< Back Review of Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict Summary A recent Fordham Institute report surveys more than 5,000 school board members across over 3,000 districts, finding they are disproportionately White, college educated, and often current or former teachers, with politics and beliefs that largely mirror both the U.S. public and their local communities. Publication Date March 25, 2026 Authors David M. Houston and Michael T. Hartney; Carrie Sampson, Arizona State University; Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MARCH 26, 2026 New Report Surveying School Board Members Offers Nuanced Snapshot but Falls Short on Guidance An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's findings highlight demographic imbalances and modest opinion gaps, while its Foreword draws partisan and unsupported conclusions. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 26, 2026) - A recent Fordham Institute report surveys more than 5,000 school board members across over 3,000 districts, finding they are disproportionately White, college educated, and often current or former teachers, with politics and beliefs that largely mirror both the U.S. public and their local communities. In their review of Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict , Arizona State University professors Carrie Sampson and Jeanne M. Powers find the report offers a useful snapshot of board composition, political orientation, and perceptions. A key strength of the report is its use of nationally representative and enrollment-based weighting, yielding a relatively nuanced picture. These data show modest differences between board members and the public on perceptions of school quality, school choice, and teachers' unions. The report flags these gaps, along with the underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic Americans, as concerns. Yet the report offers no guidance for addressing them. It also suffers from some leading and ambiguous question wording, raising concerns on findings about charter schools and school quality. The reviewers caution that the main body of the report is accompanied by an especially problematic Foreword, which misrepresents the study and advances unsubstantiated claims using partisan language, overstating some findings, and ignoring others. For instance, the Foreword frames board members' relatively lower support for charter schools under a heading asking whether boards are "the most anti-charter groups in the country." Overall, Sampson and Powers conclude the results are informative but offer little for policymakers, in large part because the report lacks clear recommendations. Find the review, written by Carrie Sampson and Jeanne M. Powers, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Who's on Board? School Boards and Political Representation in an Age of Conflict , written by David M. Houston and Michael T. Hartney and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/whos-board-school-boards-and-political-representation-age-conflict NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . 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 Carrie Sampson Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar Summary An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. In his review, Peter W. Cookson, Jr. found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." Cookson further states: "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." Publication Date June 6, 2014 Authors Andrew Smarick & Juliet Squire; Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Georgetown University Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds State Education Agency report is earnest but oversimplifies Report called for less state involvement in school reform EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 17, 2014) – A recent report from the Fordham Institute and Bellwether Education Partners argues that states should get out of the reform business directly and hand it over to an "ecosystem of nonprofit organizations." It proposes a governance overhaul to replace the role of State Education Agencies in school improvement. An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. Peter W. Cookson, Jr. of Georgetown University reviewed The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar 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. The report outlines the responsibilities of SEAs and suggests that they struggle to deliver. It cautions against strengthening SEAs to meet new accountability obligations. In his review, Cookson found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." He also calls into question the validity of the findings and recommendations, because the data are subjective in nature. Cookson says "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." On a positive note, Cookson says that the report "is a useful document for those who are engaged in educational reform because it lays out an argument for change that needs to be addressed honestly by those who support it and those who do not." In his conclusion, Cookson finds value in this flawed work because it pushes us to question our own unexamined assumptions. He says, "The report is an earnest attempt, but conflates the people's work with the work of reformers-for-hire." Read this review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar on the web: http://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-education-agency-at-the-helm-not-the-oar 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: Peter W. Cookson, Jr., (202) 403-6203, pcookson@air.org 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 For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines academic outcomes in Ohio’s nonprofit and for-profit charter schools. It also explores whether differences in contracted services in for-profits appear to correlate with differences in their outcomes. Publication Date November 30, 2022 Authors Stéphane Lavertu and Long Tran; Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University Research Areas School Funding; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release For-Profit Charter Schools in Ohio Get a Mixed Grade in an Honest Reading of Recent Study An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Much of the report's analysis would be impossible in states with weaker transparency laws, illustrating the necessity for oversight and transparency in all states with charter schools and non-traditionally managed schools supported by taxpayer dollars. EAST LANSING, MI (December 1, 2022) - A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines academic outcomes in Ohio's nonprofit and for-profit charter schools. It also explores whether differences in contracted services in for-profits appear to correlate with differences in their outcomes. Joshua Cowen of Michigan State University reviewed For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes and found a solid study accompanied by unfounded claims about the study's findings and significance. The study itself finds that for-profits typically contract for either staffing or other services and that those contracting for staffing perform especially poorly. Overall, it finds Ohio's charters to perform well, but it finds that for-profit schools perform slightly lower academically than their nonprofit counterparts, and they perform worse than traditional schools in some areas as well. Based on these findings, the report includes cautions about overregulation of for-profit charters but also raises concerns about virtual charters and charter schools that contract out for nearly all services. Those are the report's findings-but the report also includes an enthusiastic Foreword written by Fordham's leaders (as opposed to the report's authors). The Foreword departs from the study itself to draw the implication that charter schools should not be regulated "based on the [for-profit] tax status of their management organizations." In reality, the report includes negative findings such as fewer students in for-profit charters earning diplomas, and it reinforces concerns about for-profit schools—particularly those that contract out for staff. Professor Cowen also cautions that the report is limited in its focus on only Ohio, which has substantially more transparency than many states require for school choice options. He concludes that its relevance to policymakers is "mainly as a blueprint for the kind of oversight and transparency requirements all states with charter schools should require, and much of the Fordham analysis would be impossible in other states with weaker transparency laws." As a result, the report offers little to inform policy and practice in dissimilar or nationwide contexts. "Both the Fordham report and this NEPC review of it speak to the larger issue and indeed the larger problem of privatization in American education," said Professor Cowen. "Oversight and transparency requirements are enormously important." Find the review, by Joshua Cowen, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes , written by Stéphane Lavertu and Long Tran and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/for-profit-charter-schools-evaluation-spending-outcomes 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://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: 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: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Joshua Cowen: (517) 355-2215, jcowen@msu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Segregation, Race, and Charter Schools: What Do We Know? Summary A report from the Center on Children and Families at Brookings attempted to compare various research findings on school segregation with a focus on expanding urban charter schools. The report argued that school quality is the primary determinant of student achievement, and that instead of addressing school segregation, policy should focus on improving the schools that students of color and low-income students attend. Publication Date December 18, 2016 Authors Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, Richard V. Reeves, Edward Rodriguez; Erica Frankenberg, Penn State University College of Education Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Recent report on school integration has limited utility for policymakers, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 19, 2016) - An October report from the Center on Children and Families at Brookings attempted to compare various research findings on school segregation with a focus on expanding urban charter schools. The report argued that school quality is the primary determinant of student achievement, and that instead of addressing school segregation, policy should focus on improving the schools that students of color and low-income students attend. However, an academic review of the report finds the report has limited use for policymakers. Erica Frankenberg, Penn State University College of Education, reviewed the report, Segregation, Race, and Charter Schools: What Do We Know? , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Dr. Frankenberg's research has examined how the design of school choice policy affects racial and economic student stratification. This has included examining the segregation trends in charter schools as well as analyzing state and federal policy to understand why such patterns of segregation exist in charter schools. Overall, Frankenberg says, "This report is more a distraction than a contribution." Despite its claimed attempt to investigate research findings on school segregation, the report suggests that policy attend to school quality via school choice. In her review, Frankenberg finds that the report presents a false choice between school integration and creating high-quality urban charter schools. She indicates that the report is limited because of its selective review and interpretation of the literature on race and poverty, and its questionable conclusions that are not reflective of the research consensus. Frankenberg concludes, "because most forms of school choice further segregation, the report's recommendation will likely only further segregation and inequality for students." Find the full review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can find the original report from Brookings on the web at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/segregation-race-and-charter-schools-what-do-we-know/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Erica Frankenberg, (814) 865-5862, euf10@psu.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 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 4, 2024 Authors Ben Williamson, University of Edinburgh; Alex Molnar, University of Colorado Boulder; Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights; Curriculum & Instruction 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 Better Evidence, Better Choices, Better Schools: State Supports for Evidence-Based School Improvement Summary The Center for American Progress (CAP) and Knowledge Alliance released a report on the evidence-based provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The report called for a shift away from federal mandates toward greater state and local autonomy. It sought to provide guidance for school districts seeking to make decisions based on evidence to improve their lowest performing schools. And lastly, the report offered eight key recommendations for implementing evidence-based strategies. Publication Date January 11, 2017 Authors Steve Fleischman, Caitlin Scott, and Scott Sargrad; Terri S. Wilson, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ESSA Report Raises Important Issues, Leaves More Difficult Questions Unexplored EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 12, 2017) — Last fall, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Knowledge Alliance released a report on the evidence-based provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The report called for a shift away from federal mandates toward greater state and local autonomy. Unfortunately, the advice provided to practitioners lacked evidence and specifics. According to a review released today, the report is methodologically weak, despite raising several important issues on evidence-based school improvement practices. The report sought to provide guidance for school districts seeking to make decisions based on evidence to improve their lowest performing schools. Terri S. Wilson, University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Better Evidence, Better Choices, Better Schools: State Supports for Evidence-Based School Improvement for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Wilson, in her review, finds that the report raises a number of important issues regarding the implementation of ESSA, yet the guidance offered to practitioners is "vague and unsubstantiated." The report offered eight key recommendations for implementing evidence-based strategies. Despite this, Wilson finds: "While helpful general pieces of advice, these recommendations remain relatively vague and are grounded in neither the existing research literature nor the empirical study featured in the report." Wilson accepts that evidenced-based policy is an idea that is easy to agree with, but important questions must be tackled as states begin implementing ESSA. Most notably, she raises two important questions: (1) what counts as evidence; and (2) who is able (and authorized) to determine what kinds of evidence are most relevant to local contexts? In her conclusion, Wilson suggests that practitioners seek new models and research that may better address the challenges identified in this report. Find the full review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can find the original report on the web at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2016/08/31/143223/better-evidence-better-choices-better-schools/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu -###- Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Terri S. Wilson , (303) 492-5785, terri.wilson@colorado.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

Our Mission Our mission 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. Our Board of Directors Peggy Wirtz-Olsen Board President President, Wisconsin Education Association Jennifer Smith-Margraf Board Vice President President, Indiana State Teachers Association Daniel Holub Secretary-Treasurer Director of Research & Economic Services, New Jersey Education Association Steve Beatty Trustee President, New Jersey Education Association Jason Burns Trustee Midwest Director, National Education Association Monica Byron Trustee President, Education Minnesota Robert Callendar Trustee Vice President MEA Airica Clay Trustee Executive Director, Ohio Education Association Erik Edoff Trustee Executive Director, Michigan Education Association Karl Goeke Trustee President, Illinois Education Association Carrie Lucking Trustee Executive Director, Education Minnesota Chandra Madafferi Trustee President , Michigan Education Association Ronald "Duff" Martin Trustee Director, NEA Executive Committee Stacey Pelika Trustee Director of Research, National Education Association Mike Shoudy Trustee Executive Director, Illinois Education Association Brett Smith Trustee Vice President, Michigan Education Association Jeff Wensig Trustee President, Ohio Education Association Nate Williams Trustee Executive Director, Indiana State Teachers Association Staff Maddie Fennell Executive Director Cheryl Cherry Executive Assistant Jen Hyman Communications Consultant

< Back Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong/Fixing the Currently Biased State K-12 Education Rankings 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 November 26, 2018 Authors Stan J. Liebowitz and Matthew L. Kelly; Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release BOULDER, CO (November 27, 2018) – The Reason Foundation recently published a policy brief that offers an alternative ranking of states' education systems. The brief, which was based on a working paper from the Department of Finance and Managerial Economics at the University of Texas at Dallas, purports to offer needed adjustments and nuance, but makes its own serious mistakes, according to a new review. Rutgers professor Bruce D. Baker reviewed Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong and the underlying working paper, Fixing the Currently Biased State K-12 Education Rankings. He found the analyses provided did little or nothing to advance the conversation about the effectiveness of state education systems. The twin reports begin with the presumption that high average test scores combined with lower school spending should be the basis for state rankings, which are reasonable premises, depending upon how the analyses are approached. But the reports then head off the rails, Professor Baker explains. Offering a 'corrected' representation of student outcomes and a crude analysis asserting that spending has no relation to those outcomes, the reports declare states such as New Jersey and Vermont to be poor-performing, highly inefficient systems by comparison to many states. The reports then estimate a regression model and assert that the higher performing states are those with (a) weaker teachers' unions and (b) more children in charter schools. However, Baker's review details how the reports' so-called corrections involved unreasonable and illogical assumptions and adjustments. For example, the reports re-weight racial and ethnic subgroups so that it inappropriately places equal weight in states like Vermont or Wyoming on students comprising 1 to 2% of the population as the other 98 to 99%. Other problems concern a decision to ignore economic status entirely and a poorly executed adjustment for cost of living. Regressing multiple, highly related, interdependent measures against a specious outcome measure leads to even more suspect findings and, Baker concludes, would only mislead policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong, written by Stan J. Liebowitz and Matthew L. Kelly and published by the Reason Foundation, at: https://reason.com/archives/2018/10/07/everything-you-know-about-stat Find Fixing the Currently Biased State K-12 Education Rankings , written by Stan J. Liebowitz and Matthew L. Kelly and published by the Department of Finance and Managerial Economics at the University of Texas at Dallas at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3185152 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 A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA Summary Brief presents a framework for federal policymakers to ground the law in an evidence-based, equitable, and ecological approach centered on sustained educational equality of opportunity. Publication Date October 10, 2022 Authors Elizabeth DeBray, University of Georgia; Kara S. Finnigan, University of Michigan; Janel George, Georgetown University Law Center; and Janelle Scott, University of California-Berkeley. Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release What Might a Civil Rights-Focused ESEA Reauthorization Look Like? Key Takeaway : Brief presents a framework for federal policymakers to ground the law in an evidence-based, equitable, and ecological approach centered on sustained educational equality of opportunity. EAST LANSING, MI (October 11, 2022) - The last several years have been trying for students, communities, and schools. States and local educational agencies have been working to meet the significant health and educational needs of students and to address the vast racial and socioeconomic inequities that have been heightened by the pandemic. Success in the efforts depends on a responsive, strong, and effective federal role in education. The federal government’s significant, albeit limited, role in education remains vital nearly 60 years after the initial passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation’s fundamental legislation concerning K-12 schooling. This is particularly true as the U.S. grapples with a global pandemic, enduring racial and socioeconomic inequality, entrenched educational disparities, and attacks on democracy. The ESEA was most recently reauthorized in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which itself was due for reauthorization after the 2020-21 school year. Congress may not act any time soon on that reauthorization, but when it does it can improve the law in key ways. Over the past several years, vibrant, intersectional social movements have taken up and expanded the policy demands for equitable, excellent, and just schooling. Because ESEA remains the government’s most consequential mechanism to promote equity in public education, its reauthorization presents an opportunity to re-envision this federal role in promoting access to quality educational opportunities by fostering racial and socioeconomic equity in alignment with the original intent of ESEA. To that end, NEPC today released a policy brief, A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA , authored by Elizabeth DeBray of the University of Georgia, Kara S. Finnigan of the University of Michigan, Janel George of Georgetown University Law Center, and Janelle Scott of the University of California-Berkeley. The authors have developed a civil rights framework to guide the redesign of ESSA. This equitable, evidence-based, and ecological framework places students, staff, school systems, and cross-sector collaboration at the center of ESEA and considers the complexity of racial, socioeconomic, and other inequities along with the strengths nested within communities. Their approach centers the health and the socioemotional well-being of students, families, and staff and accounts for the historical, structural, and environmental factors that have made educational inequity seemingly intractable. The brief offers recommendations that build upon ESSA’s core purpose and its critical history as being, first and foremost, a civil rights law. As such, the recommendations are designed to ensure it is responsive to racial and social inequities across systems that affect students’ educational experiences and outcomes. Find A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA , by Elizabeth DeBray, Kara S. Finnigan, Janel George, and Janelle Scott, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center 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 Elizabeth DeBray : (706) 542-2214, edebray@uga.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Fix the City Schools: Moving All Schools to Charter-Like Autonomy Summary This report argues for the decentralization of urban school districts and cites increased student achievement in post-Katrina New Orleans as support for city schools moving toward a "portfolio" of schools model. Publication Date April 14, 2010 Authors Katrina E. Bulkley, Montclair State University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report citing New Orleans as a model for changing urban education ignores key facts and makes faulty arguments, reviewer finds EAST LANSING, Mi., (April 15, 2010) – A recent Reason Foundation report points to the post-Katrina school system in New Orleans as evidence to support massive decentralizing of urban school systems. But a Think Twice review of the report concludes that it lacks evidence for its claims and ignores key facts about the New Orleans situation that would undermine its case. The Reason Foundation report, Fix the City Schools: Moving All Schools to Charter-Like Autonomy, was reviewed by Katrina Bulkley, an education professor at Montclair State University in New Jersey. Under the plan advocated in Fix the City Schools , schools in urban districts would operate with autonomy and accountability similar to charter schools. School districts would manage a "portfolio" of these autonomous schools, and they would receive funding based on enrollment. The report draws heavily on the author's claims that the post-Katrina New Orleans schools, a highly decentralized system in which 60 percent of students attend charter schools and the traditional public schools have much greater autonomy, have experienced remarkably improved student achievement. Bulkley's review of this report identifies a number of flaws. She notes that it relies primarily on advocacy articles and anecdotal media reports; the report is unable to provide readers with any valid, generalizable research supporting the claims of beneficial outcomes. At times, Bulkley notes, the report "addresses issues that have been assessed in high-quality research, but neglects to include that research or its findings." For instance, while Fix the City Schools asserts that closing schools can lift achievement, Bulkley points to research that undermines those assertions. Similarly, the report ignores large-scale studies that show charter schools do not, on average, improve student achievement. Additionally, in making the New Orleans story the centerpiece of its evidence for the "portfolio management" approach, the report ignores several key facts: (a) the New Orleans district was already showing steady improvement before the post-Katrina reforms; (b) other districts in the state not devastated by the hurricane have continued to improve in the post-Katrina era as well; (c) Katrina led to a disproportionate exodus of poor families from the district, where enrollment is less than two-thirds of pre-Katrina levels; and (d) post-Katrina resources for the city's public schools have been significantly greater than before the hurricane. Bulkley does not disparage the New Orleans schools' possible improvement, but she cautions that without much more study, it cannot be used as a blueprint for school reforms elsewhere. "This report offers no strong evidence in support of the proposals it advocates," Bulkley concludes. While it might offer advocates of its approach a useful guide to implementing the reforms it proposes, the absence of meaningful research to support its conclusions "limits the use of this piece for policymakers or others trying to determine the best research-based strategies for improving urban schools." Find Katrina Bulkley's review and a link to Fix the City Schools on the web at: www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Katrina Bulkley (973) 655-5189; bulkleyk@mail.montclair.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Pay for Performance Summary This report claims that students in nations where teachers are paid on "merit" score higher on an international achievement test. Publication Date May 30, 2011 Authors Mattias von Davier, Education Testing Service Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release International merit pay study inadequate for making policy decisions, independent review finds March 31, 2011 Harvard PEPG study used 'unreliable and invalid' information to back up its conclusions EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 31, 2011) — A study promoting merit pay for teachers is flawed and should not be used to guide public policy decisions, according to an independent review released today. The study entitled, Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Performance Pay, was released by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance (an abridged version was also published in Education Next). The study claims that students in nations that use merit pay for teachers score higher on an international achievement test. The study was thoroughly reviewed by researcher Matthias von Davier, Ph.D., principal research scientist with the Education Testing Service, a nonprofit organization that develops, administers and scores tests in more than 180 countries. Von Davier, a research fellow at the University of Oxford, found that the study reached overly broad conclusions. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Von Davier said the study uses numbers that are "unreliable and invalid" and "leaves too many questions unanswered." He also found that the study compares apples and oranges, making comparisons between nations that have different standards and are socially, economically and culturally distinct. According to von Davier: Grade levels are ambiguous between nations. Some of the nations tested in the Education Next report have universal pre-school or kindergarten, while others don't. Different countries have different criteria for certifying teachers - some can become teachers after simply passing an oral exam, while others must undergo more rigorous education and testing. Merit pay methods differ by nation, with some merit pay decisions made by principals and others made by local or national authorities. The study also looked only at a small set of nations, resulting in simplistic generalizations. Removing just one nation from the set of 28 countries studied substantially skews the results. For example, von Davier found that by just removing Mexico from the Education Next study, the correlation between student performance and merit pay dropped to zero. "As a consequence, the study does not yield results powerful enough to support the adoption of a policy of performance pay," von Davier said. The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely and academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find von Davier's complete review and a link to Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Performance Pay at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The review is also available on the National Education Policy website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-pisa-performance-pay . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Teri Battaglieri – (517) 203-2940; greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Matthias von Davier: (609) 734-1717, mvondavier@ets.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipient's Family Income, 2009-10 Summary This report attempts to counter claims made by two AZ newspapers that the state's tuition tax credit voucher program has failed to increase private school access for low-income families. Publication Date November 17, 2010 Authors Casey D. Cobb, University of Connecticut Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi. (November 18, 2010) –A new review finds that a recent defense of an Arizona tax credit program to help students attend private schools uses sound and reasonable methods and offers useful information. But the review also notes limitations in the data and the report's overstated claims. The report, reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Casey D. Cobb of the University of Connecticut, was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Since 1998 Arizona has allowed state taxpayers to receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits by making donations to School Tuition Organizations (STOs) that provide voucher-like scholarships enabling students to attend private schools. Although the law does not currently require STOs to consider student financial need in making awards, a rationale for its initial adoption was to expand access to private schools for low-income families. Reports in two Arizona newspapers in 2009, however, exposed various abuses in the program and suggested that the program was not meeting the objective of serving lower-income families. In An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipients' Family Income, 2009-2010 School Year , published by the Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), Vickie E. Murray of the Pacific Research Institute collected survey data from STOs. The surveys sought information about the income levels of recipient families. Murray's report concludes that the scholarship/voucher recipients had a median family income of about $5,000 less than the statewide median, according to federal data. Murray also accuses the two papers, the Arizona Republic and the East Valley Tribune , of "sweeping allegations" that the program "disproportionately serves privileged students from higher income families..." In his review, Cobb takes issue with that latter characterization, finding from his own review of the cited newspaper articles no evidence of "careless or unsubstantiated" allegations in the news reports. He also notes that the articles uncovered abuses in the tuition tax credit program and that they did find the program "was not serving as many low-income students as was originally intended" – but that the "tenor of the language in the articles seemed much less extreme" than Murray's report suggested. As for Murray's survey of the STOs, Cobb credits the analysis for transparency and a demonstrated concern for accuracy and thoroughness. But he notes that the survey sample was not random. Instead, the report is based on a survey of 15 of Arizona's 51 STOs; the STOs that responded to the survey accounted for 79.4 percent of scholarships/vouchers awarded in 2009. This was a good response rate, because the largest STOs provided information, but Cobb discusses possible issues of biased data. He also points out that the survey didn't report information about the amount of scholarships awarded, linked to families' income levels. Thus, there's no way of telling whether the dollar value of scholarship awards to lower-income families was systemically greater or lesser than that of awards to higher-income families. Further, because the survey generated voluntary, self-reported data from STOs, it raises questions about accuracy and consistency. That may change for future research, he notes, thanks to the upcoming changes in the law that will "require more transparency in the reporting of scholarship information, including the percent of low-income recipients." Find Casey Cobb's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Cobb_AzTaxCredit.pdf . Find An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipients' Family Income, 2009-2010 School Year , by Vickie E. Murray, on the web at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-18_Murray.pdf . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-arizona-tax-credit . ### 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: Casey D. Cobb (860) 486-0253; casey.cobb@uconn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More