< 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 KIPP Middle Schools: Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes Summary A recent study from Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) suggests that KIPP (Knowledge Is Power Program) charter middle schools may actually boost test-score growth by as much as eight months to eleven months over a three year period. Publication Date April 30, 2013 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Gregory Camilli, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release What Makes KIPP Effective? Review examines a recent study by Mathematica Policy Research EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 30, 2013) – Despite inconsistent and often poor results, charter schools have been offered as a model for education reform. The Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) is one charter school program that has shown promising results that may provide information for scalability. A recent study from Mathematica Policy Research (MPR) suggests that KIPP middle schools may actually boost test-score growth by as much as eight months to eleven months over a three year period. A new academic review finds that the benefits are positive but overstated in terms of months of gain. The study, KIPP Middle Schools: Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes , concluded that the effects of KIPP were "large enough to be educationally meaningful." Gregory Camilli, University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the study for the Think Twice think tank review project. Camilli is an expert in the use of statistics and measurement in social science research. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Professor Camilli notes that the study was carefully planned and executed. "[The study] represents a thorough and ambitious attempt to evaluate the benefit to students of attending Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) middle schools from (primary) grade 5 to grade 8." Despite the careful execution, Camilli's review cautions that the results appear to be overstated for two reasons . Translating outcomes into "months" of additional learning is an inexact science and can lead to absurd results if taken literally. Reported measures of effectiveness that take attrition into account are smaller than the estimates used to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of KIPP. The review notes that the KIPP impact varied across schools, but the factors that set KIPP schools apart were not conclusively identified by MPR. Positive achievement outcomes were slightly correlated with a few organizational features of schools with some behavior issues. However, Camilli cautions "the correlations are too low to be taken as guidance for instructional policies." In terms of usefulness, Camilli's review is largely complimentary to the MPR study and concludes: "Future work evaluating the persistence of KIPP impact will be key to drawing a conclusive judgment of the educational significance of KIPP schooling." Find Camilli's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find KIPP Middle Schools: Impacts on Achievement and Other Outcomes on the web : http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/KIPP_middle.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also available on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- 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: Gregory Camilli, (303) 492-8391, g.camilli@colorado.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 Summary Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 provides vital scholarly analyses of virtual schools at a time of increased enthusiasm for moving schooling online, nationally and internationally. The report examines the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools. It also reviews the relevant available research related to virtual school practices, provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft virtual school policy, and offers policy recommendations based on the available evidence. Publication Date May 6, 2021 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Michael Barbour, Luis Huerta, and Jennifer King Rice Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Gary Miron: (269) 599-7965, gary.miron@wmich.edu Virtual School Enrollments Grow. Performance, Research Evidence, and Policymaking Missing in Action A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Virtual school performance lags behind brick-and-mortar schools. EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 6, 2021) - Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 provides vital scholarly analyses of virtual schools at a time of increased enthusiasm for moving schooling online, nationally and internationally. The report examines the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools. It also reviews the relevant available research related to virtual school practices, provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft virtual school policy, and offers policy recommendations based on the available evidence. A team of researchers led by Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Michael Barbour, Luis Huerta, and Jennifer King Rice found that enrollments in virtual schools have continued to climb, with 477 full-time virtual schools enrolling 332,379 students in 2019-2020. Yet this growth of the sector has continued despite scant research to support it and continued poor overall performance. Not only did the proportion of acceptable performance ratings for full-time virtual schools drop in 2019-2020 to 42.8%, but the average graduation rate of 54.6% for these schools falls well below the 85% overall average national graduation rate. Furthermore, the sector is dominated by for-profit providers. Although for-profit EMOs operated only 29.8% of full-time virtual schools, these schools enrolled 59.1% of all virtual school students. Policymakers have yet to adequately address six pressing areas of concern related to virtual schools: their governance, funding, accountability, curriculum, instruction quality, and teacher quality. Nor have policymakers figured out how to regulate virtual schools' student-teacher ratios or ensure that virtual schools provide access and an equitable education for every student. The report is organized into three sections: (1) Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance; (2) Research into Virtual and Blended Schools: A Lasting Legacy of Little Impact; and (3) Key Policy Issues in Virtual Schools: Finance and Governance, Instructional Quality, and Teacher Quality. Altogether, the report offers a number of recommendations for policymakers, including: Use performance data to inform funding decisions. Create goals for a comprehensive research program designed to help develop policy for, and improve practice in, virtual and blended schools. Identify and maintain data on teachers and instructional staff that will allow education leaders and policymakers to monitor staffing patterns and assess the quality and professional development needs of teachers in virtual schools. Develop new funding formulas based on the actual costs of operating virtual schools. Develop guidelines and governance mechanisms to ensure that virtual schools do not prioritize profit over student performance. Find Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2021 , by Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Michael Barbour, Luis Huerta, and Jennifer King Rice at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org This research brief was made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Guide to Contracting Out School Support Services: Good for the School? Good for the Community? 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 March 31, 2008 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors William J. Mathis, Ph.D., Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union Lorna Jimerson, Ed. D., Champlain Valley Union High School Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Urges Caution for Schools Contracting Out Support Services Outsourcing could save money, but it often costs more and can have negative effects on schools and communities EAST LANSING, Mich., (March 31, 2008)—Should transportation, food and custodial services be provided by employees of school districts, or should those services by outsourced to private companies? Does contracting out these services save the district money and add flexibility? According to a new report that takes an honest look at the evidence, the answer to each of these questions is, “sometimes, but many times not.” The report, A Guide to Contracting Out School Support Services: Good for the School? Good for the Community?, was funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice and was written by Drs. William J. Mathis and Lorna Jimerson. The authors are both experienced school administrators. Mathis, an adjunct associate professor of school finance at the University of Vermont, is superintendent of schools for the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union in Brandon, Vermont, and Jimerson, a former policy analyst with the Rural School and Community Trust, is a member of the school board for Vermont’s Champlain Valley Union High School and previous president of the Vermont School Boards Association. The policy brief is based on a review of research and commentary on the practice of contracting out support services and includes a series of recommendations directed at school administrators and school board members. Arguments for contracting out such services are many. Advocates view outside contractors as more likely to deliver their services at lower cost due to competition. Firms that specialize in a particular service, such as transportation or food, might enjoy economies of scale, with after-profit savings passed on to the school district and its taxpayers. Additionally, contractors might provide high-quality services as experts in their field. Mathis and Jimerson do not issue blanket praise or a blanket condemnation of contracting out. Instead, they point out that evidence is decidedly mixed on whether the practice necessarily saves schools money or otherwise offers improvements over having support services performed in house. For example, Mathis and Jimerson write, “Cost cutting is not a certain outcome,” pointing to case studies of contracting out vehicle or highway maintenance in Albany, N.Y., and in Massachusetts found costs increased by as much as 20 percent. Moreover, they contend, even when schools and school districts can save money by contracting out services, the practice can have mixed effects. These ramifications may complicate the decision of whether contracting out is the best solution for any particular school or district. Contracting out can result in hidden costs that reduce or eliminate whatever savings are promised. The practice can also result in problems with quality control, in greater demands on administrators who face the task of monitoring contracts, in the loss of control and restricted flexibility an outside contract may impose, and in social costs to communities in which schools operate, such as lower wages and reduced or eliminated benefits when contractors take over certain services. Mathis and Jimerson offer a series of recommendations aimed at schools and districts that are still deciding whether to contract out services. Other recommendations are aimed at schools and districts that have already decided to do so. Among other things the recommendations call on school officials to closely examine contracting out decisions and the details of proposed contracts. They conclude, “It is the requirement of school leaders to take a broad, expansive and careful look when considering these decisions.” The full policy brief is available 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: William J. Mathis (802) 247-5757; (email) WMathis@sover.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice Programs in America, 2023 Edition Summary The 2023 (fifth) edition of a semi-regular EdChoice report about school-choice studies is billed as an updated overview of the varied and often contested research on outcomes in voucher-like programs that provide public funding for private schools. But like earlier editions, it uses flawed methods that tally certain voucher studies finding impacts on any subgroup, even if there was no effect on most students. There is little to no accounting for the studies’ sampling, quality, generalizability, or other important factors. Publication Date October 12, 2023 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors EdChoice; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Simplistic Analysis of School Voucher Studies Results in an Incomplete and Misleading Report An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report uses flawed methods to "prove" that school choice works. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (October 12, 2023) - The 2023 (fifth) edition of a semi-regular EdChoice report about school-choice studies is billed as an updated overview of the varied and often contested research on outcomes in voucher-like programs that provide public funding for private schools. But like earlier editions, it uses flawed methods that tally certain voucher studies finding impacts on any subgroup, even if there was no effect on most students. There is little to no accounting for the studies’ sampling, quality, generalizability, or other important factors. Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University reviewed The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice Programs in America, 2023 Edition and found fault in its study-selection issues, a mis-weighting of studies of varied value, and a simplistic and often misleading design. The report examines research on student achievement, access, competitive effects, and other topics, purportedly to help policymakers and parents weigh the benefits and costs of these voucher programs. The report seeks to tally all the relevant studies meeting its criteria and summarize the findings in an easy-to-understand format. Through this "vote-counting" exercise, EdChoice claims to show that school choice "works," based on finding more positive than negative studies. Yet, as Professor Lubienski explains, vote-counting is a simplistic, flawed approach that obscures important differences in studies and can create a misleading narrative about the research evidence. Moreover, the report does not fully disclose its strategies for including studies, some of which are questionable. While it claims to present "the research" in a fair way, the report excludes or downplays research that is not as favorable to its agenda. In the end, this report is somewhat useful as a selective bibliography of studies, but the "vote-counting" methodology at the heart of the report seriously limits its use for evaluating these policies. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice Programs in America, 2023 Edition , published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/123s-of-School-Choice-WEB-07-10-23.pdf 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 Christopher Lubienski (812) 856-8389 clubiens@iu.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 19, 2016 Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, Richard V. Reeves, Edward Rodriguez; Erica Frankenberg, Penn State University College of Education 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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking - Addressing School Environment and Safety for LGBT Students Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research. Citing well-settled legal mandates, the brief makes it clear that school district employees must provide a safe and supporting learning environment for all students. The brief highlights a previous legislative brief authored by Stuart Biegel and Sheila James Kuehl, a collaboration between the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, with financial support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Publication Date May 23, 2013 Research Areas School Climate & Student Support Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Safety Remains A Concern for LGBT Students Research-based options for policymakers available to take corrective action through school policies and legislation EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 23, 2013) – All students in the United States have the right to be free of abuse, harassment, or attack at school – yet many students still face school safety issues because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Therefore, it is imperative that schools create healthy, welcoming environments, conducive to learning for all students. A new brief summarizes recent education policy research and offers suggestions to policymakers for addressing school environment and safety issues for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) youth. The ninth in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing relevant findings in education policy research provides recommendations about school climate, curriculum, and legislation. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), prepared the brief Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Addressing School Environment and Safety for LGBT Students . According to the brief, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found widespread harassment of LGBT youth in 2011. The survey found 81.9% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 38.3% reported being physically harassed, and 18.3% reported being physically assaulted. These are significant and troubling numbers but the good news is that the harassment and discrimination numbers are on the decline. Nevertheless, "Scholarship focusing on gay and gender-non-conforming youth consistently finds that large percentages of LGBT students in K-12 public schools are continuing to experience ongoing challenges above and beyond those of the typical adolescent, such as negative self-image." The majority of the harassed students did not report their abuse to school officials, believing they would take no action or it would make the situation worse. Citing well-settled legal mandates, the brief makes it clear that school district employees must provide a safe and supporting learning environment for all students. The brief highlights a previous legislative brief authored by Stuart Biegel and Sheila James Kuehl, a collaboration between the National Education Policy Center and the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, with financial support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Citing research by Biegel and Kuehl, Mathis spells out a series of affirmative steps in guiding principles and policy recommendations to ensure schools are welcoming and safe for LGBT students. Addressing school environment and safety requires advances in three key areas of school policy: school climate, curriculum and pedagogy, and school sports. Specific policy recommendations include: Ending discriminatory disciplinary practices and the inappropriate referral of LGBT students to special education. Developing and implementing LGBT-related professional development, locally determined and agreed upon by faculty and staff, for all school-site personnel. Encouraging student-athletes to participate in targeted programs such as initiatives addressing bullying and hate violence, as well as gay-straight alliances, safe zones, and wellness programs. Find this brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php Addressing School Environment and Safety for LGBT Students 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 Strengthening Oversight of Education Savings Account (ESA) Funding for Private and At-Home Schooling Summary The school-choice landscape in the United States is undergoing a rapid transformation, as states increasingly enact a new form of vouchers called Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Unlike earlier voucher programs, which generally allowed taxpayer subsidies only for private school tuition, ESAs represent a radically expansive-and potentially very costly-vision for the private use of public funds. ESA participants receive public monies via direct deposit and can use them for various expenses, including but also well beyond private school tuition and fees. Many states, in fact, allow these funds to be used for nearly any purportedly educational expense. ESA funds are thus widely dispersed among participants and private providers but, to date, require little or no oversight or accountability. Publication Date September 5, 2024 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Luis A. Huerta and Trevor Baisden, Teachers College, Columbia University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release The Expansion – and Risk – of Unrestricted Education Savings Account (ESA) Vouchers Key Takeaway: New policy brief examines the impact of large public subsidies for private and at-home education. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 5, 2024) - The school-choice landscape in the United States is undergoing a rapid transformation, as states increasingly enact a new form of vouchers called Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Unlike earlier voucher programs, which generally allowed taxpayer subsidies only for private school tuition, ESAs represent a radically expansive-and potentially very costly-vision for the private use of public funds. ESA participants receive public monies via direct deposit and can use them for various expenses, including but also well beyond private school tuition and fees. Many states, in fact, allow these funds to be used for nearly any purportedly educational expense. ESA funds are thus widely dispersed among participants and private providers but, to date, require little or no oversight or accountability. In a new NEPC policy brief, Strengthening Oversight of Education Savings Account (ESA) Funding for Private and At-Home Schooling , Luis A. Huerta and Trevor Baisden of Teachers College, Columbia University explore the evolution of these ESA programs, with attention to the policy characteristics that shape this large transfer of unrestricted public subsidies for private and at-home education. The authors describe how ESA programs have eschewed the aim of earlier vouchers to serve low-income families and are instead trending toward universal or near-universal participant eligibility. Unsurprisingly, then, these new public subsidies appear to be disproportionately used by affluent families who had already been paying for private education, according to initial evaluations of the programs. These are often students who had never enrolled in the public system, meaning that taxpayers are taking on new financial obligations for private education, imposing a significant burden on state education budgets. Yet, despite the growing use of public monies, ESA programs fail to provide robust programmatic oversight of this spending or meaningful accountability for the quality of education purchased with these funds. Interestingly, many homeschooling families who are skeptical of any governmental involvement in their children's education, have appeared hesitant to accept ESA funds. Similarly, many (though not all) state and national homeschool networks and advocacy organizations have actively opposed state ESA expansion, fearing that extending public subsidies to home school families will lead to public attention-and accountability-and ultimately impose limitations on absolute parental control. The broader private and at-home education landscape also presents more complicated dynamics surrounding ESAs than might be expected. At least some alternative-education providers, including a growing wave of microschools emerging post-COVID, share the skepticism of traditional homeschoolers. In contrast, many larger for-profit providers (having experienced profitable initial growth coupled with weak or no accountability for the use of public funds or for student learning outcomes) welcome the new taxpayer subsidy. They appear to recognize the revenue-generating potential of unrestricted ESA funds and seem poised to create a new, largely unregulated market of for-profit virtual, micro, and alternative schools propped up by taxpayers. One concern given this complicated landscape is that pro-ESA lawmakers will loosen already-lax governance of ESAs in an effort to overcome opposition to ESA expansion from some potential recipients and private providers, a move that would further undermine already-weak public oversight and accountability for taxpayer monies. Again, ESAs are already the least-regulated approach in the highly deregulated world of vouchers, where fiscal scandals have prompted calls for greater accountability in the existing school choice system. Given these problems as well as the dreadful academic outcomes of earlier vouchers on students' performance, particularly in mathematics, lawmakers might do well to make their highest priority tightening-if not abandoning-ESA expansion. The research evidence about the fiscal and educational impacts of previous voucher programs is extremely negative. But if, given the current political context, new expansions are inevitable, lawmakers must instead reject calls to weaken public authority over public funds and strengthen oversight and accountability over ESA programs. The authors' concluding recommendations detail how policymakers can ensure equitable access to a new landscape of providers for all students, increase fiscal oversight over taxpayer money, and develop robust governance and accountability structures to ensure public funds are actually supporting high-quality education. Find Strengthening Oversight of Education Savings Account (ESA) Funding for Private and At-Home Schooling , by Luis A. Huerta and Trevor Baisden, at: https://greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu Luis A. Huerta: (212) 678-4199 lah2013@tc.columbia.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 Spark & Sustain: How All the World's School Systems Can Improve Learning at Scale Summary McKinsey & Company released a new global report on education that provides guidelines for policy reforms and governance strategies offered as promoting significant and sustained improvement in students’ learning outcomes. A review of the report, however, identified weaknesses likely to compromise the robustness of its conclusions. Publication Date June 13, 2024 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Technology & AI; School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability Authors Jake Bryant, Felipe Child, Ezgi Demirdag, Emma Dorn, Stephen Hall, Kartik Jayaram, Charag Krishnan, Cheryl Lim, Emmy Liss, Kemi Onabanjo, Frédéric Panier, Juan Rebolledo, Jimmy Sarakatsannis, Doug; Clara Fontdevila, University of Glasgow; Antoni Verger, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona; and Adrián Zancajo, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Improving Student Learning Outcomes Weakened by Flawed Research An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report's usefulness is undermined by the lack of transparency and clarity in its methods and the limited robustness of its causal claims. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JUNE 13, 2024) - McKinsey & Company released a new global report on education that provides guidelines for policy reforms and governance strategies offered as promoting significant and sustained improvement in students' learning outcomes. A review of the report, however, identified weaknesses likely to compromise the robustness of its conclusions. Clara Fontdevila of the University of Glasgow, Antoni Verger of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, and Adrián Zancajo of the Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona reviewed Spark & Sustain: How All the World's School Systems Can Improve Learning at Scale . Their review identifies the main flaws that undermine the usefulness of the report's conclusions and recommendations. The report asserts a need to set certain conditions for advancing a reform agenda aimed at promoting gains in learning outcomes. However, the reviewers found significant analytic and methodological shortcomings that call into question the report's findings. For instance, the report doesn't consider counterfactual cases (e.g., countries that do not experience an improvement), which limits the report's capacity to establish causal links between the strategies identified and the improvement of learning outcomes. The report's usefulness is further weakened by the lack of specificity and universal scope of its recommendations and the superficial analysis of factors shaping implementation processes. Moreover, the reviewers conclude, the narrow focus on learning outcomes does not account for the diverse priorities and complex challenges most education systems face. Find the review, by Clara Fontdevila, Antoni Verger, and Adrián Zancajo, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Spark & Sustain: How All the World's School Systems Can Improve Learning at Scale , written by Jake Bryant, Felipe Child, Ezgi Demirdag, Emma Dorn, Stephen Hall, Kartik Jayaram, Charag Krishnan, Cheryl Lim, Emmy Liss, Kemi Onabanjo, Frédéric Panier, Juan Rebolledo, Jimmy Sarakatsannis, Doug Scott, Roman Tschupp, Seckin Ungur, and Pierre Vigin, and published by McKinsey & Company, at: https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/education/our-insights/spark-and-sustain-how-school-systems-can-improve-learning-at-scale 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 Antoni Verger: + 34 667 952 372 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Measures of Effective Teaching - Learning about Teaching: Initial Findings Summary This study indicates that classroom effectiveness can be reliably estimated by gauging students' progress on standardized tests. Publication Date January 13, 2011 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Jesse Rothstein, University of California at Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Gates Foundation report on teacher evaluations seriously flawed, leading economist finds January 13, 2011 'Measures of Effective Teaching' report is based on flawed research and predetermined conclusions, review shows Jesse Rothstein Teri Battaglieri EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 13, 2011) –— A report on teacher evaluations recently released by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been refuted by one of the nation's leading economists, who found the widely published report to be seriously flawed. The Gates Foundation last month released the first report of its "Measures of Effective Teaching" (MET) project, which aims to develop a reliable method for evaluating teachers. The report was thoroughly reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by University of California at Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. Rothstein, who is also former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, found the Gates Foundation's MET report to be based on flawed research and predetermined conclusions. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Rothstein's analysis found the MET report draws conclusions that are not supported by its own facts, with some data in the report pointing "in the opposite direction" from what is indicated in its "poorly-supported conclusions." Rothstein found several instances of conclusions not supported by data. One striking example: The MET report's data suggest that many teachers whose students have low math scores rank among the best at teaching "deeper" concepts. Yet the MET report draws the conclusion that teachers whose students score highly on standardized math tests "tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well." Rothstein also found that the MET report relies heavily on standardized test scores and student surveys, which are insufficient measurements of teacher effectiveness, as teachers facing high-stakes testing will emphasize skills and topics geared toward raising test scores, while de-emphasizing those that aren't on the test. High-stakes student surveys, meanwhile, can be distorted by mischievous adolescents who may not answer honestly if they know their responses can affect teachers' compensation and careers, while teachers may be compelled to alter their practice to cater to student demands, Rothstein reported. Find Rothstein's review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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/think-tank-reviews . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: 2009 Update Summary Belfield finds that the report offers valuable insights on the fiscal impact of voucher programs. However, he questions the benefits and notes that the report omits some important factors which are essential in order for a more complete analysis to be done. Publication Date January 1, 1970 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Voucher Cost Report Provides Useful Starting Point April 29, 2009 While report on Milwaukee program sheds light on vouchers' fiscal impact, it omits discussion of important factors EAST LANSING, MI (April 29, 2009)—A recent report finds that the Milwaukee voucher program offers a net savings to taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin but places a disproportionate financial burden on taxpayers in the city of Milwaukee. A new review concludes that the report offers valuable insights on the fiscal impact of voucher programs. However, it also questions the fiscal benefits and notes that the report omits some important factors essential to a more complete analysis. The report, The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program , was written by Robert Costrell for the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Dr. Clive Belfield of Queens College/City University of New York. Dr. Belfield is also co-director of the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Costrell’s report is an update of earlier work examining the funding formula of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), which provides vouchers to low-income families in the Milwaukee Public School system to attend private schools. Since its inception in 1990, MPCP has grown into the largest district voucher program in the U.S., enrolling upwards of 20,000 students in private secular and religious schools in the current academic year, at a cost to taxpayers of $6,607 per student in 2009. By comparing that cost to the projected cost of teaching those students in public schools—$9,462 for 2009—the report estimates a net public-sector savings of $37 million a year from the program. But, as Belfield notes, “the report also concludes that this net fiscal benefit is not allocated evenly.” Milwaukee taxpayers lose $45 million a year, while other property taxpayers save $52 million and state taxpayers save $30 million. So, while the end result is calculated as a $37 million gain, there are big winners and losers. Recent attempts to rectify the disparity by refining the state’s formulas for aid to the city school district have failed, the report concludes. The new report “is a useful guide to the financing of the MPCP,” Belfield writes in his review. “It makes clear how the funding systems in Milwaukee and Wisconsin operate and how they interact to yield a net resource transfer from the city to the state.” Despite this strength, Belfield writes in his review, the report falls short in some key areas. Its calculation of net taxpayer savings from vouchers assumes, based on only minimal evidence, that 90 percent of voucher students would have attended public schools without the voucher. Change that to 80 percent, however, and the savings fall, and if only 70 percent of voucher students switch from public schools—an assumption that isn’t unreasonable, Belfield notes—there are no net savings whatsoever. Thus, the report offers the precise number of $37 million in savings, but the true figure could be very different. Furthermore, Belfield writes, the Arkansas report does not take into account two other factors: 1) school districts costs incurred in the service of voucher students, such as transportation and administrative expenses, which would further reduce any voucher savings; and 2) the question of whether the education of voucher students costs less on average than that of the public school students who stay behind -- because, for example, the students who apply for vouchers are less likely to require special education services. “It is to the credit of this report that it makes clear the importance of analyzing the funding formula for vouchers in Milwaukee,” Belfield concludes. “However, it does not consider many of the possible policy ramifications for efficient and equitable implementation of voucher programs.” Find Clive Belfield’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Clive Belfield (718) 997-5448; Belfield@qc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More