< Back Big Claims, Little Evidence, Lots of Money: The Reality Behind the Summit Learning Program and the Push to Adopt Digital Personalized Learning Programs Summary Despite a lack of evidence that it is effective, the Summit Learning Program, propelled by a flood of Silicon Valley money, continues to spread. Publication Date June 25, 2020 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI Authors Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher Saldaña, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com The Summit Learning Program: Big Promises, Lots of Money, Little Evidence of Success A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Despite a lack of evidence that it is effective, the Summit Learning Program, propelled by a flood of Silicon Valley money, continues to spread. EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 25, 2020) - Virtual learning and personalized learning have been at the forefront of education reform discussions for over a decade. One leader of this sector, Summit Public Schools, has been backed by almost $200 million philanthropic dollars from the Chan-Zuckerberg Initiative, the Gates Foundation, and others. Summit Public Schools has aggressively marketed its Summit Learning Platform to schools across the United States since 2015. As a result, the Summit Learning Program is now one of the most prominent digital personalized learning programs in the United States. In Big Claims, Little Evidence, Lots of Money: The Reality Behind the Summit Learning Program and the Push to Adopt Digital Personalized Learning Platforms , Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher M. Saldaña, of the University of Colorado Boulder, provide a thorough analysis of Summit Public Schools, an 11-school charter network operating in California and Washington. Summit Public Schools began marketing its proprietary Summit Learning Program to potential "partner" schools in 2015 as a free, off-the-shelf, personalized learning program; it is now used in nearly 400 schools nationwide. The marketing message of Summit Learning Program trades on the alleged success of the Summit Public Schools. Summit claims to have developed a "science-based" personalized learning model of teaching and learning that results in all of its students being academically prepared for college. It further claims that its students succeed in college and are prepared to lead successful, fulfilled lives. These successes, it claims, are the result of its unique approach to personalized learning and the use of the digital platform at the heart of its approach. None of these claims made by Summit Public Schools have been confirmed by independent evaluators. In fact, other than scant bits of self-selected information provided by Summit itself, Boninger, Molnar and Saldaña found no evidence in the public record that confirms the claims. Nor did Summit Public Schools provide the information that the authors solicited in a California public records request. Despite the lack of evidence to support the claims made by Summit Public Schools, the Summit Learning Program has been adopted by nearly 400 schools across the country. While Summit has offered positive anecdotes and some selected data, there is no solid evidence that "partner" schools are experiencing the promised success; to the contrary, there have been a number of reported incidents of problems and dissatisfaction. Further, the student data collected pursuant to the contracts between Summit and these partner schools presents a potentially significant risk to student privacy and opens the door to the exploitation of those data by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative and possibly by unknown third parties-for purposes that have nothing to do with improving the quality of those students’ educations. Virtual education and personalized learning are at the top of the education reform agenda in large measure because of hundreds of millions of dollars in funding and advocacy by philanthropic organizations (e.g., the Gates Foundation), large digital platforms (e.g., Facebook and Google), and venture capitalists anxious to access the school market. Exacerbated by the continuing COVID-19 pandemic, schools across the country are struggling to find safe ways to educate their students. The rapid spread of the Summit Learning Program, despite its risks and lack of transparency, provides a powerful example of how policymakers are challenged when faced with a well-financed, self-interested push for schools to adopt digital personalized learning programs. Boninger, Molnar and Saldaña provide policymakers with recommendations to protect the public interest by establishing oversight and accountability mechanisms related to digital platforms and personalized learning programs. Find Big Claims, Little Evidence, Lots of Money: The Reality Behind the Summit Learning Program and the Push to Adopt Digital Personalized Learning Platforms , by Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar and Christopher M. Saldaña, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This research brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), 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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking - Twenty-first-Century Skills and Implications for Education Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research explores the idea of “21st Century skills.” The brief explains the sometimes-conflicting values and proposals for making schools relevant to meeting the needs of the 21st Century. This short brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date May 14, 2013 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Explores 21st Century Skills How do we promote a more responsive, integrated model to meet twenty-first century learning requirements? EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 14, 2013) –"Teaching twenty-first-century skills" is a catchy slogan, but its meaning is often interpreted in two different ways. Those appealing to international economic competitiveness typically embrace common cognitive-based curriculums and testing. Those looking toward workforce skills place greater emphasis on softer skills such as problem solving, creativity, and working with others. The eighth in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research explores the idea of "21st Century skills." The brief explains the sometimes-conflicting values and proposals for making schools relevant to meeting the needs of the 21st Century. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), prepared the brief, Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Twenty-first-Century Skills and Implications for Education . Previous sections of Research-Based Options have included: teacher evaluations, common core standards, early childhood education, choice funding, dropout strategies, effective school expenditures, and parental involvement for ELL. To summarize the complicated debate over these skills, Dr. Mathis had this to say, "In broad brush strokes, the debate about twenty-first century skills is represented by these two perspectives; soft skills with constructivist learning versus test-based, set-piece, top-down cognate." However, he cautions, "In reality, few would embrace such a stark contrast." Seeking to bridge the gap, Mathis reviews current research over "multiple pathways" or "linked learning," which seeks to blend the two perspectives. Linked learning is an approach that combines academic and technical learning, providing context for real-life situations. Regarding linked learning, Mathis had this to say, "Rather than the traditional one-size-fits-all, classroom-based approach to education, a rich variety of options are open to students, including higher education, workforce internships, career academies, magnet schools, small learning groups and technical careers." Mathis makes several recommendations for policymakers seeking to promote a more integrated model emphasizing "21st Century skills." Here are a few: Accountability systems must allow for the demonstration of student proficiencies through a broad array of assessment methods (beyond test-bases systems tied to a system of test-based sanctions). Work-based learning opportunities must be defined and adopted as legitimate parts of the school curriculum. Cooperation between secondary and higher education must be expanded. Greater flexibility in school schedules, day and year. The recommendations also explain the importance of investing time, energy, and resources needed to expand the skills of teachers who would be teaching in a linked learning setting. Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php Twenty-first-Century Skills is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced this brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Student Mobility: Causes, Consequences, Solutions Summary This brief explores the causes and consequences of student mobility, a widespread, and often-unheralded, problem facing American schools. According to the brief, written by Russell W. Rumberger, professor of education in the Gervirtz Graduate School of Education at the University of California Santa Barbara, student mobility can negatively impact student achievement on test scores, high school graduation prospects, and even student behavior. Multiple moves and those accompanied by family disruptions produce more severe impacts. To reduce the negative impacts of student mobility, Rumberger recommends: (1) School officials should strive to reduce mobility by raising overall school quality; (2) School officials should give students and parents sufficient and timely information to make informed school transfer decisions; (3) Personnel in schools receiving transfers can prepare materials and activities before students arrive; and (4) State officials should collect and report school and district mobility rates. Publication Date June 1, 2015 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Russell W. Rumberger, UC Santa Barbara Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Explores Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 1, 2015) – A new brief out today explores the causes and consequences of student mobility, a widespread, and often-unheralded, problem facing American schools. According to the brief, student mobility can negatively impact student achievement on test scores, high school graduation prospects, and even student behavior. Multiple moves and those accompanied by family disruptions produce more severe impacts. The brief, written by Russell Rumberger , professor of education in the Gervirtz Graduate School of Education at the University of California Santa Barbara , is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Families initiate most student mobility due to changing residences, but according to the brief, schools initiate transfers due to expulsion or school closings. A review of extant research suggests that changing schools harms normal child and adolescent development by disrupting relationships with peers and teachers, and by interrupting a student's educational program. Rumberger's brief is accompanied with a series of recommendations. However, he cautions that mediating the effects of student mobility requires solutions that are adaptable and applicable to students and schools. To reduce the negative impacts of student mobility, Rumberger recommends: School officials should strive to reduce mobility by raising overall school quality; School officials should give students and parents sufficient and timely information to make informed school transfer decisions; Personnel in schools receiving transfers can prepare materials and activities before students arrive; and State officials should collect and report school and district mobility rates. Rumberger highlights a need for expanded research efforts to study the impact of student mobility. Additionally, he suggests, "Further research is also needed to document the impact of mobility on schools and on the achievement of non-mobile students." Find the brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Russell W. Rumberger is Professor of Education in the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education at UC Santa Barbara. A faculty member at UCSB since 1987, Professor Rumberger has published widely in several areas of education: education and work; the schooling of disadvantaged students, particularly school dropouts and linguistic minority students; school effectiveness; and education policy. He directs the California Dropout Research Center ( http://cdrp.ucsb.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: Russell W. Rumberger, (805) 893-2250, russ@education.ucsb.edu Daniel 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 Comparing Ed Reforms: Assessing the Experimental Research on Nine K-12 Education Reforms Summary A recent report from EdChoice, working with Hanover Research, identifies and reviews studies that use Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) to determine student achievement or educational attainment outcomes of nine broad "education reform" areas. Publication Date May 26, 2020 Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; Early Childhood; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Paul DiPerna; Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Makes a Small Contribution to Understanding Education Reform Studies An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Readers must resist misinterpretations of the report's table of results. EAST LANSING, MI (May 26, 2020) - A recent report from EdChoice, working with Hanover Research, identifies and reviews studies that use Randomized Control Trials (RCTs) to determine student achievement or educational attainment outcomes of nine broad "education reform" areas. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed Comparing Ed Reforms: Assessing the Experimental Research on Nine K-12 Education Reforms . He concludes that the report accomplishes what it set out to do, but he points to several issues that minimize its usefulness in guiding policy, practice, or research. The report simply presents counts of studies with positive, negative, and neutral findings from RCT studies. RCTs are presented in the report as "gold standard" studies for determining effects of specific treatments on measured outcomes, and the approach has clear strengths. But Professor Baker explains that the approach also has notable limitations. In fact, the actual randomization in education studies generally applies to only part of natural experiment; the randomization operates in a largely non-random context. Similarly, the studies are not fully controlled. Each of the report's specific education-reform-area counts also has notable limitations. RCT studies of charter schools tend to be limited to specific contexts, models, programs and services. Private school voucher policies are similarly varied and difficult to classify as a single "treatment." Moreover, as the report notes, studies categorized under the reform "open enrollment" are actually magnet school programs. In fact, the report found no RCT studies that could be squeezed into three of the reform categories. All six of the reform areas that were in fact tallied-from smaller class sizes and schools to pre-k programs to school choice-score well, with positives outweighing negatives by large margins. But that truly tells us very little, Professor Baker explains, and the study authors are in fact cautious in explaining their modest goals-merely counting the quantity and superficial results of research done in those six specific areas. The main concern with this report, therefore, is that the casual reader will take the table presenting the tallies out of context and use it to argue that charter schools and vouchers for private schools are most important or worthwhile because they have been studied most and thus have the highest counts of positive effects. If, however, the report is not misused in such a way, it offers a limited contribution for readers wanting to get an initial feel for the RCT research in these areas. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Comparing Ed Reforms: Assessing the Experimental Research on Nine K-12 Education Reforms , written by Paul DiPerna, with reviews conducted by Hanover Research and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/comparing-ed-reforms.pdf NEPC Reviews (http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Bruce D. Baker: (303) 492-8370, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Two Culminating Reports From The MET Project Summary The Measures of Effective Teaching Project (MET) is an ambitious, multi-year study of thousands of teachers in six school districts. This review is of two of the final research papers dealing with the impact of student assignment on teacher evaluations and how teacher evaluation measures are best combined. Publication Date January 31, 2013 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Authors Jesse Rothstein, University of California Berkeley William Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Gates' Foundation's MET Study Fails to Solve Teacher Evaluation Challenge EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 31, 2013) – Amidst much fanfare, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently released its third and final set of findings for the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. The project generated enormous attention and valuable data while it attempted to provide clarity on how to best evaluate teachers. However, a careful look at the MET research – an ambitious, multi-year study of thousands of teachers in six school districts – finds the study's results were inconclusive and provide little usable guidance about how to design teacher evaluation systems. Jesse Rothstein, an economist at the University of California Berkeley, and William J. Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, completed a thorough review of two of the final MET research papers, examining how the assignment of students affects teacher evaluations and how multiple teacher evaluation measures are best combined. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "The MET research does little to settle longstanding debates over how best to evaluate teachers comprehensively," said Rothstein and Mathis. The study utilized three types of measures (student test scores, classroom observations, and student surveys); the project concluded that the three should be given roughly equal weight in teacher evaluations. Rothstein and Mathis found that the data do not support that conclusion. Instead, the data indicate that each measure reflects a distinct dimension of teaching. "Any evaluation system needs to be founded on a judgment about what constitutes effective teaching, and that judgment will drive the choice of measures," says Rothstein. Based on the review, there is little reason to believe that an evaluation system based on any of the measures considered in the MET project will do a good job of identifying teachers who are effective (or ineffective) at raising students' performance on more conceptually demanding assessments. Mathis adds, "While we commend The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for investing millions of dollars in tackling critical education issues, the conclusions in this case do not jibe with the data." At the center of the MET project was an experiment that randomly assigned students to teachers. This approach was meant to determine irretrievably whether value-added (VA) scores are biased by student assignments. That is, do teachers who are assigned more successful students benefit in terms of their VA scores? Unfortunately, the reviewers found that the group of teachers who participated in the MET experiments was not representative of the teaching force, and many participating schools failed to comply with their experimental assignments. As a result, the experiment did little to resolve the question. Rothstein and Mathis conclude, "While the Gates MET study has brought an unprecedented vigor and intensity to teacher evaluation research, even its masses of data do not settle disagreements about what makes an effective teacher." 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: Bill Mathis (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Jesse Rothstein (510) 643-8561, rothstein@berkeley.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 Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options Summary A recent report from the Bellwether Education Partners, Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options, attempts to examine the availability of low-income rental units in school districts to understand whether districts in the largest 200 metropolitan areas are accessible to families in poverty. The report finds nearly 500 examples of borders between two starkly different types of districts: those that are the most and least "accessible" based on the cost of rental housing. It designates these borders between these districts as barriers. After describing the problem, the report recommends a combination of education policy solutions, including expanding school choice, and affordable housing opportunities. Publication Date March 1, 2022 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Alex Spurrier, Sara Hodges, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Erica Frankenberg, Penn State Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report About the Relationship Between Housing and Educational Opportunities Falls Short but Highlights Important Concerns An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Among other limitations, the report fails to fully explore how race and racism relate to housing access and educational opportunity. EAST LANSING, MI (March 1, 2022) - A recent report from the Bellwether Education Partners, Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options , attempts to examine the availability of low-income rental units in school districts to understand whether districts in the largest 200 metropolitan areas are accessible to families in poverty. However, a review by Erica Frankenberg of Penn State finds significant methodological shortcomings that limit the report's usefulness. The report finds nearly 500 examples of borders between two starkly different types of districts: those that are the most and least "accessible" based on the cost of rental housing. It designates these borders between these districts as barriers. After describing the problem, the report recommends a combination of education policy solutions, including expanding school choice, and affordable housing opportunities. Professor Frankenberg notes several limitations and concerns with the study and report. One problem is that the report's approach is disconnected from federal housing policy and research. In addition, the report fails to consider the effects of race, which is central to understanding a racialized lack of affordability. Further, the report's failure to acknowledge prior research, its lack of clarity about its methodology, and its overlooking of boundaries that exist within districts all make it unlikely to have fully identified the barriers to high-quality schools. Thus, though the report is useful in its consideration of the relationship between housing and educational opportunity, Professor Frankenberg concludes that its flaws substantially limit the report's utility for informing social policy. Find the review, by Erica Frankenberg, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options written by Alex Spurrier, Sara Hodges, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_PricedOutofPublicSchools-EDB_1021_Final.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: 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 Erica Frankenberg : (814) 865-5862, euf10@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good Summary A new NEPC policy brief, Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good, warns of the dangers of unregulated AI in schools, highlighting democracy and privacy concerns. Authors Ben Williamson of the University of Edinburgh, and Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder, examine the evidence and conclude that the proliferation of AI in schools jeopardizes democratic values and personal freedoms. Publication Date March 5, 2024 Research Areas Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights; Curriculum & Instruction Authors Ben Williamson, University of Edinburgh; Alex Molnar, University of Colorado Boulder; Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Issues Urgent Call for Responsible Oversight of AI in Schools Key Takeaway: The current wholesale adoption of unregulated Artificial Intelligence applications in schools poses a grave danger to democratic civil society and to individual freedom and liberty. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (March 5, 2024) - Disregarding their own widely publicized appeals for regulating and slowing implementation of artificial intelligence (AI), leading tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Meta are instead racing to evade regulation and incorporate AI into their platforms. A new NEPC policy brief, Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good , warns of the dangers of unregulated AI in schools, highlighting democracy and privacy concerns. Authors Ben Williamson of the University of Edinburgh, and Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder, examine the evidence and conclude that the proliferation of AI in schools jeopardizes democratic values and personal freedoms. Public education is a public and private good that's essential to democratic civic life. The public must, therefore, be able to provide meaningful direction over schools through transparent democratic governance structures. Yet important discussions about AI's potentially negative impacts on education are being overwhelmed by relentless rhetoric promoting its purported ability to positively transform teaching and learning. The result is that AI, with little public oversight, is on the verge of becoming a routine and overriding presence in schools. Years of warnings and precedents have highlighted the risks posed by the widespread use of pre-AI digital technologies in education, which have obscured decision-making and enabled student data exploitation. Without effective public oversight, the introduction of opaque and unproven AI systems and applications will likely exacerbate these problems. The authors explore the harms likely if lawmakers and others do not step in with carefully considered regulations. Integration of AI can degrade teacher-student relationships, corrupt curriculum with misinformation, encourage student performance bias, and lock schools into a system of expensive corporate technology. Further, they contend, AI is likely to exacerbate violations of student privacy, increase surveillance, and further reduce the transparency and accountability of educational decision-making. The authors advise that without responsible development and regulation, these opaque AI models and applications will become enmeshed in routine school processes. This will force students and teachers to become involuntary test subjects in a giant experiment in automated instruction and administration that is sure to be rife with unintended consequences and potentially negative effects. Once enmeshed, the only way to disentangle from AI would be to completely dismantle those systems. The policy brief concludes by suggesting measures to prevent these extensive risks. Perhaps most importantly, the authors urge school leaders to pause the adoption of AI applications until policymakers have had sufficient time to thoroughly educate themselves and develop legislation and policies ensuring effective public oversight and control of its school applications. Find Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good , by Ben Williamson, Alex Molnar, and Faith Boninger, 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, 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 Ben Williamson: , 011-44-0131-651-6176 ben.williamson@ed.ac.uk Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Alternative Certification of Teachers 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 12, 2008 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Gene V Glass, Ph.D. Arizona State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report concludes that programs such as Teach for America lack evidence of demonstrated success EAST LANSING, Mi. (May 12, 2008) – Programs that bypass traditional education training and certification receive good publicity, but there is no consensus from research evidence that they work, according to a new policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The policy brief, “Alternative Certification of Teachers,” was written by Gene V Glass, Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University. Glass writes that alternative certification programs have been driven in part by the need for certain districts—often poor, urban, or both—to quickly find more teachers. But they have also been promoted, according to Glass, by ideological hostility toward traditional teacher education programs and toward government regulation as represented by conventional certification. The policy brief examines research into various alternative certification programs. These include various local and state programs as well as prominent programs like the New York City Teaching Fellows and Teach for America (TFA). Such programs have “become a prominent part of the teaching profession,” writes Glass, who reports that the number of such alternatively certified teachers working in public or private schools currently exceeds 60,000 in the U.S. Glass says that the current body of research on the subject is limited, but we do know that teachers participating in alternative programs such as TFA: Are clustered in poor, urban schools; Are no more likely—and possibly are less likely—to remain teaching after their initial commitment period (two years in the case of TFA) than regularly certified teachers; and Have yielded conflicting data as to their effectiveness compared with their fully certified counterparts. “Investigations that contrast the lived experiences of beginning teachers placed quickly in the classroom are needed,” he writes. “Research must also honor teaching as something more than the production of scores on paper-and-pencil tests.” Perhaps surprisingly, alternative certification approaches that target graduates who have deep subject matter training but little or no teacher education are unlikely to save money: “College graduates trained in science, mathematics, and technology require significantly higher salaries than the market will bear if they are to enter public school teaching.” But if alternative certification of teachers proves in the end to be merely about cheapening the costs of training teachers, Glass notes, we all will pay a price: “Unlike with some professions, the plane may not crash or the patient may not die when teachers are poorly trained, but a society that demeans teaching and degrades education will in time surely see aspirations and hope atrophy and wither.” Find Gene V Glass’s policy brief, “Alternative Certification of Teachers” 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 website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Gene V Glass – (480) 965-2692; glass@asu.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 Public Education Funding Without Boundaries: How to Get K-12 Dollars to Follow Open Enrollment Students Summary The Reason Foundation, a vigorous advocate for choice policies such as vouchers and charter schools, recently published a report advocating for the increased "portability" of school revenues, allowing for "money to follow the students" and, therefore, the expansion of interdistrict choice programs. Publication Date April 6, 2023 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell; Dr. Mark Weber, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Interdistrict School Choice Funding Decisions Should Be Grounded in a Full Understanding of Costs An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The funding portability systems touted by a new report do not account for many factors that determine student costs. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 6, 2023) - The Reason Foundation, a vigorous advocate for choice policies such as vouchers and charter schools, recently published a report advocating for the increased "portability" of school revenues, allowing for "money to follow the students" and, therefore, the expansion of interdistrict choice programs. In a review of Public Education Funding Without Boundaries: How to Get K-12 Dollars to Follow Open Enrollment Students , Dr. Mark Weber of Rutgers University finds significant methodological flaws, all stemming from the report's simplistic view of school "costs." The report attempts to show that many current features of state-level school funding formulas inhibit the portability of revenues. While there are sound policy reasons to facilitate greater interdistrict choice, this report's prescriptions are not sound, in large part because they betray a lack of understanding of a core principle of school finance: Different students in different districts have different costs to achieve educational outcomes. The funding portability systems touted by the report do not account for many factors that determine student costs. Professor Weber explains that this results in a mismatch between costs and revenues that advantages some districts while disadvantaging others when students transfer. Professor Weber concludes that policymakers should avoid the facile recommendations in this report and instead carefully consider the many complexities in designing a portability system for interdistrict choice programs. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3132&type=think_twice Find Public Education Funding Without Boundaries: How to Get K-12 Dollars to Follow Open Enrollment Students , written by Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell and published by the Reason Foundation, at: https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/public-education-funding-without-boundaries.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank-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/ 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 Mark Weber: (908) 358-5828, mark.weber@rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The State of Education Savings Account Programs in the United States Summary A new policy brief from the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) explores the research on Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), a form of private-school vouchers first adopted in Arizona in 2011. Through December 2017, ESA laws have been enacted in six states and have been strongly promoted by school voucher advocates. The brief examines ESA policies, their similarities and differences with other voucher approaches, and examines the legal issues created by these programs. The authors conclude, “policymakers should be extremely wary of adopting or expanding an ESA program. When considering ESAs, policymakers from all perspectives must carefully weigh the evidence on their impact on key elements of U.S. education.” Publication Date January 23, 2018 Research Areas School Funding Authors Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos, Arizona State University, and William J. Mathis and Kevin G. Welner, University of Colorado Boulder. Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Despite a lack of evidence, state policy makers are expanding voucher-like programs EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 23, 2018) — A new policy brief from the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) explores the research on Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) , a form of private-school vouchers first adopted in Arizona in 2011. Through December 2017, ESA laws have been enacted in six states and have been strongly promoted by school voucher advocates. The brief examines ESA policies, their similarities and differences with other voucher approaches, and examines the legal issues created by these programs. Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos , Arizona State University, and William J. Mathis and Kevin G. Welner , University of Colorado Boulder, authored the brief, The State of Education Savings Account Programs in the United States . Jimenez-Castellanos is an associate professor in education policy and evaluation in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. The brief was made possible by support provided to NEPC by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . ESAs set-aside state funding on a per-pupil funding formula in individual accounts for participating families. In addition to private and religious schooling, ESAs can be used for tutoring, online courses, and transportation. These programs differ from conventional school vouchers and tax-credit scholarships (another voucher-like policy), but they similarly divert public monies into the private marketplace. According to the authors, Arizona's program (the nation's first) was designed to "work around state constitutional prohibitions preventing using public money to fund private schools, particularly religious schools." According to the policy brief, the research evidence on ESA policies is quite limited and the majority of ESA literature has been provided by conservative think tanks advocating for expansion. Therefore, the authors suggest that the best evidence is likely found in the research on conventional voucher programs. Overall, the authors caution that the existing research literature on vouchers and voucher-like programs raises serious questions about their performance. The brief also provides six important questions that policy makers should ask to ensure accountability and address issues of access and segregation regarding ESA policies. Jimenez-Castellanos, Mathis, and Welner offer the following policy recommendations to states with existing ESA policies and those designing new policies: Policymakers should be wary of adopting or expanding an ESA program in light of the lack of any empirical evidence to support them and in light of their potential adverse effects. Legislatures in states with existing ESA programs should mandate and fund comprehensive program evaluation systems to determine their programs' impact on students, families, schools, districts and states. Legislatures designing new programs should routinely include mandated and funded comprehensive evaluation systems. In conclusion, the authors note "policymakers should be extremely wary of adopting or expanding an ESA program. When considering ESAs, policymakers from all perspectives must carefully weigh the evidence on their impact on key elements of U.S. education." Find the policy brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The brief 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: Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos , (602) 543-6366, jimenzcastellanos@asu.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 Proposed 2015 Federal Teacher Preparation Regulations Summary The U.S. Department of Education has released proposed Teacher Preparation Regulations under Title II of the Higher Education Act with a call for public comments through the Federal Register. The comment period closes February 2. The Department of Education claims that the proposed regulations will help ensure teacher-training programs are better preparing educators to succeed in the classroom by requiring states to measure outcomes of how graduates are doing in the classroom. The proposal would require states to assess and rate every teacher preparation program every year with four Performance Assessment Levels (exceptional, effective, at-risk, and low-performing), and states would be required to provide technical assistance to “low-performing” programs. Additionally, programs that do not show improvement could lose state approval, state funding, and federal student financial aid. Publication Date January 12, 2015 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Kevin K. Kumashiro, University of San Francisco Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Vital policy considerations in the 2015 Proposed Federal Teacher Preparation Regulations EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 12, 2015) – In early December, the U.S. Department of Education released proposed new Teacher Preparation Regulations under Title II of the Higher Education Act with a call for public comments through the Federal Register. The comment period closes February 2. The Department of Education claims that the proposed regulations will help ensure teacher-training programs are better preparing educators to succeed in the classroom by requiring states to measure outcomes of how graduates are doing in the classroom. An academic review of the proposed regulations considers the evidentiary support and identifies concerns. Kevin K. Kumashiro, Dean and Professor of the School of Education at the University of San Francisco, reviewed the Proposed 2015 Federal Teacher Preparation Regulations for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Dr. Kumashiro is a leading expert on educational policy, school reform, teacher preparation, and educational equity. He is also an award-winning author of ten books on education and social justice, including “Bad Teacher!: How Blaming Teachers Distorts the Bigger Picture.” The proposal would require states to assess and rate every teacher preparation program every year with four Performance Assessment Levels (exceptional, effective, at-risk, and low-performing), and states would be required to provide technical assistance to “low-performing” programs. Additionally, programs that do not show improvement could lose state approval, state funding, and federal student financial aid. In his review Kumashiro has identified seven concerns with the proposed regulations. The proposed regulations: will likely burden institutions with costs that are higher than estimated; inaccurately conceptualize the impact and preparedness of teachers apart from systems; mandate an improperly narrow definition of teacher classroom readiness; require a reliance on scientifically discredited test-based accountability and value-added measures for data analysis; disincentivize teachers to work in high-needs schools; could restrict federal funding for students in financial need, and restrict access to the teaching profession for underrepresented groups; and create a narrow view of the purposes of education. Instead, Kumashiro suggests that the Department “should lead the country in imagining and building a public school system, a teaching profession, and the teacher preparation programs that serve them, in ways that truly improve education and society.” Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find information about the Proposed 2015 Federal Teacher Preparation Regulations on the web: http://www.ed.gov/teacherprep Readers can comment on the proposed regulations on the Federal Register website: https://federalregister.gov/a/2014-28218 Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu 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: Kevin Kumashiro, (415) 422-2108, kkumashiro@usfca.edu Daniel 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 Realities of K-12 Virtual Education 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 April 20, 2009 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, MI (April 20, 2009) – K-12 virtual education is becoming increasingly widespread in public education, but concerns remain about the benefits of full-time virtual schools as well as issues of cost, accreditation, evaluation and the increased commercialization of schooling, according to a new policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief, The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education , is by Gene V Glass, regents’ professor of education at Arizona State University. Glass surveys the current research literature on virtual education, examining issues such as the quality of online schooling and attitudes toward it on the part of the public and public officials. The most frequent form of virtual education, Glass writes, is “credit recovery” – online classes that make up for a previously failed course or for a necessary class that could not be scheduled conventionally. Glass reports that three meta-analyses of studies examining virtual education programs have concluded that there was no difference in achievement between students taught through online courses and those taught in traditional, face-to-face classroom settings. These existing studies overwhelmingly concentrated on distance education – online education used, for example, to provide services to students in extremely rural areas – so research should now focus on the newer applications of the model. These earlier studies also “focused on highly structured curricula such as science, math, and reading,” Glass notes. Little is yet known about how well students can learn from virtual courses on “less readily codified subjects” such as art, music or literary interpretation. The development of full-time virtual schooling also raises funding and other political issues, Glass explains. This policy debate tends to be dominated by “the commercial interests of large, private providers of courses and programs,” with public school districts and universities now entering the market. Glass concludes with a series of recommendations made to legislatures, state-level education officials and school boards: Adopt new regulations governing the provision of online K-12 schooling. Call for audits of providers of virtual education to help determine costs. Recognize legitimate accrediting agencies. Require credible assessment and evaluation. Find Gene Glass’s report, The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education , 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: Gene V Glass – (480) 965 2692; glass@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More