost than existing public realm provision of these services,” Belfield writes. “Similarly, no mention is made of the likelihood that private contractors will ‘cherry-pick’ the easiest services and leave the public enterprise to provide the more expensive ones.” “The report may be successful in persuading districts to consider contracting out,” Belfield says, “but this change may not be financially or otherwise appropriate for any given district.” Find the complete review by Clive Belfield as well as a link to the Mackinac Center report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219; (email) 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 Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas Summary The authors of the report claim large and growing inequities between district funding provided through state, local, federal and other sources and charter school revenues from those same sources, even after accounting for differences in student needs. Publication Date May 20, 2014 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay F. May, Sheree T. Speakman, Patrick J. Wolf, Albert Cheng; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review of Charter School Funding Report Finds Major Flaws Policymakers should ignore highly flawed report seeking more taxpayer funds for charter schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 20 2014) – A report from the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform (DER) proclaims large and growing school funding inequities between school district and charter school revenues. The report contends that charter schools are severely disadvantaged relative to traditional local public schools in terms of the revenue they receive. A new academic review of the report finds the report to be of little use for informing public policy and illustrates the problem of attempting to compare "all revenues" between local public district and charter schools. Bruce Baker, Rutgers University, reviewed the report 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. The report, Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands , written by Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay F. May, Sheree T. Speakman, Patrick J. Wolf, and Albert Cheng, was published by the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. The authors of the report claim large and growing inequities between district funding provided through state, local, federal and other sources and charter school revenues from those same sources, even after accounting for differences in student needs. In his review, Baker finds that the report has one overarching flaw that invalidates all of its findings and conclusions, "the report displays complete lack of understanding of intergovernmental fiscal relationships, which results in the blatantly erroneous assignment of ‘revenues' between charters and district schools." Baker further states that the report ignores district funding that passes through district schools to charter schools in most states. The report also has several smaller shortcomings: (1) it suffers from alarmingly vague documentation; and (2) the report constructs entirely inappropriate comparisons of student population characteristics. In his review, Baker applies concrete numbers to three jurisdictions and finds miscalculations coupled with other inaccuracies. The serious flaws in the Charter School Funding report invalidate its conclusions and any subsequent return-on-investment comparisons claiming they're a better deal because they receive less funding and yet perform as well if not better than traditional public schools. In conclusion, Baker says "The Charter Funding report reviewed herein fails to meet either the most basic standards of data quality and comparability or methodological rigor. It is therefore unwise to use it to inform charter school policy." Find Bruce Baker's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter Funding: Inequity Expands on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/charter-funding-inequity-expands/ 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 support from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . This review is also 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: Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.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