< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Do Choice Policies Segregate Schools? Summary Despite advocates advancing the notion that integration can be promoted by increased school choice, a new brief considers the research evidence of those policies. The concise brief concludes that while choice policies may be designed and implemented in ways intended to advance integration; the result has been increased stratification. The National Education Policy Center published the brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Publication Date March 30, 2016 Authors William Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Concise brief considers school choice policies and segregation EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 31, 2016) – Despite advocates advancing the notion that integration can be promoted by increased school choice, a new brief released today considers the research evidence of those policies. The concise brief concludes that while choice policies may be designed and implemented in ways intended to advance integration; the result has been increased stratification. As a part of a new series of short, concise policy briefs produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss whether school choice policies actually segregate schools. The compendium of briefs is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In Do Choice Policies Segregate Schools? , Mathis and Welner describe the impact of choice policies on segregation in schools. The authors contend that while some choice school enrollments are integrated, the research literature documents an "unsettling degree of segregation – particularly in charter schools." This is the fourth 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. The authors investigate the impact of school choice through four lenses: (1) race and ethnicity; (2) poverty; (3) dual language learners; and (4) students with disabilities. They conclude, "Even without school choice, America's schools would be shockingly segregated, in part because of housing policies and school district boundaries. School choice policies that do not have sufficient protections against unconstrained, segregative choices do exacerbate the problem." As part of the brief, Mathis and Welner provide a list of research-based recommendations for policymakers to advance desegregation in order to provide educational opportunities for all students. Find the brief on the GLC website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options_2015.php This concise brief is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, and is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ 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 Estimating a Price Tag for School Vouchers Summary Brief considers the public cost of a universal voucher system, with its attendant requirements for new systems of governance, information, transportation, and accreditation. Publication Date May 23, 2021 Authors Robert Shand, American University; Henry Levin of Teachers College, Columbia University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Robert Shand : (202) 885-6917, rshand@american.edu What Are the Economic Costs of a Shift to School Vouchers? A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Brief considers the public cost of a universal voucher system, with its attendant requirements for new systems of governance, information, transportation, and accreditation. EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 25, 2021) - Private-school vouchers are multiplying. In 2021, at least a dozen state legislatures expanded voucher programs or created new such programs. This growth poses questions about what effects a universal voucher system would have on taxpayers. According to a new economic analysis, this economic cost would conservatively amount to between $66.5 billion and $203 billion annually. Authored by professors Robert Shand of American University and Henry Levin of Teachers College, Columbia University, the policy brief released today titled, Estimating a Price Tag for School Vouchers notes that these input questions around vouchers have gone relatively unexamined, compared to the body of research around voucher outcomes. The brief also notes that any cost estimation must be based on considerable assumptions, which is why the brief errs toward conservative estimates and why the resulting range of estimates is quite large. This brief focuses on examining the factors that determine these costs and provides an overview of the literature on the effects and costs of vouchers. It applies recent empirical evidence on policy effects, behavioral responses, and contextual factors to determine administrative costs of a universal voucher system. Based on this evidence, the brief analyzes five areas of potential increased costs, including the accommodation of additional students and system administration. Because there is no state that currently operates a universal voucher system, Shand and Levin extrapolate based on empirical evidence from a wide range of smaller-scale voucher systems, pilot programs, and experiments to estimate a range of costs. They find that the total public costs of education would increase by between 11% and 33% with universal vouchers, depending upon both the exact design of the policy and the behavioral responses. Nationally, this would-as noted above-amount to from $66.5 billion to $203 billion per year. Such research on costs has clear implications for further research and policy. True cost analyses consider what's being purchased as well as the price tag. Because the body of research concerning outcomes suggests that vouchers are, as compared with traditional public schools, equally or less effective in raising student achievement, the larger price tag calls into serious question any empirical rationale for the current scale-up of voucher policies in states across the nation. These calculations also point to the need for increased transparency about the higher price tag of a voucher system, detailed data collection, and weighing the total voucher spending against current and future evidence of their likely effectiveness or benefits. Professor Shand points out that, while the new analysis is not directly applicable to non-universal voucher plans, it provides a roadmap of factors to consider. Policymakers may be interested in how these costs may change at levels short of a universal program. Estimating how costs would vary requires some speculation, as each voucher system has its own set of rules, and costs would depend on local context such as population density, as well as how schools and families respond to those rules in each context. For instance, more stringent eligibility criteria would lower costs by reducing the number of largely wealthy students who would have always attended private school and would now be subsidized by vouchers to do so, but also increase administrative costs to determine and monitor eligibility and divide administrative and transportation costs among fewer students. "The universal estimate in this report builds upon a framework of factors that must be considered to understand how a voucher system and its transaction costs drive additional costs of the voucher infrastructure relative to the more conventional public school system," adds Professor Levin. Find Estimating a Price Tag for School Vouchers , by Robert Shand and Henry M. Levin, 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

< Back Report About Charters Being a "Rising Tide" Sinks Under Weight of Flawed Data Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines whether average achievement in a school district increases as the "market share" of charter schools rises. The report argues that there is a positive competition effect. Publication Date November 13, 2019 Authors David Griffith; Yongmei Ni, University of Utah Research Areas Charter Schools; General / Needs Review; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report About Charters Being a “Rising Tide” Sinks Under Weight of Flawed Data An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Due to data and methods limitations, report fails to prove its claim that higher charter market share is associated with achievement gains for all students. EAST LANSING, MI (November 14, 2019) - A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines whether average achievement in a school district increases as the “market share” of charter schools rises. The report argues that there is a positive competition effect. Yongmei Ni of the University of Utah reviewed Rising Tide: Charter School Market Share and Student Achievement , and determined that its findings have limited use in guiding policy and practice, because of the flawed data and methods it employs. Using a national data set of school districts with longitudinal records (allowing an analysis of each school district’s changes over time), the report found that overall, higher charter market share is associated with statistically significant increases in average reading achievement (but not math achievement). Further, the report finds some positive relationships for specific racial subgroups in districts of certain sizes and geographic locations. The report concludes that charter schools are “a rising tide” that “lifts all education boats.” Professor Ni explains that these findings and conclusions should be interpreted with extreme caution because of major weaknesses surrounding the data and methods, including the measure of charter market share, the sample selection criteria, and the overreliance on results based on a small number of districts, especially those districts with over 95th percentile of charter market share. Overall, she concludes, the findings have little use to policymakers because of these issues with data and methods and because the report does not probe beneath the surface. For example, it does not examine possible policy factors that might be associated with charter market share in a given area having a positive or negative association with public school systems. Similarly, it does not consider which practices might benefit charter schools and/or public school systems as a whole. Find the review, by Yongmei Ni, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Rising Tide: Charter School Market Share and Student Achievement, written by David Griffith and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/rising-tide-charter-market-share NEPC Reviews (http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Yongmei Ni: (801) 587-9298, yongmei.ni@utah.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 The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence Summary The Manhattan Institute recently published a brief, The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence, which reviews evidence relating to both means-tested and universal early childhood care and education programs. Publication Date April 19, 2021 Authors Max Eden Research Areas Early Childhood Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brief's Findings About Early Child Care and Education Are Only Partially Supported by Research An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Research omissions and unjustified assumptions make Manhattan Institute brief an unreliable policy guide. EAST LANSING, MI (April 20, 2021) - The Manhattan Institute recently published a brief, The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence , which reviews evidence relating to both means-tested and universal early childhood care and education programs. W. Steven Barnett, Professor and Senior Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, reviewed the report. He concludes that while increased scrutiny of universal pre-K and child care proposals is useful, the complexity of the issues surrounding them does not lend itself to the sorts of simple policy prescriptions found in the new brief. Although the scope of the brief is broad, Professor Barnett explains, it is insufficiently deep. In particular, while the brief raises warranted warnings about potential unintended negative consequences, omissions of research and unjustified assumptions make it a misleading and inadequate policy guide. The brief relies on a highly selective narrative review of a small number of studies, he continues, omitting important studies and giving undue weight to specific interpretations of a few studies that skew its findings. Its failure to cite meta-analyses (including some of universal programs) is especially noteworthy. Professor Barnett concludes that a more meticulous review of the literature relying on fewer preconceptions might have resulted in more nuanced conclusions regarding universal pre-K and child care. Find the review, by W. Steven Barnett, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence , written by Max Eden and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/drawbacks-universal-pre-k-review-evidence-ME.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 W. Steven Barnett: (732) 221-8002, sbarnett@nieer.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Education Choice and Competition Index: Background and Results 2012 Summary This report from the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution attempts to make a connection between parental satisfaction for schools and the purported collective benefits arising from market-based education polices. It includes an index which grades school districts using 13 categories, including the percentage of students enrolled in alternative schools other than traditional public schools. A review found weaknesses in the index’s subjective scoring system, as well as a lack of research behind the report’s recommendations, making the Brookings’ product fall short of being an effective policy tool. Publication Date January 28, 2013 Authors David Garcia, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brookings School Choice Report Fails To Enlighten Policy Debate, Review Finds Education Choice and Competition Index also receives an ‘F' grade EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 29, 2013) – A recent report out of Brookings and its self-developed choice index fail to advance education policy decisions and only rehash old arguments for unregulated school choice, according to a new academic review. David Garcia, associate professor at Arizona State University, reviewed the December report, published by the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, " The Education Choice and Competition Index: Background and Results 2012 ," and found it makes no substantiated connection between parental satisfaction and the purported collective benefits arising from market-based education policies. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Garcia also criticized the Education Choice and Competition Index , noting the only large school district to receive an "A" rating, the New Orleans Recovery School District, was graded a "D" by the Louisiana Department of Education and 83 percent of its schools were labeled "D" of "F". The index uses 13 categories, including the percentage of students enrolled in alternative schools other than traditional public schools and whether the district closed more than 3 percent of its schools in the past five years. Garcia noted some elements of the index hold districts accountable for factors beyond their control, such as the presence of affordable private schools. "Most recently, under the No Child Left Behind Act, parents in low-performing schools were given the option to transfer schools at district expense. Yet, less than 1 percent of eligible parents availed themselves of the opportunity," Garcia wrote. "The foundational logic of this report is based on how one would expect consumers to behave in the private sector. Parental responses under previous coerced choice plans, however, do not match consumer behaviors." The Brookings' report does not address existing research on what compels parents to choose a school, Garcia added. "The recommendations place ultimate faith on parents choosing schools based on test scores. Yet, it is well established that parents choose schools based on many other factors, such as safety, academic missions and student demographics," Garcia wrote. "Formal sources of information, such as standardized test scores and state-derived labels like those promoted by the authors, are one of the last sources that parents consider when making decisions." Garcia concluded the weakness of the index's subjective scoring system, as well as the lack of research behind the report's recommendations, make the Brookings' product fall short of being an effective policy tool. Find The Education Choice and Competition Index: Background and Results 2012 by Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst and Sarah Whitfield on the web: http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2012-ecci Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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 is also available on the National Education Policy Center 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: David Garcia: (480) 727-7413, david.garcia@asu.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 Public Education at a Crossroads: A Comprehensive Look at K-12 Resources and Outcomes Summary A growing and persuasive body of research has established the causal relationship between school funding and academic outcomes. The reality that money matters is not in serious dispute. But a new report from the Reason Foundation uses some superficial comparisons to try again to muddy the waters. Publication Date April 8, 2024 Authors Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell; Clive Belfield, City University of New York Research Areas School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Critical Shortcomings Weaken Education Funding Report An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's conclusions about the relationship between funding growth and academic outcome are undermined by methodological flaws and lack of meaningful insights. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 9, 2024) - A growing and persuasive body of research has established the causal relationship between school funding and academic outcomes. The reality that money matters is not in serious dispute. But a new report from the Reason Foundation uses some superficial comparisons to try again to muddy the waters. Clive Belfield, a professor at the City University of New York and Principal Economist at the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education, University of Pennsylvania, reviewed Public Education at a Crossroads: A Comprehensive Look at K-12 Resources and Outcomes , finding it to use poor methodology and analysis to lead to its vacuous conclusions-most pointedly that there “isn't a consistent relationship between funding growth and outcomes across states.” The report uses national education data, including NAEP test scores in math and reading, to describe trends in spending, teacher pay, and academic outcomes from 2002-03 up to the start of the pandemic. It describes trends of increasing revenue, declining teacher pay, and growing employment in non-instructional support positions. The report contends that to move forward in the aftermath of the pandemic, it is important to understand key pre-pandemic trends. But it offers no arguments as to how those trends provide appropriate context for post-pandemic educational policy. Simply restating readily available evidence, the report's conclusions fail to provide any valuable insights. Professor Belfield concludes, then, that the report's failure to consider state- and national-level economic, social, or demographic trends, combined with its deficient or nonexistent analysis, result in conclusions that policymakers would do well to ignore. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find Public Education at a Crossroads: A Comprehensive Look at K-12 Resources and Outcomes , written by Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell and published by the Reason Foundation, at: https://reason.org/k12-ed-spending/crossroads-report/ 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 Clive Belfield: (718) 997-5440, 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 Evaluation of Teach for America in Texas Schools Summary This study by Edvance Research, with funding from Teach For America, claimed that TFA corps members and alumni had outsized impact on middle schools in several Texas districts. Publication Date April 8, 2013 Authors Ed Fuller, Penn State University Nathan Dadey, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review Explains Weaknesses of Teach For America Texas Study EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 9, 2013) – Despite data that paints a mixed picture of success, the Teach For America program has had a significant impact on policy decisions in schools across the country. However, very little independent research exists to inform policymakers about the actual effects of TFA teachers on schools or students. In an effort to more closely study the impact of TFA on student test scores, Edvance Research, recently released a report, funded by TFA, that found TFA members and alumni had a substantial impact on middle school test scores in Texas. A new review challenges the methodology and conclusions of that report. Ed Fuller, an associate professor and Director of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Analysis in the Department of Education Policy Studies at Pennsylvania State University, and Nathan Dadey, a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the report, Evaluation of Teach For America in Texas Schools, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Fuller previously served as the Director for Research at the Texas State Board for Educator Certification and Program Director for Evaluation at the Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin. The review was prepared for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The study attempted to compare differences between elementary- and middle- grades math and reading test scores from the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) for students taught by novice TFA and non-TFA teachers, as well as by TFA alumni and experienced non-TFA teachers. Of the eight comparisons, three showed that the average scores of students taught by TFA corps were significantly higher, relative to students not taught by TFA corps. Fuller and Dadey found several limitations in the study, including several issues related to the report's statistical model. These issues make it likely that the actual differences in test scores between TFA teachers and non-TFA teachers differ from those found in the report. The methodology used to match schools and students for the study was also flawed, which calls into question the conclusions reached. Given these limitations, Fuller and Dadey note "the conclusion TFA teachers have a positive impact on student TAKS test scores in mathematics and reading is simply not adequately supported by this report." The reviewers conclude, "this report should not be considered solid evidence of the effect of TFA teachers or TFA alumni on student test scores in Texas." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Evaluation of Teach for America in Texas Schools on the web: http://www.edvanceresearch.com/Teach_for_America_Texas_Schools.htm 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-evaluation-tfa-texas --###-- 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: Ed Fuller, (512) 971-5715, ejf20@psu.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 Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking "Last-Hired, First-Fired" Policies Summary This report urges making teacher layoff decisions on the basis of teacher quality and performance as opposed to the seniority system used by most school districts. Publication Date May 11, 2010 Authors Richard Ingersoll and Lisa Merrill, University of Pennsylvania Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (May 12, 2010) – In a recent report, the National Council for Teacher Quality urges making teacher-layoff decisions on the basis of teacher quality and performance. A Think Twice review of that report credits it for being straightforward and reasonable but notes that its proposals are not unique or easily implemented. Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking "Last Hired, First Fired" Policies was reviewed by Professor Richard Ingersoll of the University of Pennsylvania, assisted by graduate student Lisa Merrill. Ingersoll is an expert on teacher supply and quality. The issue of how to prioritize which teachers to lay off is of growing interest in light of teacher downsizing spikes in the troubled economy. Some 60,000 teachers were laid off in 2009, about 2 percent of the nation's teacher workforce, which is four to five times the annual average number during the 1990s. Teacher Layoffs considers layoff procedures at 100 of the largest U.S. school districts and finds that in 75 of them, seniority is the primary criterion for choosing who will be dismissed. The report argues that while "teacher quality" is not frequently used to make those decisions, it can and should be. Ingersoll and Merrill observe, however, that while the report's ideas are "straightforward and common sense," they are not new, and they are not easy to implement: "For a century we have seen numerous attempts to measure, recognize and reward differences in teacher quality," they write. "Often, unfortunately, these reform attempts have met little or no success." Among the challenges confronting teacher quality reforms are deciding among the multiple and competing definitions of the "good" teacher, and deciding who decides which teachers are better and worse. The reviewers commend the report for recognizing some of the obstacles to changing teacher-layoff policies—such as its acknowledgement that when principals make evaluations, their systems need to be transparent and systematic. Moreover, principals themselves should be held accountable for their evaluations. But while the report makes "a useful contribution" in documenting variations in school-district layoff policies and summarizing options, the reviewers note in conclusion that it omits discussion of a potentially broad-based strategy in addressing layoff policies: involving teachers themselves in design and implementation. "Layoff policies do not have to be conceived as something done by others to teachers," they write. Indeed, they add, "a long tradition of research on implementation has shown that one way to aid the successful implementation of difficult employee reform initiatives is to enlist those being reformed." Find the review by Richard Ingersoll and Lisa Merrill and a link to Teacher Layoffs on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Richard Ingersoll (215) 573-5674 or (215) 573-0700 (x226); rmi@gse.upenn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Going Exponential: Growing the Charter School Sector's Best Summary This report argues that charters schools should be expanded rapidly and exponentially and uses the growth of molds, viruses and companies such as Starbucks as models for charter sector growth. Publication Date April 20, 2011 Authors David Garcia, Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report presents no evidence to support its call to grow the charter school sector like a mold or cancer EAST LANSING, MI (April 21, 2011) –The new report called Going Exponential: Growing the Charter School Sector's Best , from Progressive Policy Institute, calls for the implementation of policies that encourage charter schools to grow like a mold, virus or cancer. A new review of the report finds that it lacks any scientific evidence to support its advocacy. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Going Exponential report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Arizona State University professor David Garcia. The report begins with the premise that charter schools and charter management organizations (CMOs, which are non-profit networks of charter schools) are key to improving urban public schools. The report asserts that "the number of children served by the best charter schools is far too low" and that "millions more children would benefit if they had access to the nation's best CMO's and charter schools." The authors contend that this situation would be remedied if policy makers would encourage the rapid growth of good charter schools – growth resembling the "exponential" growth curve of corporations like Apple Computer and Starbucks. The bulk of the report consists of nine "lessons from research about exponential growth" for charter operators and policymakers to follow. Yet the report offers only minimal research evidence and provides no useful information about the research, which is taken from the business literature. The report also examines exponential growth observed in the natural world, specifically "mold, algae, cancer, crystals and viruses." The problem is, according to Garcia, that the report's fundamental premise– that "high exponential growth" found in other kinds of organizations and organisms can be applied to charter schools – is unsubstantiated. Garcia asks, for example, "How is the business transaction between a Starbucks barista and a customer applicable to the interaction between a teacher and student? How does the growth of viruses apply to the growth of charter schools?" Going Exponential falls so far short of accepted academic standards that Garcia finds it is more properly compared to the popular business-advice book Good to Great , by Jim Collins, than to an academic policy report. He explains, however, that the report, "is executed with considerably less methodological rigor" than the Collins book, which includes an extensive discussion of how its companies were selected. Garcia concludes that Going Exponential simply does not provide adequate evidence to justify the guidance it offers up to charter school operators and policymakers. Find David Garcia's review and a link to Going Exponential on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-going-exponential --###-- 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: Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org David R. Garcia: (480) 727-7413 d.garcia@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years Summary The report finds that after three years, students in the D.C. voucher program showed modestly higher reading scores, but no significant difference in math scores when compared with a control group of students who didn’t get vouchers. Publication Date May 20, 2009 Authors Martin Carnoy, Stanford University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, MI (May 21, 2009)—A recent evaluation report on Washington, D.C.’s voucher program finds that after three years voucher students showed modestly higher reading scores, but no significant difference in math scores when compared with a control group of students who didn’t get vouchers. A new review of the report, however, points out that any such effect is modest and provides little support for vouchers as a solution to the educational problems in D.C. The report, Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years, was co-published by the University of Arkansas’ School Choice Demonstration Project and by the Institute of Educational Sciences at the National Center for Educational Evaluation and Regional Assistance. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Martin Carnoy of Stanford University, an economist and expert in voucher research. The D.C. program offers vouchers to low-income students in public schools, helping them attend one of about 60 participating private schools. The study analyzes reading and math achievement test scores of randomly selected applicants who were offered a $7,500 voucher during the first two years of the program, comparing these students with a control group of other applicants who were not offered vouchers. The study concluded that, after three years, students who used vouchers scored 5.27 points, or one-sixth of a standard deviation, higher than those who stayed in public schools on achievement tests in reading—a statistically significant difference—and less than 1 point higher in math, which was not statistically significant. However, Carnoy points out that analyses of subgroups of these students show that any positive voucher effect on reading was concentrated among female middle school students with higher initial reading scores. Moreover, while Congress created the voucher program primarily to benefit students attending D.C. schools designated as “needing improvement”—the study found that the voucher effect was focused on students who had not attended those schools. Carnoy summarizes the findings emphasized in the report as follows: “Sending low-income students to existing, predominantly religious (and even predominantly Catholic), small (average size, 265 students) private schools with small class sizes (average student-teacher ratio, 10.3 students) can modestly increase these students’ achievement (in reading but not mathematics) and results in greater parent satisfaction with their children’s school.” However, closer inspection of the results, Carnoy writes, suggests that the results showing a positive effect from vouchers are primarily due to the first cohort of students enrolled in the program. By the second year, available private school seating was reduced. And, due to research design limitations, the first cohort did not include elementary-level students – a group that, in the second cohort, did not appear to have benefited. Carnoy faults the study for not offering any detailed analysis of differences among the two cohorts of students enrolled in the program, which might shed light on factors other than vouchers influencing the results. Find Martin Carnoy’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Martin Carnoy (650) 856-7722; carnoy@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Students Achievement in Philadelphia Summary These two reports examine the impact of private and district management on student achievement in Philadelphia. In 2002, Philadelphia restructured 86 of its lowest-achieving schools and shifted the management of some of them to private companies. The RAND-RFA report concludes that private management has had no impact on math or reading achievement, while district management had a positive effect on math achievement but none on ready. The PEPG report reached virtually the opposite conclusion. It found that private management has had a positive effect on math and reading achievement, while district management has had no measurable effect. Publication Date May 6, 2007 Authors Derek Briggs, University of Colorado at Boulder Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. – Two recent studies examining the restructuring of the lowest-achieving public schools in Philadelphia reach different conclusions about whether private management has improved student achievement. Because similar restructuring reform is promoted by the federal No Child Left Behind law, these studies have important national implications. Both studies have flaws, however, and neither study is yet sufficient to make definitive claims about the effects of Philadelphia’s school restructuring reform. The two reports reviewed are State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Student Achievement in Philadelphia released by the RAND Corporation in partnership with Research for Action (RFA); and School Reform in Philadelphia: A Comparison of Student Achievement at Privately-Managed Schools with Student Achievement in Other District Schools published by the Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University. The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Derek Briggs, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Both reports attempt to assess the impact of a school reform in Philadelphia. Starting in 2002, the city’s school district restructured its 86 lowest-achieving elementary and middle schools. The most prominent approaches shifted school management to either the district or to one of several private companies. The reports examine the impact of private or district management on student achievement in math and reading. The RAND-RFA paper concludes that private management had no impact on math or reading achievement, while district management had a positive effect on math achievement but none on reading. The PEPG paper, meanwhile, reached virtually the opposite conclusion. It found private management has had a positive effect on the performance of lower-scoring students in math and reading, while district management had no measurable effect. In his review, Briggs indicates that the different findings can largely be explained by the fact that PEPG did not have the same access to data as did RAND-RFA. He also identifies and describes the methodological weaknesses in both reports. Briggs concludes: “These two studies, read together, do contribute to our understanding of Philadelphia’s experience. Yet, although the RAND-RFA study sheds more light on that experience than does the PEPG study, neither study offers a complete picture, and more research is needed before drawing any definitive conclusions.” Find the complete review by Derek Briggs as well as links to the PEPG and RAND-RFA reports on the web 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. Kevin Welner, the project co-director and editor, explains that the project is needed because “despite their garnering of media attention and their influence with many policy makers, reports released by private think tanks can be of very poor quality. We don’t consider our reviews to be the final word, nor is our goal to stop think tanks’ contributions to a public dialogue. That dialogue is, in fact, what we value the most. The best ideas come about through rigorous critique and debate.” 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: Derek Briggs (303) 492-6320 (email) Derek.Briggs@Colorado.EDU Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Spreading Freedom and Saving Money: The Fiscal Impact of the D.C. Voucher Program Summary This report evaluates the impact of the D.C. public schools’ voucher program after its first year and its impact on educational spending. Publication Date February 19, 2006 Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding 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