< 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

< Back Fixing Classroom Observations: How Common Core Will Change the Way We Look at Teaching Summary This report suggests that many states and school districts are rolling out new teacher evaluation systems that will not succeed in improving instruction because they have not been updated to reflect the Common Core. The report asserts that new evaluation systems have not remedied practical challenges of classroom observations. It calls for increased emphasis on lesson content and a paring down of observation rubrics – to make them more focused and clear. Publication Date January 21, 2014 Research Areas Teacher Workforce; Curriculum & Instruction Authors Jennie Whitcomb, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice Project Reviews TNTP Report Review questions value of report on teacher evaluation, Common Core EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 21, 2014) – A recent report from TNTP, Fixing Classroom Observations: How Common Core Will Change the Way We Look at Teaching, asserts that current classroom observation rubrics are not aligned with Common Core standards and have too many cumbersome criteria. The report proposes several remedies to improve teacher evaluation rubrics; however, an academic review released today questions the value of the report. Dr. Jennie Whitcomb of the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Fixing Classroom Observations claims that current observation rubrics overload observers, result in too many high ratings, and seldom give productive feedback to participants. The report identifies two key changes to improve observation rubrics: (1) pay more attention to lesson content; and (2) pare observation rubrics down to make them more focused and clear. Whitcomb found that the "two recommendations have potential to improve implementation of Common Core and teacher evaluation systems," but there is no research evidence presented that the strategies suggested will work. No research was found to support the claim that clinical or instructional feedback improved practice. The report cited only one study and ignored all other research on the design of research-based classroom observation tools. Whitcomb says, "Improving observer training, monitoring collaboration, and providing necessary time in school schedules to both conduct adequate observations and provide sound feedback may hold greater promise to improve teacher's instruction and student's learning experiences." She suggests that better implementation of current tools may hold more promise than the remedies suggested in the report. The review concludes that the problems of teacher evaluation are too complex to be seriously addressed by simply streamlining observation instruments or aligning content more closely with Common Core. Rather than solving implementation problems facing schools, Whitcomb says, "The report appears to be a sales-pitch for TNTP's soon-to-be-launched observation tools focused on Common Core lesson content." Find Jennie Whitcomb's review on Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Fixing Classroom Observations on the web: http://tntp.org/ideas-and-innovations/view/fixing-classroom-observations 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 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 Jennie Whitcomb is the associate dean for teacher education at the University of Colorado Boulder and a former editor of the Journal of Teacher education . 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: Jennie Whitcomb, (303) 735-3029, jennie.whitcomb@colorado.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 Whole Language High Jinks: How to tell when ‘scientifically-based reading Instruction’ isn’t Summary This report asserts that scientific research supports systematic phonics instruction and contends that ideologically biased supporters of whole-language instruction have thwarted the advance of scientifically based reading instruction. Publication Date February 14, 2007 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Authors Richard Allington, University of Tennessee Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release “Whole Language” Report Tells Only Partial Truth Report Misrepresents Research and Blatantly Promotes Author’s Own Product EAST LANSING, Mich. – A new Fordham Institute report that purports to unmask whole-language reading instruction as “unscientific” is more a promotion of commercial reading materials written by its author than an unbiased report on effective reading instruction. The report, Whole Language High Jinks: How to tell when ‘scientifically-based reading instruction’ isn’t by Louisa Moats, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Richard Allington, a professor at the University of Tennessee, past president of the International Reading Association and member of the Reading Hall of Fame. Allington puts the Fordham report in the context of longstanding debate over reading instruction. “Over the past 60 years, the so-called reading wars have pushed the nature of effective reading instruction into the political realm,” Allington writes. “While those advocating whole language approaches were in the ascendancy a couple decades ago, the phonics adherents have had the most political success of late, often preventing teachers and schools of education from keeping whole language approaches in their tool boxes.” The Fordham report contends that supporters of whole-language instruction have managed to thwart the advance of so-called scientifically-based reading instruction. It asserts such scientific research supports systematic phonics instruction. However, the report fails to provide convincing research supporting this contention. Moats, the report’s author, exaggerates the findings of research she does cite and incorrectly dismisses approaches that are, in fact, well-supported by research, Allington finds. “Perhaps most disturbingly,” Allington adds, Moats “touts primarily commercial curriculum products distributed by her employer -- products that have far fewer published studies of effectiveness than the products and methods she disparages.” He notes that she specifically promotes products that she herself authored. Find the complete review by Richard Allington as well as a link to the Fordham Institute 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: Richard Allington (865) 974-1920 (email) rallingt@utk.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 Capitalism in the 1619 Project Summary Recently, the Heritage Foundation published a report, Capitalism in the 1619 Project, seeking to disqualify the 1619 Project curricular materials as insufficiently celebratory of American capitalism. The report primarily asserts that the 1619 Project overstates slavery’s importance to U.S. economic history. Publication Date March 23, 2021 Research Areas School Funding; Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Samuel Gregg; Seth Rockman, Brown University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release The 1619 Project Criticized as Insufficiently Celebratory of American Capitalism in Heritage Foundation Report An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report shows a remarkable lack of self-awareness regarding its own embeddedness in a political project to mobilize the past in the service of a particular vision of the future. EAST LANSING, MI (March 23, 2021) - The 1619 Project of the New York Times re-examines United States history with the experiences of Black Americans at the center. This generated pushback, including from elected officials who have attempted to ban its use in schools. Recently, the Heritage Foundation published a report, Capitalism in the 1619 Project , seeking to disqualify the 1619 Project curricular materials as insufficiently celebratory of American capitalism. The report primarily asserts that the 1619 Project overstates slavery's importance to U.S. economic history. Seth Rockman of Brown University reviewed the report and found it to be more "ideological handwringing" than a credible historical analysis. Rockman is an associate professor in Brown's history department. As Rockman explains, the report is less concerned with potential students' content knowledge about slavery than with students' receptivity to the libertarian policy preferences of the Heritage Foundation. The report is disconnected from the educational research literature and current scholarly literature on both American slavery and history pedagogy. Instead, it is expressly motivated by an explicit fear that the 1619 Project's discussion of slavery will compel students to hold redistributive and regulatory economic policies in higher esteem. For these reasons, Professor Rockman concludes that the report commits the exact sin with which it besmirches the 1619 Project: substituting ideology and political motives for an accurate engagement with the past. Find the review, by Seth Rockman, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Capitalism in the 1619 Project , written by Samuel Gregg and published by the Heritage Foundation, at: https://www.heritage.org/progressivism/report/capitalism-the-1619-project 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 Seth Rockman: (401) 863-2819, seth_rockman@brown.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 – The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction Summary In The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, addresses why class size matters. According to Mathis, smaller class sizes improve student outcomes, especially for low-income and minority children. Publication Date June 21, 2016 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Why Class Size Matters EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 21, 2016) — Parents and teachers regularly extol the virtues of smaller class sizes. Despite this, because school budgets are tied to class size, teacher pay, and benefits, class size often becomes a costly and contentious issue for local school districts. The ninth in a series of policy briefs addresses why class size matters. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction , William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, explains how smaller class sizes improve student outcomes, especially for low-income and minority children. In the brief, Mathis uncovers a clear and positive consensus by an overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers that smaller classes are beneficial. Based on his review, Mathis finds: All else being equal, lowering class size will improve student outcomes; The payoff from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children; Money saved by increasing class sizes will likely result in additional costs in the future; and Class sizes between 15 and 18 are recommended, but with variations indicated. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: 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: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net 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 Sifting Through the Mississippi Evidence Summary New review uses Progressive Policy Institute report as starting point to try to better understand the impact of literacy reforms and other factors that may have influenced the state's NAEP fourth-grade reading scores. Publication Date July 14, 2026 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Early Childhood; Curriculum & Instruction Authors Gregory Camilli, Professor Emeritus at Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Sifting Through the Mississippi Evidence The Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) recently published a report offering an insider account of how Mississippi's K–3 education system has evolved over roughly two decades. In his review of Inside the Mississippi Marathon, Gregory Camilli, professor emeritus at Rutgers University, focuses on just a slice of the report: its description of the state's performance in fourth-grade reading on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The state's improvement on that exam has been called the "Mississippi Miracle." The PPI report rejects that characterization, opting instead to use a "marathon" metaphor. While confirming the state's improved performance on the fourth-grade NAEP (mathematics, as well as reading), Camilli finds that the report overstates the role of the state's literacy reforms. He explains that insufficient attention has been given to other factors that may have contributed to rising scores. In particular, he explores how extensive third-grade test preparation may have influenced NAEP results. Camilli concludes that the PPI report may understate the effect on NAEP performance of the state's "substantial increase in the frequency of both formative and high-stakes assessment in reading and mathematics as well as increasing the alignment of the state assessment to NAEP." Find the review, written by Gregory Camilli, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Inside the Mississippi Marathon, written by Rachel Canter and published by the Progressive Policy Institute, at: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/inside-the-mississippi-marathon/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Restoring Value To the High School Diploma: The Rhetoric and Practice Of Higher Standards 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 October 1, 2007 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors W. Norton Grubb, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley Jeannie Oakes, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING , Mich. – Several recent high-profile reports calling for the “reinvention” of the American high school are simplistic and seriously flawed, according to a new policy brief released by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief, “‘Restoring Value’ to the High School Diploma: The Rhetoric and Practice of Higher Standards,” is by W. Norton Grubb and Jeannie Oakes. In the brief, the authors analyzed a wave of commission reports since 2004 that attack the American high school and call, in particular, for higher state graduation requirements and for exit exams. Grubb and Oakes conclude that this current push for “rigor” fails on several levels. The reports don’t adequately consider the likely consequences of the policies intended to enforce higher standards. They also “have little to say about how [the] imposition [of these standards] will enhance student performance.” And most discussions in these reports focus on narrow definitions of rigor—higher test scores, more demanding courses, or both—while ignoring other conceptions of rigor that may be as valid, if not more so. The authors explain that other conceptions of rigor include: depth rather than breadth; more sophisticated levels of understanding including “higher-order skills”; and the ability to apply learning in unfamiliar settings. These conceptions are largely neglected in the new “high standards” commission reports. In addition, while the reports stress “college and workplace readiness,” very few offer strategies that link to the workplace. The commission reports analyzed by Grubb and Oakes have had a very real policy impact. As they note, “Recent legislation has forced the translation of rhetoric into practice. Most states have increased their graduation requirements, and half the states have adopted exit exams.” Yet the current push to increase rigor and heighten standards is “seriously flawed,” they write, and “any gains come at the expense of other goals for high school reform, including equity, curricular relevance, and student interest.” In place of the current approaches, Grubb and Oakes describe a clear and distinctly different alternative to the nineteenth century model of the traditional high school. They suggest that high schools offer “multiple pathways” structured around themes, some drawn from occupational areas, others drawn from broad, multidisciplinary concepts. Such an approach would “provide room for examining the important occupational, political, and social issues of adult life in the process of teaching disciplinary subjects.” They also explain that focusing “on a single theme nurtures multiple concepts of rigor,” and “the approach distributes responsibility for standards throughout the educational community, and it provides students with the benefits of curricular choice and several routes to graduation.” Find “’Restoring Value’ to the High School Diploma: The Rhetoric and Practice of Higher Standards,” by W. Norton Grubb and Jeannie Oaks on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About the authors: W. Norton Grubb is an economist who holds the David Gardner Chair in Higher Education at University of California, Berkeley. Jeanne Oaks holds the Presidential Chair in Education Equity at University of California, Los Angeles. 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: Jeannie Oakes – (310) 825-2494; oakes@ucla.edu Teri Battaglieri – (517)293-2940; greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Starts and Stumbles of Restorative Justice in Education: Where Do We Go from Here? Summary Schools are implementing Restorative Justice in Education (RJE) initiatives across the United States, often to reduce the use of out-of-school suspension, which is known to increase the risk for dropout and arrest. Many RJE initiatives also aim to strengthen social and emotional competencies, reduce gender and racial disparities in discipline, and increase access to equitable and supportive environments for students from marginalized groups. Yet whether these benefits emerge depends on whether the reforms are well implemented. Publication Date January 14, 2020 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights; School Climate & Student Support Authors Anne Gregory, Ph.D., Rutgers University, Katherine R. Evans, Ph.D., Eastern Mennonite University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Anne Gregory : (848) 445-3984, annegreg@gsapp.rutgers.edu Restorative Justice in Education is Working, but Smart Implementation is Crucial A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Restorative justice practices are proactive and responsive in nurturing healthy relationships, repairing harm, transforming conflict, and promoting justice and equity. EAST LANSING, Mich. (January 14, 2020) — Schools are implementing Restorative Justice in Education (RJE) initiatives across the United States, often to reduce the use of out-of-school suspension, which is known to increase the risk for dropout and arrest. Many RJE initiatives also aim to strengthen social and emotional competencies, reduce gender and racial disparities in discipline, and increase access to equitable and supportive environments for students from marginalized groups. Yet whether these benefits emerge depends on whether the reforms are well implemented. NEPC released a policy brief today, The Starts and Stumbles of Restorative Justice in Education: Where Do We Go from Here? , authored by Professors Anne Gregory of Rutgers University and Katherine R. Evans of Eastern Mennonite University. The brief summarizes the research on restorative initiatives, with a focus on implementation and outcomes in U.S. schools. Gregory and Evans view RJE as a comprehensive, whole school approach to shifting school culture in ways that prioritize relational pedagogies, justice and equity, resilience-fostering, and well-being. Each of these elements is important; schools cannot water down the reforms, implementing them in a half-hearted way, and realistically hope to see strong results. Guided by a set of restorative values and principles (such as dignity, respect, accountability, and fairness), RJE practices are proactive and are responsive in nurturing healthy relationships, repairing harm, transforming conflict, and promoting justice and equity. Educators in schools and classrooms with well-implemented RJE work to ensure that the “vulnerable are cared for, the marginalized are included, the dignity and humanity of each person in the educational setting matters, and everyone’s needs are heard and met.” The authors present the accumulating evidence that restorative approaches can reduce the use of exclusionary discipline. They describe promising evidence that such approaches can narrow racial disparities in discipline. They also consider some mixed findings related to improving school climate and student development in light of possibly faulty models and mis-implementation of RJE. Finally, they offer recommendations for comprehensive RJE models and strategic implementation plans to drive more consistently positive outcomes. Find The Starts and Stumbles of Restorative Justice in Education: Where Do We Go from Here?, by Anne Gregory and Katherine R. Evans, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, 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. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More