< Back Review of The Long-Term Impact of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood Summary This report concludes that teachers whose students show high gains on standardized test scores continue to have a positive impact on the students later in the form of reduced teenage pregnancy rates, increased college attendance and increased future earnings. Ballou's review acknowledges that the report is impressive in many ways, but that important tests for bias were omitted and it failed to account for external factors which could impact test scores such as good parenting. Publication Date February 15, 2012 Authors Dale Ballou, Vanderbilt University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Highly-publicized study on long-term teacher effects omitted important tests for bias EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 16, 2012) — A highly publicized recent study concluded that elementary school teachers' so-called value-added effects on their students show up years later in those students' teenage pregnancy rates, college success and career earnings. A new review of that study found that while it is impressive in many ways, more evidence is needed to prove a key part of its case. The study, The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood, was authored by economists Raj Chetty, John Friedman and Jonah Rockoff. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Dale Ballou, an economist and professor of public policy and education at Vanderbilt University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Chetty, Friedman and Rockoff study was covered extensively in major newspapers and was cited in President Obama's State of the Union address. It has quickly become an important part of national discussions about how we should evaluate teachers. In particular, some policymakers believe that we should base decisions about teacher pay, retention and other considerations on the basis of how a teacher's students perform on standardized tests, measured using "value-added" approaches that attempt to isolate the effects of individual teachers on student growth. Past examinations of the value-added methodology have found that these analyses can vary widely based on even modest changes to the assumptions employed in the model or the assessment used. Teachers also have expressed concern that overreliance on test scores for teacher evaluations leads to a narrowing of the curriculum and teaching to the test. The new study merges IRS data with archival test-score data from a large urban district, using value-added modeling to estimate the short-term test score growth of the students of teachers in reading/language arts and mathematics in grades 4 through 8. It then looked at certain longer-term outcomes for those students. The researchers concluded that teachers who proved to be effective at raising test scores in either of those subjects also had positive effects on other student outcomes, even years later. According to Ballou, "The report claims that these positive outcomes are the result of having had higher value-added teachers, above and beyond any association that might arise for other reasons." The three economists support their conclusions regarding short-term effects with strong tests for systematic bias in the assignment of students to teachers. Those tests found that the value-added was estimated without bias. Family background factors that predict high test scores were not distributed in such a way as to systematically favor teachers with high value-added estimates. But Ballou explains that a similar set of tests is needed to establish that the estimated effect of high-value-added teachers on long-term outcomes is also free of bias. He writes: What is needed now is to test whether family background factors that predict long-term success in employment, college attendance, etc., are distributed in such a way as to favor high-value-added teachers. ... [T]he tests for bias need to be run again... The fact that similar tests have already validated the estimates of teacher value added does not imply that they are not needed to validate inferences about the impact of teachers on long-term outcomes. Indeed, it is probably even more important that these tests be conducted with respect to outcomes like earnings and the avoidance of teen pregnancy. Data available from tax returns are not likely to distinguish well between families that nurture the development of character and families that are much less successful in this task. Unobserved differences between families are likely to be very important. The way to test whether high-value-added teachers have been systematically assigned more students whose families are richer with respect to these unobservable factors is to conduct the quasi-experimental tests described above. Absent that, we will not know whether such differences were present and were the underlying reason for the observed association between teacher value-added and students' long-term success. "On this key point the report falls short," Ballou writes. "While some of these tests have been reported, much more evidence could have been presented to support this claim. The same kind of tests conducted to establish that value-added was estimated free of bias could have been applied to test the larger and more significant claim of this report: that high-value added teachers improve life outcomes many years after students have left their classrooms. In the absence of such evidence, it is premature to conclude that the report's central conclusions are correct." Find Dale Ballou's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers: Teacher Value-Added and Student Outcomes in Adulthood , by Raj Chetty, John N. Friedman, and Jonah E. Rockoff, on the web at: http://obs.rc.fas.harvard.edu/chetty/value_added.pdf . Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-long-term-impacts . --###-- 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: Dale Ballou, (615) 322-8039, dale.ballou@vanderbilt.edu Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case for school principals AND “School Leaders Matter” Summary This report attempted to estimate how much “high” and “low” effective principals affect student achievement. The study also explored patterns of change in the composition of schools’ teaching staffs, as well as the movement of principal talent across schools. Publication Date March 4, 2013 Authors Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Principal Report Has Limited Utility To Guide Policy and Practice, Review Finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 5, 2013) – The role of a principal as an educational leader is an important role in today's era of increased school accountability. A recent study published by the National Bureau of Economic Research attempted to estimate how much "high" and "low" effective principals affect student achievement. The study also explored patterns of change in the composition of schools' teaching staffs, as well as the movement of principal talent across schools. A new review of the study and of accompanying less-technical material published in Education Next found that estimating principal effectiveness is simply not possible given current methodology and sample size restrictions. Terry Orr, director of the Future School Leaders Academy at the Bank Street College of Education, reviewed Estimating the Effect of Leaders on Public Sector Productivity: The Case of School Principals , and a related article, "School Leaders Matter" from Education Next . Orr has published widely on school leadership preparation program and graduate evaluation, and served on New York State's Educator Evaluation taskforce. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Press related to the study's release claimed that data from Texas show that students can gain between two and seven months of additional learning in schools with "effective" principals. The researchers used three value-added models in their study. Orr's review confirmed the results "that principals have a positive, independent influence on achievement and that the size of this influence varies by school poverty rates." However, Orr found methodological flaws, which "raise serious questions about the actual effect sizes principals might register on student test scores and thus the validity of such analysis." Furthermore, Orr cites more recently released studies of value-added indicators of principal effectiveness, "All found that isolating principal effects requires controlling for school effects, which can only be done with principals who are new to the position who can be compared to prior principals of the same school." This is of concern, as multiple states have adopted principal evaluation systems that included similar estimates of principal effectiveness relative to changes in student test scores. Orr concludes, "Taken together, the report has limited utility to guide policy and practice." Find Estimating the Effect of Leaders on Public Sector Productivity: The Case of School Principals on the web: http://www.nber.org/papers/w17803 Find "School Leaders Matter" on the web: http://educationnext.org/school-leaders-matter/ Find the "Review of Two Articles on Principal Effects" by Terry Orr on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Margaret Terry Orr, (212) 875-4546, morr@bankstreet.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 Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications 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 September 9, 2008 Authors W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., National Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Research Areas Early Childhood Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (Sept. 10, 2008)—Amid a contentious debate over the value of preschool programs, a new policy brief, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications examines what researchers currently know about the short- and long-term effects of preschool. The brief concludes that preschool can strongly benefit children’s learning and development. But it also finds that the quality of programs varies dramatically and that increased public investment in preschool education should be focused on program designs that have been demonstrated to be highly effective. The policy brief is written by W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University in New Jersey. It was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Preschool programs have become increasingly common over the last several decades. Recommendations for or against various forms of universal, publicly funded preschool have emerged in the current presidential campaign. For example, Senator Barack Obama is proposing grants to encourage states to institute universal, voluntary preschool programs, while John McCain’s campaign has called for a more limited federal role, providing information and databases to help parents choose a preschool education program. Barnett’s brief offers a solid research foundation upon which this policy debate can proceed. In his brief, Barnett explains that well-designed preschool programs have been shown to produce long-term improvements in school success—raising students’ achievement test scores, reducing the rates of students being retained in grade, reducing the assignment of students to special education programs, and raising student educational attainment. He also finds that these well-designed programs are extraordinarily cost effective, with their long-term payoffs far exceeding their costs. The strongest evidence suggests that children from all socioeconomic backgrounds reap long-term benefits from preschool, Barnett says. And he notes that the strongest benefits are received by economically disadvantaged children. However, Barnett also warns that current public policies for child care, Head Start, and state pre-Kindergarten programs offer no assurance that American children will attend such highly effective preschool programs. Some attend no preschool and others attend educationally weak programs. Although there are exceptions, highly effective preschool programs are generally characterized by small class sizes and the use of well-educated, adequately paid teachers, and Barnett recommends that policymakers stick with those approaches. Preschool teachers should undergo intensive supervision and coaching and “should be involved in a continuous improvement process for teaching and learning.” Preschool programs also should regularly monitor children’s learning and development. Because preschool programs vary so much in quality, Barnett counsels against simply raising child care subsidies. Instead, he recommends greater public investment in effective preschool education programs, with a focus on state and local pre-K programs with high standards, which have been found to be the most effective. Such programs “need not be provided by public schools,” he notes; public, private and Head Start programs all “have produced similar results when operating with the same resources and standards as part of the same state pre-K program.” Finally, Barnett recommends that policies expanding preschool access to children under four give priority to disadvantaged children because an earlier start and longer duration appear to produce better results. Find Steve Barnett’s report, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: W. Steven Barnett – (732) 932-4350; wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Florida Formula for Student Achievement: Lessons for the Nation Summary The Bush presentation claims that six "reforms" caused gains in fourth-grade reading scores in Florida. Publication Date June 29, 2011 Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Jeb Bush's education foundation makes unsupported claims, ignores facts to push agenda Foundation for Excellence in Education's presentation makes numerous unsupported and unsupportable claims EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 30, 2011) — Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush's so-called education reforms that he's pushing through presentations to state lawmakers rest on unsupported claims and hand-picked evidence, according to a new academic review released today. Bush's presentation, "Florida's Formula for Student Achievement," was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by William J. Mathis, managing director of Colorado-Boulder's National Education Policy Center (NEPC). The review was produced by the NEPC with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Released under the banner of the Foundation for Excellence in Education, the Bush presentation claims that six "reforms" — assigning simplistic letter grades to schools; high-stakes testing; imposing new graduation requirements; bonus pay for teachers; alternative teacher credentialing; and schools of choice —caused gains in fourth-grade reading scores in Florida. Instead of a comprehensive and objective consideration of the impact of Florida's policies, Bush's presentation "is clearly an advocacy tool designed for advancing a particular set of reform proposals," Mathis wrote in his review. This has resulted in a misleading presentation, with Bush promoting several policies that reputable research has shown to be ineffective or even harmful. "Fundamentally, Mr. Bush's presentation is based on the fallacious causal claim that his selected set of loosely coupled reforms introduced in Florida between 1992 and 2011 caused fourth-grade reading score gains," Mathis wrote in his review. "No evidence is provided to sustain this linkage. Further, this claim ignores the fact that some of the favored reforms were implemented as late as 2010, and some are not yet implemented." Moreover, Bush's presentation resembles and shares graphics with a report by the Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank whose report has been repackaged for various states. The Heritage report's lead author is now on Bush's staff. Policymakers should ignore Bush's salesmanship and look instead to solid, objective research evidence, Mathis said. Find Mathis' review and a link to Bush's presentation at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Bush's Michigan presentation is available from the review's author. A similar PowerPoint presentation from Mr. Bush is available on the web at: http://www.excelined.org/docs/Oklahoma%20Education%20Presentation.pdf The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-florida-formula --###-- 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 . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William Mathis: (802) 383-0058, William.Mathis@colorado.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, TBattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

< Back The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar Summary An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. In his review, Peter W. Cookson, Jr. found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." Cookson further states: "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." Publication Date June 6, 2014 Authors Andrew Smarick & Juliet Squire; Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Georgetown University Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds State Education Agency report is earnest but oversimplifies Report called for less state involvement in school reform EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 17, 2014) – A recent report from the Fordham Institute and Bellwether Education Partners argues that states should get out of the reform business directly and hand it over to an "ecosystem of nonprofit organizations." It proposes a governance overhaul to replace the role of State Education Agencies in school improvement. An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. Peter W. Cookson, Jr. of Georgetown University reviewed The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report outlines the responsibilities of SEAs and suggests that they struggle to deliver. It cautions against strengthening SEAs to meet new accountability obligations. In his review, Cookson found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." He also calls into question the validity of the findings and recommendations, because the data are subjective in nature. Cookson says "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." On a positive note, Cookson says that the report "is a useful document for those who are engaged in educational reform because it lays out an argument for change that needs to be addressed honestly by those who support it and those who do not." In his conclusion, Cookson finds value in this flawed work because it pushes us to question our own unexamined assumptions. He says, "The report is an earnest attempt, but conflates the people's work with the work of reformers-for-hire." Read this review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar on the web: http://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-education-agency-at-the-helm-not-the-oar Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Peter W. Cookson, Jr., (202) 403-6203, pcookson@air.org Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines academic outcomes in Ohio’s nonprofit and for-profit charter schools. It also explores whether differences in contracted services in for-profits appear to correlate with differences in their outcomes. Publication Date November 30, 2022 Authors Stéphane Lavertu and Long Tran; Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University Research Areas School Funding; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release For-Profit Charter Schools in Ohio Get a Mixed Grade in an Honest Reading of Recent Study An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Much of the report's analysis would be impossible in states with weaker transparency laws, illustrating the necessity for oversight and transparency in all states with charter schools and non-traditionally managed schools supported by taxpayer dollars. EAST LANSING, MI (December 1, 2022) - A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines academic outcomes in Ohio's nonprofit and for-profit charter schools. It also explores whether differences in contracted services in for-profits appear to correlate with differences in their outcomes. Joshua Cowen of Michigan State University reviewed For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes and found a solid study accompanied by unfounded claims about the study's findings and significance. The study itself finds that for-profits typically contract for either staffing or other services and that those contracting for staffing perform especially poorly. Overall, it finds Ohio's charters to perform well, but it finds that for-profit schools perform slightly lower academically than their nonprofit counterparts, and they perform worse than traditional schools in some areas as well. Based on these findings, the report includes cautions about overregulation of for-profit charters but also raises concerns about virtual charters and charter schools that contract out for nearly all services. Those are the report's findings-but the report also includes an enthusiastic Foreword written by Fordham's leaders (as opposed to the report's authors). The Foreword departs from the study itself to draw the implication that charter schools should not be regulated "based on the [for-profit] tax status of their management organizations." In reality, the report includes negative findings such as fewer students in for-profit charters earning diplomas, and it reinforces concerns about for-profit schools—particularly those that contract out for staff. Professor Cowen also cautions that the report is limited in its focus on only Ohio, which has substantially more transparency than many states require for school choice options. He concludes that its relevance to policymakers is "mainly as a blueprint for the kind of oversight and transparency requirements all states with charter schools should require, and much of the Fordham analysis would be impossible in other states with weaker transparency laws." As a result, the report offers little to inform policy and practice in dissimilar or nationwide contexts. "Both the Fordham report and this NEPC review of it speak to the larger issue and indeed the larger problem of privatization in American education," said Professor Cowen. "Oversight and transparency requirements are enormously important." Find the review, by Joshua Cowen, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find For-Profit Charter Schools: An Evaluation of Their Spending and Outcomes , written by Stéphane Lavertu and Long Tran and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/for-profit-charter-schools-evaluation-spending-outcomes NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://greatlakescenter.org . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Joshua Cowen: (517) 355-2215, jcowen@msu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Segregation, Race, and Charter Schools: What Do We Know? Summary A report from the Center on Children and Families at Brookings attempted to compare various research findings on school segregation with a focus on expanding urban charter schools. The report argued that school quality is the primary determinant of student achievement, and that instead of addressing school segregation, policy should focus on improving the schools that students of color and low-income students attend. Publication Date December 18, 2016 Authors Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst, Richard V. Reeves, Edward Rodriguez; Erica Frankenberg, Penn State University College of Education Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Recent report on school integration has limited utility for policymakers, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 19, 2016) - An October report from the Center on Children and Families at Brookings attempted to compare various research findings on school segregation with a focus on expanding urban charter schools. The report argued that school quality is the primary determinant of student achievement, and that instead of addressing school segregation, policy should focus on improving the schools that students of color and low-income students attend. However, an academic review of the report finds the report has limited use for policymakers. Erica Frankenberg, Penn State University College of Education, reviewed the report, Segregation, Race, and Charter Schools: What Do We Know? , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Dr. Frankenberg's research has examined how the design of school choice policy affects racial and economic student stratification. This has included examining the segregation trends in charter schools as well as analyzing state and federal policy to understand why such patterns of segregation exist in charter schools. Overall, Frankenberg says, "This report is more a distraction than a contribution." Despite its claimed attempt to investigate research findings on school segregation, the report suggests that policy attend to school quality via school choice. In her review, Frankenberg finds that the report presents a false choice between school integration and creating high-quality urban charter schools. She indicates that the report is limited because of its selective review and interpretation of the literature on race and poverty, and its questionable conclusions that are not reflective of the research consensus. Frankenberg concludes, "because most forms of school choice further segregation, the report's recommendation will likely only further segregation and inequality for students." Find the full review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can find the original report from Brookings on the web at: https://www.brookings.edu/research/segregation-race-and-charter-schools-what-do-we-know/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Erica Frankenberg, (814) 865-5862, euf10@psu.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good Summary A new NEPC policy brief, Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good, warns of the dangers of unregulated AI in schools, highlighting democracy and privacy concerns. Authors Ben Williamson of the University of Edinburgh, and Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder, examine the evidence and conclude that the proliferation of AI in schools jeopardizes democratic values and personal freedoms. Publication Date March 4, 2024 Authors Ben Williamson, University of Edinburgh; Alex Molnar, University of Colorado Boulder; Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights; Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Issues Urgent Call for Responsible Oversight of AI in Schools Key Takeaway: The current wholesale adoption of unregulated Artificial Intelligence applications in schools poses a grave danger to democratic civil society and to individual freedom and liberty. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (March 5, 2024) - Disregarding their own widely publicized appeals for regulating and slowing implementation of artificial intelligence (AI), leading tech giants like Google, Microsoft, and Meta are instead racing to evade regulation and incorporate AI into their platforms. A new NEPC policy brief, Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good , warns of the dangers of unregulated AI in schools, highlighting democracy and privacy concerns. Authors Ben Williamson of the University of Edinburgh, and Alex Molnar and Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder, examine the evidence and conclude that the proliferation of AI in schools jeopardizes democratic values and personal freedoms. Public education is a public and private good that's essential to democratic civic life. The public must, therefore, be able to provide meaningful direction over schools through transparent democratic governance structures. Yet important discussions about AI's potentially negative impacts on education are being overwhelmed by relentless rhetoric promoting its purported ability to positively transform teaching and learning. The result is that AI, with little public oversight, is on the verge of becoming a routine and overriding presence in schools. Years of warnings and precedents have highlighted the risks posed by the widespread use of pre-AI digital technologies in education, which have obscured decision-making and enabled student data exploitation. Without effective public oversight, the introduction of opaque and unproven AI systems and applications will likely exacerbate these problems. The authors explore the harms likely if lawmakers and others do not step in with carefully considered regulations. Integration of AI can degrade teacher-student relationships, corrupt curriculum with misinformation, encourage student performance bias, and lock schools into a system of expensive corporate technology. Further, they contend, AI is likely to exacerbate violations of student privacy, increase surveillance, and further reduce the transparency and accountability of educational decision-making. The authors advise that without responsible development and regulation, these opaque AI models and applications will become enmeshed in routine school processes. This will force students and teachers to become involuntary test subjects in a giant experiment in automated instruction and administration that is sure to be rife with unintended consequences and potentially negative effects. Once enmeshed, the only way to disentangle from AI would be to completely dismantle those systems. The policy brief concludes by suggesting measures to prevent these extensive risks. Perhaps most importantly, the authors urge school leaders to pause the adoption of AI applications until policymakers have had sufficient time to thoroughly educate themselves and develop legislation and policies ensuring effective public oversight and control of its school applications. Find Time for a Pause: Without Effective Public Oversight, AI in Schools Will Do More Harm Than Good , by Ben Williamson, Alex Molnar, and Faith Boninger, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu Ben Williamson: , 011-44-0131-651-6176 ben.williamson@ed.ac.uk Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Better Evidence, Better Choices, Better Schools: State Supports for Evidence-Based School Improvement Summary The Center for American Progress (CAP) and Knowledge Alliance released a report on the evidence-based provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The report called for a shift away from federal mandates toward greater state and local autonomy. It sought to provide guidance for school districts seeking to make decisions based on evidence to improve their lowest performing schools. And lastly, the report offered eight key recommendations for implementing evidence-based strategies. Publication Date January 11, 2017 Authors Steve Fleischman, Caitlin Scott, and Scott Sargrad; Terri S. Wilson, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ESSA Report Raises Important Issues, Leaves More Difficult Questions Unexplored EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 12, 2017) — Last fall, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Knowledge Alliance released a report on the evidence-based provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The report called for a shift away from federal mandates toward greater state and local autonomy. Unfortunately, the advice provided to practitioners lacked evidence and specifics. According to a review released today, the report is methodologically weak, despite raising several important issues on evidence-based school improvement practices. The report sought to provide guidance for school districts seeking to make decisions based on evidence to improve their lowest performing schools. Terri S. Wilson, University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Better Evidence, Better Choices, Better Schools: State Supports for Evidence-Based School Improvement for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Wilson, in her review, finds that the report raises a number of important issues regarding the implementation of ESSA, yet the guidance offered to practitioners is "vague and unsubstantiated." The report offered eight key recommendations for implementing evidence-based strategies. Despite this, Wilson finds: "While helpful general pieces of advice, these recommendations remain relatively vague and are grounded in neither the existing research literature nor the empirical study featured in the report." Wilson accepts that evidenced-based policy is an idea that is easy to agree with, but important questions must be tackled as states begin implementing ESSA. Most notably, she raises two important questions: (1) what counts as evidence; and (2) who is able (and authorized) to determine what kinds of evidence are most relevant to local contexts? In her conclusion, Wilson suggests that practitioners seek new models and research that may better address the challenges identified in this report. Find the full review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can find the original report on the web at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2016/08/31/143223/better-evidence-better-choices-better-schools/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu -###- Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Terri S. Wilson , (303) 492-5785, terri.wilson@colorado.edu Daniel Quinn , (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

Our Mission Our mission is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Our Board of Directors Peggy Wirtz-Olsen Board President President, Wisconsin Education Association Jennifer Smith-Margraf Board Vice President President, Indiana State Teachers Association Daniel Holub Secretary-Treasurer Director of Research & Economic Services, New Jersey Education Association Steve Beatty Trustee President, New Jersey Education Association Jason Burns Trustee Midwest Director, National Education Association Monica Byron Trustee President, Education Minnesota Robert Callendar Trustee Vice President MEA Airica Clay Trustee Executive Director, Ohio Education Association Erik Edoff Trustee Executive Director, Michigan Education Association Karl Goeke Trustee President, Illinois Education Association Carrie Lucking Trustee Executive Director, Education Minnesota Chandra Madafferi Trustee President , Michigan Education Association Ronald "Duff" Martin Trustee Director, NEA Executive Committee Stacey Pelika Trustee Director of Research, National Education Association Mike Shoudy Trustee Executive Director, Illinois Education Association Brett Smith Trustee Vice President, Michigan Education Association Jeff Wensig Trustee President, Ohio Education Association Nate Williams Trustee Executive Director, Indiana State Teachers Association Staff Maddie Fennell Executive Director Cheryl Cherry Executive Assistant Jen Hyman Communications Consultant

< Back Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong/Fixing the Currently Biased State K-12 Education Rankings Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date November 26, 2018 Authors Stan J. Liebowitz and Matthew L. Kelly; Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release BOULDER, CO (November 27, 2018) – The Reason Foundation recently published a policy brief that offers an alternative ranking of states' education systems. The brief, which was based on a working paper from the Department of Finance and Managerial Economics at the University of Texas at Dallas, purports to offer needed adjustments and nuance, but makes its own serious mistakes, according to a new review. Rutgers professor Bruce D. Baker reviewed Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong and the underlying working paper, Fixing the Currently Biased State K-12 Education Rankings. He found the analyses provided did little or nothing to advance the conversation about the effectiveness of state education systems. The twin reports begin with the presumption that high average test scores combined with lower school spending should be the basis for state rankings, which are reasonable premises, depending upon how the analyses are approached. But the reports then head off the rails, Professor Baker explains. Offering a 'corrected' representation of student outcomes and a crude analysis asserting that spending has no relation to those outcomes, the reports declare states such as New Jersey and Vermont to be poor-performing, highly inefficient systems by comparison to many states. The reports then estimate a regression model and assert that the higher performing states are those with (a) weaker teachers' unions and (b) more children in charter schools. However, Baker's review details how the reports' so-called corrections involved unreasonable and illogical assumptions and adjustments. For example, the reports re-weight racial and ethnic subgroups so that it inappropriately places equal weight in states like Vermont or Wyoming on students comprising 1 to 2% of the population as the other 98 to 99%. Other problems concern a decision to ignore economic status entirely and a poorly executed adjustment for cost of living. Regressing multiple, highly related, interdependent measures against a specious outcome measure leads to even more suspect findings and, Baker concludes, would only mislead policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Everything You Know About State Education Rankings Is Wrong, written by Stan J. Liebowitz and Matthew L. Kelly and published by the Reason Foundation, at: https://reason.com/archives/2018/10/07/everything-you-know-about-stat Find Fixing the Currently Biased State K-12 Education Rankings , written by Stan J. Liebowitz and Matthew L. Kelly and published by the Department of Finance and Managerial Economics at the University of Texas at Dallas at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3185152 About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More