< Back Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States Summary American public education faces an escalating challenge: the rise of Christian nationalism. This movement entwines politics and religion, insisting the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed by rigid hierarchies under the Christian God. A new policy brief explores the political and ideological effects this movement has on education policy. Publication Date November 4, 2025 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Kevin Burke, University of Georgia; Heidi Hadley, Auburn University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States NOVEMBER 4, 2025 Policy Brief Explores How Christian Nationalism Is Changing Public Education Key Takeaway: New brief warns of growing efforts to reshape schools around White Christian nationalist ideology. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (NOVEMBER 4, 2025) - American public education faces an escalating challenge: the rise of Christian nationalism. This movement entwines politics and religion, insisting the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed by rigid hierarchies under the Christian God. A new policy brief explores the political and ideological effects this movement has on education policy. The brief, Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States , is authored by Kevin Burke of the University of Georgia and Heidi Hadley of Auburn University. It examines the movement's history, foundation, goals and impact on American politics, society and life, and it provides suggestions for educational policymakers. Christian nationalists view public education as a battleground for advancing their values, justifying nearly any means to impose Christian priorities in schools. Their influence is evident in book bans, parental choice campaigns, and school board takeovers, supported by right-wing networks and bolstered by recent Supreme Court rulings. President Trump's second term, aligned with the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 , has accelerated this agenda at the federal level, emboldening Republican-controlled states to enact White Christian nationalist education policies. Activists, funded by political action committees and conservative organizations, continue to push school boards toward policies aligned with their ideological vision. At stake, the report warns, is more than a mere series of isolated policy disputes. These conflicts point to a fundamental struggle over whether the United States will remain a pluralistic democracy or move toward a theocracy rooted in a narrow Christian theology. State lawmakers, it concludes, must help the public understand these stakes by requiring publicly funded schools to disclose which groups of people and what academic content are excluded under such ideologies. Noting the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk and the subsequent attacks on free speech by the Trump administration, the report's authors said that now is the time when we most need to protect freedom of inquiry while repudiating terror at the hands of the state and individual actors. "This brief was authored in a time of escalating political violence and very real attacks on liberal democracy," Burke said. "Heidi and I hope that Americans can come to resist the fruits of hatred and seek strength in the pluralism of our society." Find Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States , by Kevin J. Burke and Heidi Hadley, 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 Kevin J. Burke burkekq@uga.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Promises and Pitfalls of Alternative Teacher Compensation Approaches Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date April 23, 2007 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Debbi C. Harris - Wisconsin Center for Education Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report cautions policy makers against simplistic pay solutions EAST LANSING, Mich., April 23, 2007 – Merit pay systems for teachers, although currently enjoying renewed popularity with policy makers, are not a panacea according to a new policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (GLC). The brief, “Promises and Pitfalls of Alternative Teacher Compensation Approaches,” is by Debbi C. Harris, Ph.D and is one in a series of briefs on education issues funded by the GLC. In her brief, Harris explores the three main types of teacher compensation systems used in the U.S. They are the uniform salary schedule which is used in most districts, as well as two types of merit-pay systems: performance-based and outcome-based. She notes that though there are advantages to each approach, there are also adverse, often unintended, consequences to each system as well. In contrast to the uniform salary schedule that rewards years of experience and additional education for teachers, merit pay programs are typically structured to reward teacher behaviors and activities that are believed to be associated with higher student achievement, or to reward outcomes, usually measured by students’ test scores. Recently, several states have instituted statewide merit pay plans, and the federal government is offering grants to implement such plans. Various districts also have noteworthy merit pay plans. Harris, however, describes a troubled history for merit pay plans, which have surfaced repeatedly over the last century, only to be discontinued over time. Harris’s policy brief does not endorse any particular compensation system, and it carefully explains each system’s strengths and weaknesses. In addition, Harris makes specific recommendations to policy makers interested in restructuring teacher pay systems. Particularly important, says Harris, is that policy makers must fully account for the inevitable complexity, costs and tradeoffs of any particular compensation system. The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Debbi C. Harris (850)445-1306; dch323@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Adding Up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and Philanthropy among New York City Charter Schools Summary Adding Up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and Philanthropy Among New York City Charter Schools analyzes the financial resources available to charter schools and also looks at their performance on state standardized tests. The study concludes that while NYC charter spending varies widely and seems to depend upon access to private donations, they are not underfunded compared with traditional public schools. Further, on average NYC charters are not out-performing traditional public schools and there doesn’t appear to be a connection between charter funding and test scores. Publication Date January 27, 2011 Research Areas School Funding Authors Bruce Baker and Richard Ferris, Rutgers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Rutgers report dispels many myths about charters' funding and performance EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 27, 2011) — In a blow to conventional wisdom, New York City charter schools are not outperforming traditional public schools and are not inadequately funded, according to a new study out of Rutgers University. New York City charter schools are often held up as an example of how charter schools are outperforming traditional public schools and doing it with less money, which in turn is used to justify increased public funding for charters. Such assumptions do not hold water, according to the study, "Adding Up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and Philanthropy among New York City Charter Schools," authored by Rutgers education professor Bruce Baker and Rutgers doctoral student Richard Ferris. The study was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The study shows that New York City charter schools are not underfunded compared with traditional public schools. One reason for this is because the city's charter schools serve a much smaller percentage of students who are very poor or still learning English. These populations require far more resources, and they must be accounted for when making comparisons between charters and non-charters, Baker and Ferris noted. "The assumption that these charter schools should receive support equal to traditional public schools is incorrect, because they do not serve similar populations," Baker and Ferris wrote. Baker and Ferris also found significant funding disparities among New York City charter schools. While some charters receive almost no private funding, the most endowed charter schools receive in excess of $10,000 more per-pupil compared with traditional schools. The study also found that on average, charter schools are not outperforming traditional public schools. After controlling for population and environmental factors, there is no statistically significant difference between charters and non-charters in performance for grades 4, 6 and 7. Meanwhile, 5th-grade charter school students underperformed their peers enrolled in traditional public schools, according to the study. Based on their research, Baker and Ferris recommend that public funding be more tightly linked to the needs to students attending all schools, whether they're traditional public schools or charter schools. The researchers also suggest policymakers conduct annual audits of school funding levels and perhaps consider sanctioning schools that fail to adequately serve students with greater needs. To read Baker and Ferris' full report, go to: www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The report is also available on the National Education Policy Center's website at http://nepc.colorado.edu . --###-- 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: Bruce Baker: (732) 932-7496 ext. 8232 or bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940 or greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effect of Co-locations on Student Achievement in NYC Public Schools Summary The report from the Manhattan Institute investigated the effect of colocations of charter schools and traditional public schools on a narrow range of standardized test scores. It focused on students' test scores and looked at fourth through eighth grade ELA and math standardized assessment gains. Colocation was not found to have a significant impact on students' test scores. Publication Date April 15, 2014 Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Marcus A. Winters; Tina Trujillo and Marialena Rivera, UC-Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NYC Charter Co-location Report Provides Little Help to Policymakers Think Twice review reveals limitations EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 15, 2014) – A recent report by Marcus Winters of the Manhattan Institute argues that co-locations of charter schools with traditional public schools have no statistical impact on traditional public school achievement in New York City. However, a review of the report out today finds that the report omitted important details about its analysis, which provides little help to policymakers attempting to evaluate the effects of co-locations. The report, The Effect of Co-locations on Student Achievement in NYC Public Schools , attempts to determine whether co-locations influence school academic outcomes. Tina Trujillo, assistant professor at University of California Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education, and Marialena Rivera, a doctoral student, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The reviewers found that the report omits important details about its analysis, thereby making its validity difficult to determine. Additionally, the report narrowly focuses on standardized test scores as the ultimate outcome of schooling, neglecting important outcomes related to socio-emotional development, safety, health, and broader academic experiences. The report suffers from three major limitations: It does not adequately build on existing research or background information The analysis is poorly documented, lacking sufficient methodological transparency It perpetrates an overly narrow focus on standardized test scores as the ultimate outcome of schooling Trujillo and Rivera note in their review that the report takes on several complicated research questions that are not easily answered. However, because of a lack of transparency behind the design and analysis, the report requires a certain amount of trustworthiness. Given the limitations of the report, the authors conclude “neither policymakers nor practitioners can use this report to make informed decisions about the effects of co-location on students’ educational experiences and outcomes, both of which are inextricably linked with their opportunities for and access to high-quality conditions for teaching and learning.” Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Effect of Co-locations on Student Achievement in NYC Public Schools on the web: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_85.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publication. The project is made possible with 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: Tina Trujillo, (510) 517-0874, trujillo@berkeley.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 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 ESA's in Arizona: Q3 2025 Report Summary A recent report from the Common Sense Institute (CSI) addresses two important policy questions about Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program: 1) how much the ESA program will cost in the upcoming year, and 2) what the demographic characteristics of ESA users are by household income and race/ethnicity. Publication Date December 4, 2025 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Glenn Farley; David Garcia, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Reviewer Advises Caution on New Report That Examines Cost and Demographics of Arizona's ESA Program DECEMBER 4, 2025 Reviewer Advises Caution on New Report That Examines Cost and Demographics of Arizona's ESA Program An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Findings suggest the ESA program is "essentially fully subscribed," but limited data and past volatility warrant continued wariness from policymakers. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (DECEMBER 4, 2025) - A recent report from the Common Sense Institute (CSI) addresses two important policy questions about Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program: 1) how much the ESA program will cost in the upcoming year, and 2) what the demographic characteristics of ESA users are by household income and race/ethnicity. David Garcia of Arizona State University reviewed ESA's in Arizona: Q3 2025 Report . He determined that, given the limited data available about the program's volatility, policymakers should not be lulled into thinking that the major financial hits to the state's budget are in the past. This view runs contrary to the report's conclusion that the ESA program is now "essentially fully subscribed," meaning the rapid, runaway growth in students and costs observed over the past two years is not expected to continue. The report further reasons that, at this point in the policy's implementation, ESA costs are largely offset by declines in public school enrollment. Again, Prof. Garcia explains that the situation is too volatile to reliably make such predictions. On student demographics, the report finds that the typical ESA student comes from a middle-income Arizona household and that ESA users generally resemble the state's overall K-12 population by race and ethnicity. Yet the report's own analysis shows that ESA students are considerably more white than Arizona's public-school students, complicating the narrative that the program fully reflects the state's diversity. This new report follows three earlier quarterly CSI analyses released over the past year, each addressing essentially the same questions about cost and user characteristics. While the Q3 report does not break new ground relative to the prior versions, the frequency of these reports underscores both the urgency surrounding Arizona's ESA program and the ongoing uneasiness about its future fiscal impact. Prof. Garcia concludes that, despite its efforts to suggest that the dust has settled following the universal expansion and subsequent runaway growth of the program, the report is ultimately constrained by limited data, and policymakers should not assume that Arizona has weathered all the significant budget impacts. Find the review, by David R. Garcia, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find ESA's in Arizona: Q3 2025 Report , written by Glenn Farley and published by Common Sense Institute Arizona, at: https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/arizona/research/education/esas-in-arizona-q3-2025-report NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . David R. Garcia david.garcia@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Empowering Parents with School Choice Reduces Wokeism in Education Summary In one of the more unusual reports NEPC has ever reviewed, Heritage Foundation authors recently argued for school-choice deregulation by comparing the amount of "wokeness" terminology in parent/student handbooks in U.S. charter schools with the level of charter school regulation in their states. The Heritage report finds that increased manifestations of "woke" terminology are associated with higher state levels of charter school regulation. On this basis, the report concludes that while charter schools represent a safe space away from "woke indoctrination" in public schools, further deregulation and less bureaucracy will allow the charter sector to truly respond to parent desires to avoid "leftist" curriculum. Publication Date January 24, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Jay P. Greene and Ian S. Kingsbury; Christine Sleeter, California State University Monterey Bay; and T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Searches for "Wokeness" Terminology to Justify Deregulated School Choice An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Shoddy advocacy report attempts to justify deregulation of the charter school sector for the purpose of decreasing "wokeism" in charter schools. EAST LANSING, MI (January 17, 2023) - BOULDER, CO (January 24, 2023)—In one of the more unusual reports NEPC has ever reviewed, Heritage Foundation authors recently argued for school-choice deregulation by comparing the amount of "wokeness" terminology in parent/student handbooks in U.S. charter schools with the level of charter school regulation in their states. Christine Sleeter of California State University Monterey Bay and T. Jameson Brewer of the University of North Georgia reviewed Empowering Parents with School Choice Reduces Wokeism in Education and found significant flaws in reasoning, even beyond the report’s disconcerting premise. The Heritage report finds that increased manifestations of "woke" terminology are associated with higher state levels of charter school regulation. On this basis, the report concludes that while charter schools represent a safe space away from "woke indoctrination" in public schools, further deregulation and less bureaucracy will allow the charter sector to truly respond to parent desires to avoid "leftist" curriculum. Notwithstanding its provocative thesis, apparently intended to tap into current turmoil, the report has at least five significant weaknesses. It assumes that parent/student handbooks are good proxies for curriculum; it completely ignores the diversity of parents and relevant research about what large proportions of parents actually want; it conflates correlation with causation; it relies on undefined conceptions of what constitutes "wokeness"; and it possibly uses cherry-picked data and methods that suit ideological bias. These shortcomings render the report useless for understanding or developing policy. Instead, the report serves merely as an example of strategically employing dog whistles and fear, embedded in shoddy methodology for the sole purpose of affirming a solution (school choice) in search of a problem ("wokeness"). Find the review, by Christine Sleeter and T. Jameson Brewer, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find Empowering Parents with School Choice Reduces Wokeism in Education , written by Jay P. Greene and Ian S. Kingsbury and published by the Heritage Foundation, at: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2022-11/BG3735.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces 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 research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Christine Sleeter: (831) 915-3876 , csleeter@gmail.com 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 December 1, 2022 Research Areas School Funding; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI Authors Stéphane Lavertu and Long Tran; Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University 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 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