< Back Urban School Decentralization and the Growth of "Portfolio Districts:" Summary This policy brief focuses on the portfolio approach to school reform being used in an increasing number of large urban districts including New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. This approach has been promoted by education reform theorists and some in the Obama administration as a vital and necessary solution to the problems, especially, of urban districts despite the fact that it has unclear advantages, no proof of past success and known high costs. Publication Date June 1, 2010 Authors Kenneth J. Saltman, DePaul University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (June 2, 2010) –A new reform approach, whereby school district leaders compile and run a "portfolio" of independently operated schools, is being used in New York, Chicago, New Orleans, and Washington D.C., and it is being considered by other districts. Yet little or no evidence supports the expansion of such radical experimentation, a new Policy Brief reports. The brief, written by professor Kenneth Saltman of DePaul University in Chicago was funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The portfolio approach has unclear advantages, no proof of past success, and known high costs, according to Saltman. Yet it's been promoted by some education reform theorists as a vital and necessary solution to the problems especially of urban public education, and the Obama administration has signaled its support. Explaining the concept, Saltman writes: "The district superintendent is imagined as a stock investor who has a portfolio of investments (schools)." These schools are run by different contractors, generally as charter schools. The superintendent "holds the investments that 'perform' (in terms of student achievement) and ends the contracts for (sells) those investments that 'don't perform.'" Accordingly, Saltman continues, "the portfolio concept puts into place what has been increasingly discussed in educational policy literature as market-based 'creative destruction' or ‘churn.'" It's an idea that appeals to those who see market principles as useful to adopt within public schools. But Saltman's brief contends that the reform's advocates employ a double standard: they insist that test-based accountability measures show city schools have "failed," and yet they want the portfolio approach to move forward without being subjected to comparable scrutiny. "No expectation exists for the development of analytic tools capable of measuring the portfolio approach's effect on achievement, its central promise. This situation presents administrators and legislators with the difficult task of justifying ‘reform' with no supporting achievement evidence and no foreseeable possibility of such evidence." And indeed, Saltman writes, there simply is no evidence to support the idea. Moreover, elements of the model, such as charter schools, have been found to be ineffective in raising achievement. In sum, the portfolio district approach looks like a recipe for high risk and no clear reward. To date, there is little evidence to either support or reject it. Instead, Saltman recommends that policymakers considering the reform not do so without closely questioning its rationale, costs, potential unintended consequences, and likely resulting social conflicts. Find Kenneth Saltman's report, Urban School Decentralization and the Growth of "Portfolio Districts" on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effects of High-Performing, High-Turnover Teachers on Long-Run Student Achievement: Evidence From Teach for America Summary A recent paper published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University presents findings from a study examining Teach for America (TFA) teacher turnover and teachers’ contributions to fourth through eighth grade student achievement. Publication Date March 13, 2023 Authors Virginia S. Lovison; Emilie Mitescu Reagan, Claremont Graduate University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release TFA Analysis Fails to Consider Systemic Costs of Teacher Turnover An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Paper describes relationship between new teacher retention and improved performance, but its broader conclusions about Teach for America overreach. EAST LANSING, MI (March 14, 2023) - A recent paper published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University presents findings from a study examining Teach for America (TFA) teacher turnover and teachers’ contributions to fourth through eighth grade student achievement. A close look finds that the paper’s narrow focus and selective interpretation of the research literature leads to a misrepresentation of TFA’s broader outcomes. Emilie Mitescu Reagan of Claremont Graduate University reviewed The Effects of High-Performing, High-Turnover Teachers on Long-Run Student Achievement: Evidence From Teach for America and found that its data did not support its conclusion that the benefits of hiring TFA teachers outweigh the costs. The study focuses on teachers in New York City public schools between 2012 and 2019. Comparing TFA teachers with similarly experienced non-TFA teachers, the study examines the relationship between teacher retention and teachers’ improved performance in the early years of their careers. The study finds that, after six years of teaching, TFA teachers continue to improve their contributions to students’ standardized test scores at higher rates than their non-TFA colleagues. This finding is well-supported by the data, although only a small number of TFA teachers remain in classrooms. Professor Reagan explains, however, that the paper’s broader conclusions overreach. Specifically, Reagan points to the conclusion that "the performance of the TFA workforce is strong enough to offset turnover," and that the "TFA performance advantage is large enough to offset turnover costs." Unfortunately, the paper fails to define the "costs" of turnover or to account for the broader effects of the instability of the labor market on schools and districts-including negative effects on school climate, financial costs to districts, and the disproportionate placement of inexperienced TFA teachers in under-resourced schools. While the study may contribute to literature related to the importance of supporting and retaining early career teachers, Professor Reagan cautions policymakers about interpreting its broader conclusions about the effects of TFA teachers and alumni. Find the review, by Emilie Mitescu Reagan, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Effects of High-Performing, High-Turnover Teachers on Long-Run Student Achievement: Evidence From Teach for America , written by Virginia S. Lovison and published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, at: https://doi.org/10.26300/9mhe-1w08 NEPC Reviews ( https://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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: https://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: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Emilie Mitescu Reagan : (909) 621-8075, emilie.reagan@cgu.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 22, 2021 Authors Samuel Gregg; Seth Rockman, Brown University Research Areas School Funding; Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights 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 The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State Summary This report claims that the charter school-driven Recovery School District in New Orleans can be replicated in other urban centers. Publication Date March 19, 2012 Authors Kristen Buras, Georgia State University Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Recovery district model doesn't produce the student turnaround promised Fordham Institute report ignores the facts on charter school experience EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 20, 2012) – A recent report claiming that the charter school-driven Recovery School District in New Orleans can be replicated in other urban centers ignores the fact that charter schools have not produced significant gains in student achievement and have been criticized by large segments of the African American community due to concerns over access, equity, performance, and accountability, according to an academic review released today. The report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State does not cite empirical evidence when it asserts locally elected school boards and teachers unions are to blame for failing schools. Kristen Buras of Georgia State University's Department of Educational Policy Studies reviewed the report and found it lacks any consideration of the chronic under-funding and racial history of New Orleans public schools before Hurricane Katrina. No evidence is provided that a conversion to charter schools would remedy these problems. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "Since the report critiques the lack of accountability exhibited by New Orleans public schools before 2005, one would expect the report to offer detailed analysis of data demonstrating how charter schools in the RSD [Recovery School District] have improved their financial management and produced better test results. Instead, the success of such reforms is simply asserted rather than established," Buras wrote in her review. The Fordham report focuses on school performance, yet it fails to address contradictory evidence. Time and again, Louisiana lawmakers have shifted the definition of what constitutes a "failing" school. After Hurricane Katrina, they changed the standard so 107 of 128 schools in New Orleans could be defined as failing, placed in the RSD, and then converted into charter schools. Since this time, the standard for defining failure has been lowered, thereby generating the "successful" pattern of school performance that reformers attribute to charter school management. There have also been accounts of the unwillingness of charter schools to enroll low-income and special education students, contradicting the portrayal of charter schools as open access. "This has inspired substantial criticism of charter schools in New Orleans, where not all students are provided with the 'new opportunities' alluded to in the report," Buras said. Find Buras' review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State? on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-louisiana-recovery-school-district.html 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 the funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-louisiana-recovery-buckeye . --###-- 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: Kristen Buras: (404) 413-8030, kburas@gsu.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, 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 Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 Summary Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 provides vital scholarly analyses of virtual schools at a time of increased enthusiasm for moving schooling online, nationally and internationally. The report examines the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools. It also reviews the relevant available research related to virtual school practices, provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft virtual school policy, and offers policy recommendations based on the available evidence. Publication Date May 5, 2021 Authors Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Michael Barbour, Luis Huerta, and Jennifer King Rice Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Gary Miron: (269) 599-7965, gary.miron@wmich.edu Virtual School Enrollments Grow. Performance, Research Evidence, and Policymaking Missing in Action A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Virtual school performance lags behind brick-and-mortar schools. EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 6, 2021) - Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 provides vital scholarly analyses of virtual schools at a time of increased enthusiasm for moving schooling online, nationally and internationally. The report examines the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools. It also reviews the relevant available research related to virtual school practices, provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft virtual school policy, and offers policy recommendations based on the available evidence. A team of researchers led by Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Michael Barbour, Luis Huerta, and Jennifer King Rice found that enrollments in virtual schools have continued to climb, with 477 full-time virtual schools enrolling 332,379 students in 2019-2020. Yet this growth of the sector has continued despite scant research to support it and continued poor overall performance. Not only did the proportion of acceptable performance ratings for full-time virtual schools drop in 2019-2020 to 42.8%, but the average graduation rate of 54.6% for these schools falls well below the 85% overall average national graduation rate. Furthermore, the sector is dominated by for-profit providers. Although for-profit EMOs operated only 29.8% of full-time virtual schools, these schools enrolled 59.1% of all virtual school students. Policymakers have yet to adequately address six pressing areas of concern related to virtual schools: their governance, funding, accountability, curriculum, instruction quality, and teacher quality. Nor have policymakers figured out how to regulate virtual schools' student-teacher ratios or ensure that virtual schools provide access and an equitable education for every student. The report is organized into three sections: (1) Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance; (2) Research into Virtual and Blended Schools: A Lasting Legacy of Little Impact; and (3) Key Policy Issues in Virtual Schools: Finance and Governance, Instructional Quality, and Teacher Quality. Altogether, the report offers a number of recommendations for policymakers, including: Use performance data to inform funding decisions. Create goals for a comprehensive research program designed to help develop policy for, and improve practice in, virtual and blended schools. Identify and maintain data on teachers and instructional staff that will allow education leaders and policymakers to monitor staffing patterns and assess the quality and professional development needs of teachers in virtual schools. Develop new funding formulas based on the actual costs of operating virtual schools. Develop guidelines and governance mechanisms to ensure that virtual schools do not prioritize profit over student performance. Find Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 , by Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Michael Barbour, Luis Huerta, and Jennifer King Rice at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org This research brief was 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 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 Virtual Schools Report 2016: Directory and Performance Review Summary The Virtual Schools Report 2016: Directory and Performance Review report is the fourth in an annual series of research briefs on the fast-growing U.S. virtual school sector. This year’s report provides a comprehensive directory of the nation’s full-time virtual and blended learning providers. The report finds little research has examined the inner workings of these schools. Also, the report finds that students attending these schools differ from those in traditional public schools, and the school outcomes are consistently below traditional public schools. Publication Date April 19, 2016 Authors Gary Miron, Western Michigan University Charisse Gulosino, University of Memphis Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release 4th Annual Virtual Schools Report Online schools continue to grow, struggle EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 20, 2016) — The Virtual Schools Report 2016: Directory and Performance Review report is the fourth in an annual series of research briefs on the fast-growing U.S. virtual school sector. This year’s report provides a comprehensive directory of the nation’s full-time virtual and blended learning providers. The report finds little research has examined the inner workings of these schools. Also, the report finds that students attending these schools differ from those in traditional public schools, and the school outcomes are consistently below traditional public schools. Gary Miron, professor of evaluation, measurement, and research at Western Michigan University, and Charisse Gulosino, assistant professor of leadership and policy studies at the University of Memphis are the authors of this year’s report. Alex Molnar, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, provides a foreword to the report. This report provides a detailed census of full-time virtual and blended schools, including student demographics, state-specific school performance ratings, and a comparison of virtual school outcomes with state norms. Based on the findings, the authors make several recommendations, including: Policymakers should slow or stop the growth in the number of virtual and blended schools until their relatively poor performance have been identified and addressed; States should seek to understand why virtual and blended schools perform weakly, and how their performance can be improved; Virtual and blended schools should be held to the same standards as other publicly funded schools; Policymakers should require virtual schools devote more resources to instruction; State agencies should ensure that virtual and blended schools fully report data related to the population of students they serve and the teachers they employ; State and federal policymakers should promote efforts to design new outcome measures, which capture the unique characteristics of virtual and blended schools; More research should be supported to understand policy options for funding and accountability mechanisms, and to increase our understanding of the inner workings of virtual and blended schools. Find the report on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the report with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Gary Miron, (269) 387-3883, gary.miron@wmich.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The School Staffing Surge: Decades of Employment Growth in America’s Public Schools, Part II Summary The report disaggregates trends in K-12 hiring for individual states, presenting ratios comparing the number of administrators and other non-teaching staff to the number of teachers or students. Publication Date March 25, 2013 Authors Joydeep Roy, Visiting Professor Teachers College – Columbia University & Senior Economist for the New York City Independent Budget Office Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Second 'School Staffing Surge' Report Suffers From Same Flaws As Original EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 26, 2013) – In a follow-up to an earlier report, the Friedman Foundation recently released a second report, describing a surge in school employment unaccompanied by progress in student achievement. Again, however, the report suffers from faulty premises and inaccurate data. Joydeep Roy reviewed the report, The School Staffing Surge, Part II , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Dr. Roy, a visiting professor at Teachers College – Columbia University and a senior economist for the New York City Independent Budget Office, prepared the review for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Like the original report, Benjamin Scafidi wrote The School Staffing Surge, Part II for the Freidman Foundation for Educational Choice. Surge I reported that between 1992 and 2009, the number of employees grew at more than twice the rate that the population of students increased. It then claimed that despite the staffing surge and related spending increases, there had been no progress in student achievement or drop-out reductions. Surge II disaggregates trends in K-12 hiring for individual states, presenting ratios comparing the number of administrators and other non-teaching staff to the number of teachers or students. Both reports speculate about "savings" that might have been achieved if hiring had been held back. But neither report makes any serious attempt to link employment numbers to schools' needs or outcomes. Moreover, both reports "[fail] to acknowledge the fact that achievement scores and drop-out rates have steadily improved," Roy writes in his review. He adds, "Neither the old report or this new one ... explores the causes and consequences of faster employment growth, thus severely limiting the report's potential contribution." With no attempt to benchmark hiring against each state's needs and circumstances, the new report is once again unable to make any reasoned judgment about whether the added hiring was useful or wasteful. The result, Roy concludes, is that the new report, "much like the original one, is devoid of any serious policy implications." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The School Staffing Surge: Decades of Employment Growth in America's Public Schools, Part II by Benjamin Scafidi on the web: http://tinyurl.com/cj4xv9c 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-school-staffing-surge-2 --###-- 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: Joydeep Roy, (202) 821-2572, jr3137@columbia.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 Due Diligence and the Evaluation of Teachers: A Review of the Value-Added Analysis Underlying the Effectiveness Rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District Teachers by The Los Angeles Times Summary This report, by Richard Buddin, is a value-added analysis of elementary teachers in the LAUSD. Buddin asserts that teacher quality can validly be measured using student performance on the reading and math portions of the California Standardized Test. Buddin's analysis was the focus of an article in the LA Times which included a database of LAUSD teachers by name and their individual rankings which were based on Buddin's model. The reviewers found that Buddin's analysis is a deeply flawed and an inaccurate measure of teacher effectiveness. Publication Date February 7, 2011 Authors Derek Briggs and Ben Dominque, University of Colorado at Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release L.A. Times teacher rankings deeply flawed, new report finds February 8, 2011 "How Effective Are Los Angeles Elementary Teachers and Schools?" report is an inaccurate measure of teacher quality EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 8, 2011) –— A widely reported analysis done of teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District is a deeply flawed measure of teacher effectiveness, according to a report released today. On Aug. 14, 2010, the Los Angeles Times published a controversial article that highlighted the results of a study conducted by Richard Buddin, senior economist at the RAND Corporation. Buddin's analysis erroneously asserted that teacher quality can be validly measured using student performance on the math and reading portions of the California Standardized Test. In conjunction with the article, the L.A. Times published a database of LAUSD teachers by name and their individual effectiveness ratings, which were based on Buddin's flawed analysis. The review of Buddin's analysis was performed by Derek C. Briggs, chair of the Research and Evaluation Methodology Program at the University of Colorado at Boulder, and Colorado-Boulder doctoral student Ben Domingue. Key among their findings was that Buddin's analysis failed to consider several critical factors that impact student achievement, such as long-term achievement patterns and influence from their peers. Buddin's model led to overly broad and simplistic generalizations about teacher effectiveness, often resulting in negative consequences for many potentially effective teachers and their students, Briggs and Domingue found. Buddin's approach, known as "value-added modeling," can lead to a number of false positives and negatives – many average teachers may have been falsely categorized as either effective or ineffective. Briggs and Domingue developed a stronger alternative model that included students' long-term achievement patterns and peer influence. The researchers then compared the results of their model and Buddin's, and found that only 60.8 percent of teachers would retain the same effectiveness rating in both models for math outcomes, while only 46.4 percent of teachers would retain the same effectiveness rating for reading outcomes. Notably, Briggs and Domingue found that Buddin's model could not be independently replicated, thus casting doubts about the scientific validity of the study altogether. According to a Jan. 10 New York Times article, the New York City Board of Education is planning to follow Los Angeles' lead and publish ratings of 12,000 New York City teachers, based on an approach similar in nature to Buddin's. Briggs and Domingue's report, "Due Diligence and the Evaluation of Teachers: A Review of the Value-Added Analysis Underlying the Effectiveness Rankings of Los Angeles Unified School District Teachers by the Los Angeles Times," 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. Find Briggs's and Domingue's complete report and a link to Buddin's analysis at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . On Monday, Feb. 7, 2011, the LA Times, published a story about Briggs's and Domingue's report. That story included false statements and was generally misleading. Accordingly, along with the release of this report, a "Fact Sheet" about the Times' article has been published: http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/FactSheet_0.pdf Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/due-diligence --###-- 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: Derek C. Briggs: (303) 492-6320, Derek.Briggs@colorado.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, 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 Despite Serious Problems and a Lack of Research Support, Virtual Schools Continue to Spread as Policymakers Remain AWOL 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 May 28, 2019 Authors Alex Molnar, Series Editor University of Colorado, Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 28, 2019) — Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 , a three-part research brief released today by the National Education Policy Center, examines the claim that online curriculum can be tailored to individual students more effectively than curriculum in traditional classrooms. Proponents contend that this potential for individualization allows virtual schools to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. NEPC researchers found, however, that the research evidence does not support this claim. Yet the lack of research support has done little to dampen policymakers' enthusiasm, perhaps because virtual schools are marketed as promising lower operating costs—primarily via cutbacks in instructional personnel and facilities. Section I of the brief, Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance , provides straightforward analyses of the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools. The data reveal that full-time virtual and blended learning schools continue to perform poorly. Section II, What Virtual and Blended Education Research Reveals , points to a serious shortfall in the scholarly research. It reviews the relevant available studies related to virtual school practices and finds that much of this is atheoretical, methodologically questionable, contextually limited, and overgeneralized. As a result, the available research is of little value in guiding policy. Section III, Key Policy Issues in Virtual Schools: Finance and Governance, Instructional Quality, and Teacher Quality , provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft policy regarding virtual schools. As in past years, bills to increase oversight of virtual schools continue to be introduced. Some legislative actions have been prompted by state audits and legal challenges, as exemplified by recent virtual school controversies in California and Ohio. As such, the bills have been aimed at addressing accountability and governance structures, as well as curbing the operation of for-profit virtual schools. However, there is little evidence that legislative actions are being informed by available research on the performance of virtual schools. The authors recommend that policymakers hit the pause button on further virtual school expansion until we understand how to address the poor performance of these schools. Find Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 , edited by Alex Molnar, at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This research brief was made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Education Olympics 2008: The Games in Review Summary This report parallels the Olympics by awarding medals to top performing countries based on international assessments in reading, math and science. The report makes the claim that the low rankings of the U.S. on these tests will weaken the U.S. economy and jeopardize its future global standing. Publication Date October 14, 2008 Authors Edward G. Fierros, Villanova University Mindy Kornhaber, Penn State University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability 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 The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment Summary Critiques of public education have intensified in recent years. While public schools do indeed have real areas in need of growth and improvement, many of today’s attacks are generated and amplified by organizations seeking to manufacture crises. These narratives often ignore counterevidence, and they use deceptive language to portray the system as broadly failing, even hopeless. To examine these destructive critiques, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California authored a policy brief, The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment, released today by NEPC. The brief identifies five core narratives used to portray a failing education system: claims of underachievement, inefficiency, inequality, lack of school choice, and indoctrination. Publication Date March 2, 2026 Authors Huriya Jabbar, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California; Daniel Espinoza, University of Southern California Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: New policy brief identifies five core narratives fueling disinvestment and privatization of America’s public schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 3, 2026) - Critiques of public education have intensified in recent years. While public schools do indeed have real areas in need of growth and improvement, many of today’s attacks are generated and amplified by organizations seeking to manufacture crises. These narratives often ignore counterevidence, and they use deceptive language to portray the system as broadly failing, even hopeless. To examine these destructive critiques, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California authored a policy brief, The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment , released today by NEPC. The brief identifies five core narratives used to portray a failing education system: claims of underachievement, inefficiency, inequality, lack of school choice, and indoctrination. The brief warns that overstated crisis narratives fuel a cycle of disinvestment: Eroding public confidence leads to reduced funding and enrollment, which strains schools and invites further criticism. This cycle weakens the public system while advancing privatization of what has long been considered a public good. Each of the five core narratives is poorly grounded, according to Jabbar and Espinoza. The "achievement" attack rests on disappointing test scores while downplaying the powerful influence of poverty and inequality on student performance. Polling consistently shows that parents rate their own public schools highly, even as they accept the broader myth that public schools nationwide are failing, revealing a gap between lived experience and manufactured narrative. Charges of inefficiency similarly rely on narrow test score measures and attacks on unions, despite evidence that increased funding improves student achievement, especially for low-income students. Claims that public schools exacerbate inequality ignore research showing that inequitable funding and broader social conditions drive disparities, and that public education remains essential to addressing them. Advocates of vouchers and expanded school choice argue that families lack options, yet recent research finds large-scale voucher programs tend to lower student outcomes and increase segregation. Allegations of indoctrination depend on sensationalized examples that ignore the largely uncontroversial, inclusive nature of most classroom instruction. Amid COVID-19 disruptions, culture wars, rapid voucher expansion, immigration enforcement in schools, and federal policy and funding threats, the danger to public education is acute. Without correction, manufactured crises will continue to justify underinvestment, deepen inequality, and roll back hard-won gains in equity and student outcomes. Jabbar and Espinoza call on policymakers to counter manufactured narratives with evidence and to work toward reversing prior disinvestment by promoting equitable funding of instruction and facilities. Find The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment , by Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza, at: https://greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Huriya Jabbar Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform (18th edition) Summary The 18th edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Report Card draws on ratings from market-orientated advocacy groups to grade states in areas such as allowances for charter schools, availability of vouchers, and permissiveness for homeschoolers. Publication Date May 8, 2013 Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois T. Jameson Brewer, University of Illinois Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ALEC's Report Card Receives Failing Marks Policymakers should insist on referencing evidence-based research EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 9, 2013) – Ranking states is a popular tool for education advocacy groups, with the goal of advancing a policy agenda based on ideologically driven pre-packaged reforms. These report cards receive considerable media attention, although few reflect research-based evidence on the efficacy of particular polices. The 18th edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform is no different according to an academic review. Christopher Lubienski, associate professor of education policy and Director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois, and T. Jameson Brewer, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois, reviewed ALEC's Report Card 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. Lubienski and Brewer find that ALEC draws its grades exclusively not from research organizations, but from like-minded market-orientated advocacy organizations. "Furthermore, when studies are highlighted in this report, they do not represent the peer-reviewed research on a given issue, are often of extremely poor quality, and generally unsuited for supporting their claim." In their review, Lubienski and Brewer provide two key areas – alternative teacher certification and school choice – to highlight gaps between ALEC's agenda and empirical evidence. Despite multiple claims that a "growing body of research indicates…" – the report offers absolutely no supporting evidence. Math results, which have a lower pass rate, were used to compare traditionally-certified teachers to alternatively-certified teachers. Meanwhile alternatively-certified teachers were portrayed using their reading results. "Many of the grades given to states reflect the level to which pro-market policies have been implemented while the grades systematically ignore meaningful measurements of equality and outcomes" according to the review. Readers of ALEC's Report Card should consider it a statement of policy preferences and not an overview of research on education reforms. The reviewers conclude, "At best, the report serves as an amalgamation of other like-minded think tanks' assessments of states' adoption of pro-market policies, and thus offers nothing new … it provides little or no usefulness to policymakers." Find the report by Lubienski and Brewer on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find ALEC's Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform (18th edition) on the web: http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also available on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Christopher Lubienski, (217) 333-4382, club@illinois.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