< Back 12 Myths and Realities about Private Educational Choice Programs Summary Setting out 12, often cartoonishly caricatured, "myths" about vouchers, the report proceeds to systematically dismiss each myth. The evidence presented in the report is based largely on previous work from other advocacy groups that curated evidence—much of it highly questionable—on the advantages of vouchers. Accordingly, the IJ report repeats earlier advocacy claims, even when flaws in those works have already been publicly explained. In doing so, the report makes claims that are not supported, and in fact sometimes contradicted, by evidence in the sources it cites. Publication Date March 6, 2019 Authors Tim Keller; Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Release: Voucher "Myth" Report Distorts Its Questions and Its Answers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Attempt by the Institute for Justice to muster pro-voucher evidence ignores the very research it cites, presenting a simplistic and one-sided treatment of the empirical record. EAST LANSING, MI (March 7, 2019) – Researchers have built a substantial body of evidence about policies that use vouchers to fund private schooling, so an honest attempt to bring together that research could have real value. But readers will be disappointed if they look to the Institute for Justice (IJ) for that report. Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University reviewed the IJ's report, 12 Myths and Realities about Private Educational Choice Programs . He considers the merits of each of the 12 claims, and finds that the report fails to take advantage of this body of research, instead offering little more than a simplistic and one-sided treatment of the empirical record. Setting out 12, often cartoonishly caricatured, "myths" about vouchers, the report proceeds to systematically dismiss each myth. The evidence presented in the report is based largely on previous work from other advocacy groups that curated evidence—much of it highly questionable—on the advantages of vouchers. Accordingly, the IJ report repeats earlier advocacy claims, even when flaws in those works have already been publicly explained. In doing so, the report makes claims that are not supported, and in fact sometimes contradicted, by evidence in the sources it cites. The report provides a textbook case of echo-chamber advocacy. Professor Lubienski concludes that it offers nothing useful in furthering our understanding of school vouchers. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Lubienski-Voucher-Myth.pdf Find 12 Myths and Realities about Private Educational Choice Programs , edited by Tim Keller and published by the Institute for Justice, at: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/school-choice-myths-and-realities-2nd-PRINTING-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), 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: http://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 http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Christopher Lubienski: (217) 419-9311, clubiens@iu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Playing to Type? Mapping the Charter School Landscape Summary This report developed a unique typology to compare charter schools types by their enrollment, demographic background of students and performance. Publication Date May 10, 2006 Authors Gary Miron, Western Michigan University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 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 14, 2013 Authors Mark Paige, UMass Dartmouth Research Areas Assessment & Accountability 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 The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems Summary NEPC’s new policy brief, The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems, synthesizes research on the fiscal impacts of charter and voucher school policies on public school systems. Authors David S. Knight of the University of Washington and David DeMatthews of the University of Texas at Austin also discuss recent developments, including the influx of voucher policies, often promoted by large philanthropic donations and messaging campaigns. Publication Date November 20, 2024 Authors David S. Knight, University of Washington; David DeMatthews, University of Texas at Austin Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Shifting Public Funding Away From Neighborhood Schools Has Very Real Impacts Key Takeaway: Expansion of costly school voucher programs and the incautious growth of charter schools will create continuing fiscal challenges for both state governments and local school districts. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 21, 2024) - The U.S. Department of Education projects nationwide enrollment declines over the next decade, which will lead to budget cuts for school districts, especially in areas serving vulnerable populations-at the same time that federal COVID-19 stimulus funds are ending. As enrollment drops, districts can lower long-term costs by reducing new hiring, engaging in the painful process of personnel layoffs, or, in extreme cases, by closing schools. Short-term savings are even more elusive, leading to some very difficult policy choices. Within this context, many states are choosing to fund parallel systems, with some public dollars going to neighborhood schools run by school districts, some going to charter schools run by private parties, and some going to private schools that are generally run by religious institutions. Rather than commit new funding for district-run K-12 schools, many state legislators have invested taxpayer funds in the school-choice expansion of vouchers and charter schools. In 2023 alone, lawmakers in nine states adopted voucher-expansion legislation, and many states have expanded charter school authorizations as well, despite limited enrollment growth. This approach is inefficient, and it places a unique burden on those neighborhood public schools. NEPC’s new policy brief, The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems , synthesizes research on the fiscal impacts of charter and voucher school policies on public school systems. Authors David S. Knight of the University of Washington and David DeMatthews of the University of Texas at Austin also discuss recent developments, including the influx of voucher policies, often promoted by large philanthropic donations and messaging campaigns. The brief examines the connections between decreasing school enrollment, school privatization, and public-school funding cuts. Research shows, for example, that charter school growth and voucher programs have negatively affected funding of district-run public schools. Meanwhile, a network of philanthropists and wealthy donors have reshaped the political economy of school finance in the face of declining public-school enrollments, advocating for voucher programs, charters and privatization. Sustaining adequate and equitable school finance systems requires local, state, and federal action. In the longer term, educational stakeholders across all levels have significant responsibility to ensure the sustainability of the public education system. The brief concludes by offering specific recommendations for sustaining adequate and equitable educational finance systems. Find The Fiscal Impacts of Expanded Voucher Programs and Charter-School Growth on Public Schools: Recommendations for Sustaining Adequate and Equitable School Finance Systems , by David S. Knight and David DeMatthews, 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 ( https://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 David S. Knight: (206) 221-3456 dsknight@uw.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Assessing the Fiscal Impact of Wisconsin’s Statewide Voucher Program Summary A peer-reviewed policy memo produced by the National Education Policy Center for the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice explores the financial effects of Wisconsin’s expanded statewide Parental Choice Program (WPCP). The memo describes how the voucher program alters the relative share of public education spending borne by the state and by local districts and estimates the differential impact of the program on Wisconsin school districts. The author, Ellie Bruecker, University of Wisconsin-Madison, finds that the program will likely exacerbate school funding inequities for public schools in Wisconsin. Publication Date October 4, 2017 Authors Ellie Bruecker, University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Wisconsin program illustrates how vouchers can exacerbate funding disparities in public schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 5, 2017) — A new peer-reviewed policy memo produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) explores the financial effects of Wisconsin's expanded statewide Parental Choice Program (WPCP). The policy memo finds that the program will likely exacerbate school funding inequities for public schools in Wisconsin. Ellie Bruecker, a doctoral student at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, authored the memo, Assessing the Fiscal Impact of Wisconsin's Statewide Voucher Program . Bruecker's research interests are focused on K-12 and higher education finance. She primarily studies equity in state school funding structures. The memo was made possible in part by support provided to NEPC by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Bruecker's policy memo describes how the voucher program alters the relative share of public education spending borne by the state and by local districts and estimates the differential impact of the program on Wisconsin school districts. Additionally, the memo addresses four overarching policy considerations about vouchers and makes a series of recommendations based on research to promote high-quality education and funding equity. Bruecker finds that while effects of the program on public schools are currently small, they are likely to grow over time. She points out that as the program expands, the reduction to local school districts will increase. The statewide program is already distributing tens of millions of dollars for private school tuition. In her conclusion, she writes: "The available evidence suggests that policymakers across the country should think carefully before emulating Wisconsin's statewide voucher program in their own states." Find the policy memo on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The memo 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: Ellie Bruecker , (920) 277-5019, ebruecker@wisc.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back From Washington, DC, to the States: Rethinking Head Start (Heritage Foundation, June 2026) Summary Report offers false and misleading claims, superficial comparisons to other programs, and ideologically predetermined policy recommendations to support its claims that Head Start fails children and taxpayers. Publication Date October 15, 2026 Authors W. Steven Barnett and Morgan Healy, Rutgers University Research Areas Early Childhood; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Heritage Report Calls for Ending Head Start, But Its Evidence is Anemic BOULDER, CO (September 15, 2026) — Head Start is a federal-to-local program intended to enhance the school readiness and success of children in poverty. The program, housed in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), is currently being targeted by the Trump administration for a major overhaul. In August, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced a proposed rule that would remove federal standards around background checks, class size, and staff-to-child ratios, among other things—characterized as providing states with “flexibility.” This proposed rule was a major step along the way to a key goal of the Heritage Foundation, the organization behind Project 2025. As explained in a recent Heritage report, this sort of deregulation is advisable, while the administration also works to end the program. However, a review of the new Heritage report finds the sheer volume of relevant research overlooked by the proposal to be “stunning.” W. Steven Barnett and Morgan Healy of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University reviewed From Washington, DC, to the States: Rethinking Head Start. They found the report’s conclusions and recommendations to be unsupported by evidence. The Heritage report concludes that Head Start does not improve school readiness or produce lasting benefits, spends more per child than alternatives, fails to protect children adequately, and is burdened by regulations that serve no purpose. It therefore recommends eliminating Head Start, block granting its funds to states, and replacing federal program standards with less stringent state childcare regulations. The last of these three recommendations overlaps with the new proposed HHS rule. Barnett and Healy concur that Head Start is long overdue for Congressional reauthorization and that there is room to reduce paperwork and overly detailed regulations. Moreover, major demographic, economic, and policy changes over the past quarter century have altered the population Head Start serves and the context in which it operates. These changes provide a strong rationale for rethinking Head Start, and the report should be credited for raising questions about how Head Start should adapt to changing conditions. However, Barnett and Healy conclude that the report’s use of evidence is so limited and misleading that neither its conclusions about Head Start’s performance and benefits nor its policy recommendations should be used to inform policy decisions. In fact, the full body of research indicates Head Start has immediate benefits for children and likely improves adult outcomes, while the report’s recommended relaxed class size and ratio requirements would likely reduce benefits. Adopting the report’s recommendations could do more harm than good for children and taxpayers, since stronger not weaker standards are warranted to improve outcomes. Find the review, written by W. Steven Barnett and Morgan Healy, at: https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/head-start Find From Washington, DC, to the States: Rethinking Head Start, written by Madison Marino Doan and Jonathan Butcher, and published by the Heritage Foundation, at: https://www.heritage.org/education/report/washington-dc-the-states-rethinking-head-start NEPC Reviews (https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Florida Versus Kentucky: School Choice Improves Public School Performance, Too Summary A recent report from Kentucky's Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions claims, with little supporting evidence, that trends from the 1990s to 2019 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that choice programs catalyze significant educational improvement. Publication Date July 14, 2021 Authors Samuel E. Abrams and Steven J. Koutsavlis; Sam Abrams and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Cherry-Picks a Simple Comparison to Support Its Conclusions About School Choice An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report attempts to show that school choice systems lead to better academic outcomes by confining its analysis to just two states at two points in time. EAST LANSING, MI (July 15, 2021) -A recent report from Kentucky's Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions claims, with little supporting evidence, that trends from the 1990s to 2019 on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) show that choice programs catalyze significant educational improvement. Sam Abrams and Steven Koutsavlis of Teachers College, Columbia University, reviewed Florida Versus Kentucky: School Choice Improves Public School Performance, Too , and determined that its findings fall far short in proving the efficacy of school choice programs. The NAEP is administered to a sample of students in all 50 states every two years, and the report selectively looks at data from two of these states: Florida and Kentucky. The report claims that greater improvement in NAEP scores over this time period for students in Florida, home to much school choice, as compared to students in Kentucky, home to none, demonstrates that Florida's school choice programs have been a success. The report thus concludes that the passage in March of Kentucky's first voucher program should be embraced as a first step in following in Florida's path. This review rejects that determination for two reasons, both related to the cherry-picking of Florida as the comparison state. First, the report overlooks the intensity of Florida's focus on preparing students for annual state exams in reading and math since the implementation of its A+ Accountability Plan in 1999, which appears to have had a substantial impact on the state's NAEP scores. Second, in focusing on Florida, the report fails to acknowledge that the majority of the 10 states with the most choice programs (as measured by percentage of students enrolled in charter schools) fell short of Kentucky in posting gains on NAEP over this time period. The review therefore concludes that much more evidence than this report provides is necessary for drawing clear lessons about the implications of Florida's school choice strategy for Kentucky or any other state. Find the review, by Samuel E. Abrams and Steven J. Koutsavlis, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Florida Versus Kentucky: School Choice Improves Public School Performance, Too , written by Richard G. Innes and published by the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, at: https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5f986190ec1e7d424e58d7f2/t/6090301bdad6d84a16df9887/1620062243113/KYvsFL.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 research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Samuel E. Abrams : (212) 678-8117, sa307@tc.columbia.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Segregation Levels in Cleveland Public Schools and the Cleveland Voucher Program Summary This report finds that private schools participating in the Cleveland voucher program are less segregated than the city's public schools. Publication Date October 4, 2006 Authors Gary Ritter, University of Arkansas Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Hidden Money: The Outsized Role of Parent Contributions in School Finance Summary A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) investigated private fundraising by parent groups, a source of inequality in education that receives scant attention. The report called on district leaders to take actions to address funding disparities between wealthy and low-income schools. The report found that while affluent students receive additional funding for additional resources from parent groups, low-income students (disproportionately children of color) must spend public dollars to obtain the same resources. Publication Date June 14, 2017 Authors Catherine Brown, Scott Sargrad, and Meg Benner; Maia Cucchiara, Temple University Research Areas General / Needs Review; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Promising report on private fundraising by parent groups only scratches the surface of inequality, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 15, 2017) — A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) investigated private fundraising by parent groups, a source of inequality in education that receives scant attention. The report called on district leaders to take actions to address funding disparities between wealthy and low-income schools. An academic review of the report finds the report's findings about the scope and beneficiaries of private fundraising are credible and important. Maia Cucchiara , Temple University, reviewed the report, Hidden Money: The Outsized Role of Parent Contributions in School Finance , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The report found that while affluent students receive additional funding for additional resources from parent groups, low-income students (disproportionately children of color) must spend public dollars to obtain the same resources. Cucchiara, in her review, finds the report to be worthwhile, but finds fault with the report's focus on a small number of schools and districts. She adds that the report fails to provide school and community context, and the case study design limited the report's overall relevance. In her conclusion, Cucchiara says: "Many of the report's recommendations are quite promising. However, it is important to remember that privately raised funds comprise only a minor part of education spending, and that the true sources of educational inequality are structural factors (such as differences in property values, insufficient state aid, and concentrated poverty), rather than the actions of individual parents." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report on the web: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2017/04/08/428484/hidden-money/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Maia Cucchiara , (215) 204-2743, maia.cucchiara@temple.edu Daniel J. Quinn , (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Long-Term Impact of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood Summary This report concludes that teachers whose students show high gains on standardized test scores continue to have a positive impact on the students later in the form of reduced teenage pregnancy rates, increased college attendance and increased future earnings. Ballou's review acknowledges that the report is impressive in many ways, but that important tests for bias were omitted and it failed to account for external factors which could impact test scores such as good parenting. Publication Date February 15, 2012 Authors Dale Ballou, Vanderbilt University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Highly-publicized study on long-term teacher effects omitted important tests for bias EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 16, 2012) — A highly publicized recent study concluded that elementary school teachers' so-called value-added effects on their students show up years later in those students' teenage pregnancy rates, college success and career earnings. A new review of that study found that while it is impressive in many ways, more evidence is needed to prove a key part of its case. The study, The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood, was authored by economists Raj Chetty, John Friedman and Jonah Rockoff. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Dale Ballou, an economist and professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff study was covered extensively in major newspapers and was cited in President Obama's State of the Union address. It has quickly become an important part of national discussions about how we should evaluate teachers. In particular, some policymakers believe that we should base decisions about teacher pay, retention and other considerations on the basis of how a teacher's students perform on standardized tests, measured using "value-added" approaches that attempt to isolate the effects of individual teachers on student growth. Past examinations of the value-added methodology have found that these analyses can vary widely based on even modest changes to the assumptions employed in the model or the assessment used. Teachers also have expressed concern that overreliance on test scores for teacher evaluations leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and teaching to the test. The new study merges IRS data with archival test-score data from a large urban district, using value-added modeling to estimate the short-term test score growth of the students of teachers in reading/language arts and mathematics in grades 4 through 8. It then looked at certain longer-term outcomes for those students. The researchers concluded that teachers who proved to be effective at raising test scores in either of those subjects also had positive effects on other student outcomes, even years later. According to Ballou, "The report claims that these positive outcomes are the result of having had higher value-added teachers, above and beyond any association that might arise for other reasons." The three economists support their conclusions regarding short-term effects with strong tests for systematic bias in the assignment of students to teachers. Those tests found that the value-added was estimated without bias. Family background factors that predict high test scores were not distributed in such a way as to systematically favor teachers with high value-added estimates. But Ballou explains that a similar set of tests is needed to establish that the estimated effect of high-value-added teachers on long-term outcomes is also free of bias. He writes: What is needed now is to test whether family background factors that predict long-term success in employment, college attendance, etc., are distributed in such a way as to favor high-value-added teachers. ... [T]he tests for bias need to be run again... The fact that similar tests have already validated the estimates of teacher value added does not imply that they are not needed to validate inferences about the impact of teachers on long-term outcomes. Indeed, it is probably even more important that these tests be conducted with respect to outcomes like earnings and the avoidance of teen pregnancy. Data available from tax returns are not likely to distinguish well between families that nurture the development of character and families that are much less successful in this task. Unobserved differences between families are likely to be very important. The way to test whether high-value-added teachers have been systematically assigned more students whose families are richer with respect to these unobservable factors is to conduct the quasi-experimental tests described above. Absent that, we will not know whether such differences were present and were the underlying reason for the observed association between teacher value-added and students' long-term success. "On this key point the report falls short," Ballou writes. "While some of these tests have been reported, much more evidence could have been presented to support this claim. The same kind of tests conducted to establish that value-added was estimated free of bias could have been applied to test the larger and more significant claim of this report: that high-value added teachers improve life outcomes many years after students have left their classrooms. In the absence of such evidence, it is premature to conclude that the report's central conclusions are correct." Find Dale Ballou's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood , by Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff, on the web at: http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.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 funding from 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-long-term-impacts . --###-- 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: Dale Ballou, (615) 322-8039, dale.ballou@vanderbilt.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 Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition Summary Despite the vast majority of research into tracking or ability grouping of students, a recently released report from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) purports that sorting students by ability improves outcomes for low-achieving and high-achieving students alike. Publication Date April 1, 2013 Authors Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, South Side High School Katherine Allison, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Tracking Students Continues To Be An Unproven Strategy EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 2, 2013) – The vast majority of research into so-called tracking or ability grouping of students has reached a definite conclusion: it's harmful. Students placed in low-track classes fall further behind. However, a recently released working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that sorting students by ability improves outcomes for low-achieving and high-achieving students alike. A new review finds that several important methodical issues limit the usefulness of the paper. Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, principal of South Side High School in the Rockville Centre School District in New York, and Katherine Allison, a doctoral student in research and methodology at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the report, Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Burris is the co-author of two books on tracking and equity as well as numerous articles regarding these issues in peer-reviewed and popular journals. The review was prepared for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to Burris and Allison, the paper is limited in several important ways. First, the paper assumes that schools in the study tracked students between classes – and this assumption is highly questionable. Second, the reviewers find that there was no criteria by which high- or low-achievers were classified. Finally, while it purports to be based on a measure of learning growth, it's not. The measure is only of relative standing of students on two proficiency tests given in different years. The reviewers further find "The authors go beyond their data and analyses when they conclude that schools should sort students as a cost-free method to improve student achievement." In the end, the reviewers find that this working paper should not be used to inform policy regarding tracking or grouping practices. "Evidence-based policy should always be grounded in the complete research base and should focus on high-quality data and analyses." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition by Courtney A. Collins and Li Gan on the web: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18848 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 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/thinktank/review-does-sorting-students --###-- 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: Carol Burris, (516) 599-0839, burriscarol@gmail.com Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Report about Homeschooling Overreaches on Claims Summary The Cato Institute recently released a report arguing that homeschoolers should support school choice proposals because greater educational freedom empowers parents to provide richer learning opportunities for their children. Publication Date November 6, 2019 Authors Kerry MacDonald; Robert Kunzman, Indiana University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report about Homeschooling Overreaches on Claims An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: In asserting a connection between school choice growth, homeschooling freedom, and increased educational innovation, report merely relies on occasional correlations. EAST LANSING, MI (November 7, 2019) - The Cato Institute recently released a report arguing that homeschoolers should support school choice proposals because greater educational freedom empowers parents to provide richer learning opportunities for their children. Robert Kunzman, Managing Director of the International Center for Home Education Research and a professor at Indiana University, reviewed Homeschooling and Educational Freedom: Why School Choice is Good for Homeschoolers . He found that while the report does identify some ways that homeschooling can contribute to educational innovation, it does not establish a definitive relationship between homeschooling growth and the expansion of other school choice policies. Drawing on four states with expansive education choice programs, the report's rationale is grounded on a purported chain of causation from robust school choice policies to homeschooling growth to educational innovation. Professor Kunzman explains that these causal contentions are purely speculative and are not borne out by the broader state-level data. In fact, he writes, at least half of all states lack reliable data. Among states with data, some that do show dramatic homeschooling growth have regulatory environments more favorable to school choice, but enough counterexamples exist to make even simple conclusions uncertain. While these problems compromise the usefulness of this new report, Kunzman notes that homeschooling is indeed a context in which educational innovation can flourish. The flexibility of homeschooling provides ample room for learning experiences that can meet the needs of individual students. But beneficial innovations are not the sole province of homeschoolers, since we find compelling examples in all sectors of schooling. Professor Kunzman concludes that homeschooling serves as one potentially effective option for a good education. He also cautions that modest state oversight of homeschooling is useful to protect children's basic educational interests while preserving freedom for parents and their delegates to tailor the learning experience. Find the review, by Robert Kunzman, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Homeschooling and Educational Freedom: Why School Choice is Good for Homeschoolers , written by Kerry MacDonald and published by the Cato Institute, at: https://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/bp_124.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), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Robert Kunzman: (812) 856-8122, rkunzman@indiana.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More