< 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

< Back Review of The Reality of Switchers Summary A new report from the voucher-advocacy group EdChoice takes issue with the overwhelming evidence establishing that most users of vouchers under recent expansions of these policies have never attended public schools. Publication Date May 2, 2024 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Martin F. Lueken; Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Yes, Recent Voucher Expansions Mostly Support Students Who Never Attended Public Schools-Costing Taxpayers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report fails to effectively challenge the established pattern of voucher use by students enrolled in public schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 2, 2024) - A new report from the voucher-advocacy group EdChoice takes issue with the overwhelming evidence establishing that most users of vouchers under recent expansions of these policies have never attended public schools. In his review of The Reality of Switchers , Michigan State University professor Joshua Cowen highlights the lack of credible research literature and the absence of an accepted methodology used by EdChoice to arrive at its conclusions. Widespread reporting across multiple states has consistently documented a trend also identified by researchers of school voucher programs: The majority of initial voucher recipients were already attending private schools or were not previously enrolled in public school districts. This undermines a key argument often cited in favor of expanding vouchers-that they are cost-saving measures because they supposedly move students from public to private schools, removing expenses associated with educating those students in public schools. Despite the prevalence of this pattern, conservative think tanks periodically downplay or obscure its importance, portraying vouchers as a novel opportunity rather than a subsidy for those who have already chosen to attend private schools. Looking at the recent effort by EdChoice, Professor Cowen first notes that the report, which uses data from two relatively small state programs (in Iowa and New Hampshire), fails to even acknowledge the evidence from many other states showing that "switchers" from public schools are too few to overcome the cost of subsidizing so many students already attending private schools. Cowen also notes that the report includes no methods section or clear methods explanation. "To the extent a method can be discerned," Cowen writes, "the report uses an overly simplistic cost analysis . . . that [compares] the maximum amount of a voucher [to] the per-pupil allowance most states spend on public school enrollment . . ." This "back of the envelope" comparison fails to account for school district's fixed costs regardless of enrollment level. "The report here conflates the average cost of vouchers with the larger, marginal cost borne by taxpayers." Cowen explains: Think of it this way: The report's method of cost-saving calculation is like saying that because a parent has a child who recently went to college, that parent no longer must pay the full mortgage on their home now that one of its bedrooms is empty. Banks do not work that way, and neither do state or district finances. Notwithstanding these machinations and attempts to muddy the water, the report largely confirms that most vouchers go to students who had not been immediately enrolled in public schools, according to Cowen. This makes perfect sense-if the government offers parents a subsidy to do what they're already doing, most parents will gladly accept the handout. Find the review, by Joshua Cowen, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Reality of Switchers , written by Martin F. Lueken and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/Switcher-Brief.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 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 Accountability and Private-School Choice Summary A recent report from the Manhattan Institute addresses the question of how private school voucher programs should be regulated, asking the important question of what accountability mechanisms will safeguard taxpayer dollars if private schools are to receive public funds. Publication Date November 15, 2021 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Nicole Stelle Garnett; Jack Schneider, University of Massachusetts Lowel Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Presents a Simplistic, Ideological Solution to the Complex Issue of Private School Vouchers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Failing to engage with research in an honest and meaningful way, the report is an opinion essay disguised as a piece of policy research. EAST LANSING, MI (November 16, 2021) - A recent report from the Manhattan Institute addresses the question of how private school voucher programs should be regulated, asking the important question of what accountability mechanisms will safeguard taxpayer dollars if private schools are to receive public funds. Jack Schneider of University of Massachusetts Lowell reviewed Accountability and Private-School Choice . He found that it unfortunately offers only simplistic solutions grounded in assumptions and ideology rather than in research evidence. The report advocates for relaxing accountability mechanisms that presently constrain some voucher programs, asserting that "more and better" private schools will participate in response, thereby benefitting students academically. However, Professor Schneider explains, such claims are supported by a selective reading and intentional misreading of educational research. The report largely eschews peer-reviewed scholarship in favor of sympathetic policy reports, but it also draws on academic research chosen in highly selective fashion. In both instances, this use of research is designed to advance an ideologically motivated argument. Insofar as that is the case, the report merely repeats well-worn dogmatic positions. Accordingly, it neither advances what we know about the challenge of regulating private schools subsidized by vouchers nor offers useful information for policy decisions. Find the review, by Jack Schneider, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Accountability and Private-School Choice , written by Nicole Stelle Garnett and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/MI-Garnett-AccountabilityPrivateSchoolChoice-v3.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center 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: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Michigan Higher Education: Facts and Fiction Summary This report argues that Michigan ’s colleges and universities did financially fine during a period of sharp cutbacks to higher education between 2000-2004. Further, based on an analysis of a national set of data, the report finds that states with greater appropriations for higher education are more likely to have lower economic growth. Publication Date July 18, 2007 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Jose Luis Santos, UCLA Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release MACKINAC CENTER’S HIGHER EDUCATION REPORT IS MISLEADING Review concludes that study is poorly grounded and findings are grossly overstated EAST LANSING, Mich. – A recently released report published by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy claims that state funding to support colleges and universities actually results in lower statewide economic growth. A review of this report finds that the report’s analysis and data are weak and misleading and that the report relies on ideology rather than evidence to make its case. The report, Michigan Higher Education: Facts and Fiction , was authored by Richard Vedder and Matthew Denhart. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Jose Luis Santos of UCLA. The report’s authors argue that Michigan’s colleges and universities did fine financially during the period from 2000 to 2004, even though the state sharply cut back on higher education appropriations during that time. Moreover, they analyze a national set of data and find that states with greater appropriations for higher education are more likely to have lower economic growth. At a time when public higher education institutions have been required to increase tuition and fees while many state governments are reducing their appropriations, the Mackinac report offers conclusions that are potentially very important. In tough financial times, one wouldn’t want to waste state resources on something that would lower state economic growth. Santos’ review, however, shows how the report’s counter-intuitive findings are easily explained once the reader understands how the report is misleading. The report’s authors mislead the reader by narrowly focusing on benefits from higher education that accrue to individual students despite considerable empirical research from scholars showing societal benefits. Santos offers the example of high-tech companies choosing to locate near research universities, thus bringing jobs and tax revenues to a region. He also mentions that residents with greater education tend to pay more taxes and are less likely to become burdens on the state. He notes that while it is hard to attach specific dollar figures to these benefits, there is no doubt that they exist. Yet the report’s authors refuse to include them in the calculations they present. Another misleading element of the report is the numbers used to support the finding that colleges and universities have done fine financially despite sharp state cutbacks. The report discusses and draws conclusions about state allocations, but the numbers used for these calculations include (in addition to those allocations) all revenues, including fees, tuition, and private fundraising. In Santos’ words, the authors use “data about pears to draw lessons about mangos.” The report’s authors also make much of the fact that the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor was able to raise fees and tuition and to find other sources of revenue, even while state appropriations were trimmed. But Professor Santos’ review points out that this flagship university was well-positioned to behave “more and more like a private university.” By contrast, he states, “less sought-after colleges and universities will not be in the same position to demand higher tuition and fees, and smaller universities are usually not able to raise the amount of dollars that can be raised at larger ones.” In short, the authors grossly overstate their findings and policy-makers should view with great caution the conclusions drawn and the policy recommendation proffered to reduce state funding for public universities. Find the complete review by Jose Luis Santos as well as a link to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: José Luis Santos (520) 971-9971 (email) jsantos@gseis.ucla.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success 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 March 9, 2009 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors David C. Berliner, Regents’ Professor Arizona State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New report urges policymakers to address poverty in order to increase student learning EAST LANSING, Mich., (March 9, 2009) – A new report argues that out-of-school factors related to poverty are the major cause of the achievement gap that exists between poor and minority students and the rest of the student population. This is in direct contrast to current federal education policies that are based on the belief that public schools should shoulder the blame for lack of achievement on the part of impoverished students. “Schools are told to fix problems that largely lie outside their zone of influence,” says David Berliner, Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University and author of the report Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, which was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Berliner’s report comes as debate continues over the renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act, which imposes stiff accountability measures on schools in return for federal aid. NCLB requires public schools to demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” toward the eventual elimination of gaps in achievement among all demographic groups of students and imposes a variety of sanctions if they fall short. Berliner says that NCLB’s accountability system is “fatally flawed” because it holds schools accountable for student achievement without regard for the out-of-school factors that affect it. “This report provides exactly the type of information that should guide education policy,” says Teri Battaglieri, Director of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. “It clearly explains why poverty must be directly addressed by those interested in closing the achievement gap, and it makes the case for spending our resources on strategies that will significantly impact student learning.” Berliner’s report reviews six out-of-school factors that have been clearly linked to lower achievement among poor and minority-group students: birth weight and non-genetic parental influences; medical care; food insecurity; environmental pollution; family breakdown and stress; and neighborhood norms and conditions. In addition, he notes a seventh factor: extended learning opportunities in the form of summer programs, after-school programs, and preschool programs. Access to these resources by poor and minority students could help mitigate the effects of the other six factors. Because of the extraordinary influence of the six factors identified in the report, Berliner cautions that “increased spending on schools, as beneficial as that might be, will probably come up short in closing the gaps.” Instead, he calls for an approach to school improvement that would demand “a reasonable level of societal accountability for children’s physical and mental health and safety.” “At that point,” he concludes, “maybe we can sensibly and productively demand that schools be accountable for comparable levels of academic achievement for all America’s children.” Find David Berliner’s report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, on the Web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: David Berliner – (480) 861-0484; berliner@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The School Choice Voucher: A “Get Out of Jail” Card? Summary The authors of the working paper used data from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to compare crimes processed through the Wisconsin courts for program participants and a matched sample of students. Although most of these comparisons showed no association, the report finds that some subgroups of MPCP students were less likely to commit crimes as adults. Publication Date April 6, 2016 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Corey DeAngelis and Patrick J. Wolf; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY) Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Milwaukee school voucher report has several weaknesses, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 6, 2016) – A recent working paper from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas suggested the benefits of Milwaukee’s school voucher program extended to reduced criminal behavior. The working paper attempted to study the relationship between crime and the school voucher program. However, an academic review of the paper finds that it has several weaknesses and does not support the implication that voucher programs caused a reduction in crime. The paper, The School Choice Voucher: A "Get Out of Jail" Card? , was reviewed by Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The authors of the working paper used data from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to compare crimes processed through the Wisconsin courts for program participants and a matched sample of students. Although most of these comparisons showed no association, the report finds that some subgroups of MPCP students were less likely to commit crimes as adults. On a positive note, Belfield says that the paper contributes to policy in one important respect: it bases its findings on behavioral outcomes (criminal activity) rather than cognitive outcomes (test scores). Despite this, Belfield is very clear in his review, the findings from the paper should not warrant any strong claims of voucher effects on crime. Belfield raises the following concerns: the study’s results are highly variable, with most comparisons showing statistically insignificant results; the methods used do not justify a causal inference; and the evidence, despite the paper’s title, is associational, not causal. In short, Belfield cautions that a better interpretation of the report would be that vouchers and crime are, in fact, not correlated. Belfield concludes that it is unclear how useful the findings are for policymakers. Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the working paper at: http://www.uaedreform.org/downloads/2016/03/the-school-choice-voucher-a-get-out-of-jail-card.pdf The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219, Clive.Belfield@gmail.com Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Determining Funding for Online Schools Summary How much do online schools cost? A new brief investigates the funding of online education and virtual schools and provides a new, unified conceptual approach to funding online education. As supplemental online education and full-time virtual schools become more prominent in education, policymakers must address the key challenge of determining a fair and effective way to allocate funds for these institutions. Policymakers should develop new funding formulas based on the actual costs of operating virtual schools and link funding to accountability so cost-effectiveness can be determined. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University and Justin Bathon of the University of Kentucky provide tenets of a reformed online school financing system, designed to serve as a practical guide for state and local subsidies. Model legislation, based on their recommendations, is also provided. Publication Date October 15, 2013 Research Areas School Funding; Technology & AI Authors Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Justin Bathon, University of Kentucky 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 Call for Lawmakers to Loosen School Advertising Restrictions Overlooks Real Costs to Students Summary The Empire Center recently released a brief making the persuasive legal case that current policy and legal guidance from state education officials in New York severely restricts the ability of school districts to allow any form of commercial advertising. Because of this, the brief argues, it is more difficult than it should be for these districts to raise revenues from advertising, sponsorships, and naming rights deals Publication Date November 19, 2019 Research Areas School Funding Authors Peter Murphy; William S. Koski, Stanford Law School Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Call for Lawmakers to Loosen School Advertising Restrictions Overlooks Real Costs to Students An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Brief ignores the potential harms of in-school advertising and provides little useful guidance for officials considering a substantive reworking of regulations. EAST LANSING, MI (November 19, 2019) - The Empire Center recently released a brief making the persuasive legal case that current policy and legal guidance from state education officials in New York severely restricts the ability of school districts to allow any form of commercial advertising. Because of this, the brief argues, it is more difficult than it should be for these districts to raise revenues from advertising, sponsorships, and naming rights deals. Professor William S. Koski of Stanford Law School reviewed Commercial Cash: How NY Schools Can Raise Extra Money Without Raising Taxes and found that while the brief provides a solid analysis of the legal and regulatory restrictions on commercial activities in schools, it addresses only the revenue half of the equation and leaves out crucial information. The unexplored half, Professor Koski explains, includes the significant costs of commercial advertising in schools, including the potential psychological, health-related, educational, and privacy harms stemming from corporate advertising and targeted digital marketing. The brief ignores substantial scholarly and empirical literature that has detailed the harms of advertising and media messaging on children generally and the harms from advertising in schools specifically. Beyond these potential harms, the brief may overstate the economic benefits of these deals because it does not consider either the costs of negotiating and administering these contracts or the potential of diminished donor and taxpayer support. While the brief’s call for the New York legislature to revisit and revise policy governing advertising in schools is timely and appropriate, Professor Koski concludes that it provides little useful guidance for officials considering a substantive reworking of regulations. Find the review, by William S. Koski, the Eric and Nancy Wright Professor in Clinical Education at Stanford Law School, at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Commercial Cash: How NY Schools Can Raise Extra Money Without Raising Taxes , written by Peter Murphy and published by Empire Center, at: https://www.empirecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Commercial-Cash-Final.pdf 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 research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net William S. Koski: (650) 799-9060, bkoski@stanford.edu 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 – Effective School Expenditures Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research on effective school expenditures. This three-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date February 7, 2013 Research Areas School Funding Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Discusses Why Money Matters, Effective School Expenditures EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 7, 2013) – The sixth in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing relevant findings in education policy research discusses effective school expenditures. Recent public polls have made it clear Americans are concerned with school funding. However, with shrinking budgets at the state and national level, it is imperative for schools and policymakers to study where money matters, so that our investments have the best pay-off. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, prepared the brief, Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Effective School Expenditures . Previous sections of Research-Based Options have included: teacher evaluations, common core standards, early childhood education, choice funding, and dropout strategies. Mathis’ brief highlights the need for funding and notes that funding and other resources are necessary but not sufficient for providing high-quality educational opportunities. Equally important are effective spending strategies, simply spending money does not by itself create quality educational opportunities. The most commonly used measure of effective expenditures, test scores, are not a valid indicator of the broad range of public education goals, Mathis cautions. "Simple comparisons of spending with test scores will systematically underestimate the effects of proper school funding." Mathis singles out eight areas where increased policy emphasis will likely lead to improved outcomes: community and social factors, early education, community schools, extended day and year, full-day kindergarten, class size, teacher quality, as well as funding for high-needs children and categorical aid. These additional programs or supports will accomplish little unless they are of high quality. "An expensive but ill-considered policy can prove wasteful or even counter-productive." Of all of the factors studied, Mathis stresses the influence of economic and social conditions, "Ameliorating the negative effects of concentrated poverty may do more to improve our schools than most or all school reforms." He reports that this list is not all encompassing, "Nevertheless, there is considerable consensus regarding these areas, and they are therefore offered as a useful starting point for addressing effective school spending." Effective School Expenditures is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. This brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service Summary This report urges American educators to look to an English system of school inspections as a means of assessing schools and as a tool for better understanding and improving student achievement. Publication Date February 28, 2012 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Steven Jay Gross, Temple University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Education Sector report promoting U.K. school inspections not useful for crafting policy in the United States EAST LANSING, Mich (February 28, 2012) – A recent report from Education Sector urges American educators to look to an English system of school inspections as a means of assessing schools and as a tool for better understanding and improving student achievement. A new review of that report finds that it lacks any research base and has little to offer any discussions of education reform in the United States. The report, On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service , by Craig D. Jerald, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Steven Jay Gross of Temple University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Jerald's report offers an outline of the English inspection system, the rubrics it uses to judge teaching, the characteristics of inspectors, and the potential costs of implementing such a system in this country. These descriptions may be useful to many readers in introducing the approach. What the report doesn't offer, according to Gross, is any research to support the efficacy of the approach – or, for that matter, to demonstrate any faults it might have. He writes: No research questions are posed and few examples from the extensive literature on English school inspections are offered, thereby excluding scholarship that is critical of the inspection process or of the concept of the inspection service itself. Lacking any research questions or research-based evidence to analyze, Gross points out that the report is ineffective in three key areas: Building the case for the English inspection system Alerting readers to challenges to that system Illuminating the evaluation of quality teaching under the system In the end, Gross writes, the report leaves many relevant questions unasked and unanswered. Find Steven Gross's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service , by Craig D. Jerald, on the web at: http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/UKInspections-RELEASED.pdf Think Twice, 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 support provided by 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-on-her-majestys . --###-- 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: Steven Jay Gross, (215) 204-8064, sgross02@temple.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 Assessing Proposals for Preschool and Kindergarten: Essential Information for Parents, Taxpayers and Policymakers Summary This report reviews studies and accounts of early childhood programs and presents an argument against universal pre-school and all-day kindergarten programs. Publication Date May 31, 2006 Research Areas Early Childhood Authors W. Steven Barnett, Rutgers University 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