< Back Measuring School Turnaround Success Summary A report produced by Public Impact for WestEd’s Center on School Turnaround asserted that because there is a lack of a shared definition of school turnaround success for states and districts, it is difficult for school districts to learn from one another. The report claimed to provide a model for defining school turnaround success. The report bases its model framework for determining turnaround success on three school-level measures: (1) proficiency in reading and math on state assessments; (2) growth in reading and math on state assessments; and (3) graduate rate (for high schools). Publication Date July 20, 2016 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors Cassie Lutterloh, Jeanette P. Cornier, & Bryan C. Hassel; Tina Trujillo, University of California Berkeley; and Marialena Rivera, Texas State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Policymakers and Practitioners Will Find Little Worthwhile Guidance from School Turnaround Report, Academic Review Finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jul. 19, 2016) — A report produced by Public Impact for WestEd's Center on School Turnaround asserted that because there is a lack of a shared definition of school turnaround success for states and districts, it is difficult for school districts to learn from one another. The report claimed to provide a model for defining school turnaround success. However, an academic review finds the report deficient in several key areas. Tina Trujillo, University of California Berkeley, and Marialena Rivera, Texas State University, reviewed the report, Measuring School Turnaround Success, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report bases its model framework for determining turnaround success on three school-level measures: (1) proficiency in reading and math on state assessments; (2) growth in reading and math on state assessments; and (3) graduate rate (for high schools). Unfortunately, Trujillo and Rivera find following shortcomings: Sufficient research evidence for the claims made is not presented in the report; It lacks sound methodological techniques; and It omits several rigorous, peer-reviewed studies that contradict a majority of its proposals. Despite the report's claim that it provides model that goes "beyond student achievement," Trujillo and Rivera found that it actually focused largely on standardized test scores. The reviewers explain that focusing primarily on standardized test scores distracts from other school goals, including: civic, social, emotional, and broader academic ones. Despite the shortcomings present in the report, the reviewers do acknowledge that the report does move the conversation toward a new theory of action for school turnaround, but falls short of achieving its goals. The review concludes that the proposed model continues the trend of relying on flawed, test-centered strategies: "Unfortunately, policymakers and practitioners looking for guidance on measuring turnaround success will not just find little worthwhile recommendations in this report, they will encounter several misguided ones, such as focusing heavily on standardized test scores and using percentile ranks, that are contradicted by solid evidence." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Measuring School Turnaround Success on the web: http://centeronschoolturnaround.org/measuring-school-turnaround-success/ 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: Tina Trujillo, (510) 517-0874, trujillo@berkeley.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 Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report on Implementation and Impact of Pay-for-Performance Across Four Years Summary The final report from a four-year evaluation of 2010 Teacher Incentive Fund grant recipients was released late in 2017. The evaluation project sought to determine whether pay-for-performance (PFP) bonuses for teachers and principals resulted in improved student achievement. The final report found that test scores in reading and math increased slightly among the 2010 TIF recipients. It also found that the incentives were associated with higher classroom observation ratings, but the report found no association between test scores and observation ratings. Findings also indicated that the incentives had no effect on filling teacher vacancies. Publication Date February 27, 2018 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Hanley Chiang, Cecilia Speroni, Mariesa Herrmann, Kristin Hallgren, Paul Burkander, and Alison Wellington; Francesca López, University of Arizona Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Promising pay-for-performance evaluation suffers problematic issues in analyses, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 27, 2018) — The final report from a four-year evaluation of 2010 Teacher Incentive Fund grant recipients was released late in 2017. The evaluation project sought to determine whether pay-for-performance (PFP) bonuses for teachers and principals resulted in improved student achievement. An academic review of the report released today finds that the report lacks utility for those seeking to learn from the implementation of PFP. Francesca López , an associate professor of educational policy studies at the University of Arizona, reviewed the report, Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final Report on Implementation and Impact of Pay-for-Performance Across Four Years , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Commissioned by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) and produced by Mathematica Policy Research (MPR), the report was part of a seven-year $13.9 million study. The study was required as part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). The final report found that test scores in reading and math increased slightly among the 2010 TIF recipients. It also found that the incentives were associated with higher classroom observation ratings, but the report found no association between test scores and observation ratings. Findings also indicated that the incentives had no effect on filling teacher vacancies. Despite the potentially interesting findings on the varied impact of the TIF program recipients, López in her review found several problematic issues with the analyses in the report. Because the report used non-comparable sites and incorporated a "polyglot of outcome measures of questionable validity," she finds the report is of little use to policymakers seeking to learn from implementation of TIF. López writes, "Although several thorough analyses are presented, the data do not support the report's suggestion that PFP holds promise to address achievement disparities." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original MPR evaluation here: https://tinyurl.com/y83mue46 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 publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. You can also find the review 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: Francesca López, (520) 621-0306, falopez@email.arizona.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 Back to the Staffing Surge: The Great Teacher Salary Stagnation and the Decades-Long Employment Growth in American Schools Summary A recent report from EdChoice, formerly the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, concluded that non-teaching staffing growth in schools after the Great Recession has outpaced enrollment growth and student performance. The report recommended increasing teacher pay, at the expense of non-teaching staff, and more school choice. Publication Date July 5, 2017 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Ben Scafidi; Joydeep Roy, Columbia University; and William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds key omissions in school staffing report EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jul. 5, 2017) — A recent report from EdChoice, formerly the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, concluded that non-teaching staffing growth in schools after the Great Recession has outpaced enrollment growth and student performance. The report recommended increasing teacher pay, at the expense of non-teaching staff, and more school choice. An academic review released today finds that the report presents no logical relationship between the staffing trends presented and the solutions proposed in the report. The report, Back to the Staffing Surge: The Great Teacher Salary Stagnation and the Decades-Long Employment Growth in American Schools , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank project by Joydeep Roy, Columbia University, and William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Roy and Mathis in their review note that while the report does use data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES ), "the report's discussion of inputs, outcomes, and policy approaches is poorly grounded, leading to unsupported conclusions and policy prescriptions." The reviewers identify that the primary shortcoming of the report is its failure to examine why there has been a staffing surge and whether it reflects a valid use of personnel. In their conclusion, they also find that there is no linkage between the report's call for more school choice and vouchers to remedy "over-staffing" or better education. In response, the reviewers provide an appendix list of recent evidence on voucher and charter school performance. Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the EdChoice report at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/back-staffing-surge/ 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: Joydeep Roy , (202) 821-2572, jr3137@tc.columbia.edu William J. Mathis , (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net 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 The School Staffing Surge: Decades of Employment Growth in America's Public Schools Summary The report finds that although staffing in U.S. public schools dramatically increased, student achievement did not. The report concludes that more school choice would result in decentralized governance and a better allocation of resources – "so that individual parents, teachers and educators can decide how to best organize schools." Publication Date December 4, 2012 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Joydeep Roy, Visiting Professor Teachers College – Columbia University & Senior Economist for the New York City Independent Budget Office Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Staffing Report Offers Little Value EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 4, 2012) – Between 1992 and 2009, the number of school employees grew at more than twice the rate that the population of students increased, a recent report found. Author Benjamin Scafidi and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which published the report, used the finding to argue for expanding school choice, including private school vouchers. But a new review finds that the report is based on faulty premises, lacks any analysis of why school staffing has grown, and promotes choice without offering any evidence that it would have altered the trend. Joydeep Roy, a visiting professor at Teachers College – Columbia University and a senior economist for the New York City Independent Budget Office, prepared the review for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Roy points out that the report lacks any exploration of the causes and consequences of faster employment growth. Roy observes: "Unless we know the duties and responsibilities of the new employees, any assertion about the effects of hiring them is merely speculative." The report lacks any evidence to support the contention that school choice would have changed the trend of employment growth. The record of school choice policies in improving outcomes or efficiency is much more mixed than the report would have us believe. The report's promotion of these policies as a way to hold down employment growth is particularly questionable, "given that private schools have smaller class sizes and charter schools appear to spend a substantially greater portion on administrative costs – two of the main policies attacked in the report." Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The School Staffing Surge by Benjamin Scafidi on the web: http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/The-School-Staffing-Surge--Decades-of-Employment-Growth-in-Americas-Public-Schools.aspx 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 by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-school-staffing --###-- 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: Joydeep Roy, (202) 821-2572, jr3137@columbia.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 Fit for Purpose? How Today’s Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education Summary A new policy brief, Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education, by Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder and T. Philip Nichols of Baylor University, reviews research examining key pedagogical, logistical, and ethical implications of ed tech platforms for schools. The brief's analysis of these implications leads to recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on how to govern its use. Publication Date September 25, 2025 Research Areas Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Faith Boninger, University of Colorado Boulder; T. Philip Nichols, Baylor University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Educators should reassess the hidden impacts of ed tech ecosystems on teaching, learning, and student data. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (SEPTEMBER 25, 2025) - Digital educational platforms have become ubiquitous in American classrooms. Teachers now rely on Google Workspace for Education, Kahoot!, Khan Academy, MagicSchool, Zearn, and countless others to deliver curriculum, structure lessons and student collaboration, assess and track learning, and communicate with families. Few facets of schooling remain untouched by these tools. A new policy brief, Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education , by Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder and T. Philip Nichols of Baylor University, reviews research examining key pedagogical, logistical, and ethical implications of ed tech platforms for schools. The brief's analysis of these implications leads to recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on how to govern its use. For years, the technology industry marketed its products to schools as efficient solutions for instruction and management. Before the COVID-19 shutdowns, such efforts had only moderate success. But the sudden shift to remote learning accelerated widespread adoption, even among reluctant educators. This emergency shift obscured the fact that digital platforms may not always serve public education's core purposes. Unlike the software of the past, today's ed tech platforms are complex ecosystems, and these ecosystems are fueled through data extraction. They extract user data not only to personalize and improve their own functionality but also to share across interoperable systems. Accordingly, while educators may see these platforms as neutral tools, they are in fact shaped by competing interests and hidden imperatives. Teachers, students, and administrators are only one market. The other market involves data on performance, usage patterns and engagement-data flowing to advertisers, data brokers and investors, often without users' knowledge or consent. An ecological perspective of digital educational platforms reveals three interlocking layers: (a) visible classroom uses; (b) underlying technical architectures of code, algorithms, and hardware; and (c) deeper political-economic structures of ownership and profit. Recognizing these layers enables schools to consider how, for example, business decisions on the part of a platform provider determine how the platform is programmed to extract and use student data, how those programming decisions determine day-to-day experiences of teaching and learning, and how school data might be used for subsequent business purposes far from the school. This moves schools beyond simple questions of how to select a tool or prevent students from misusing it, and toward critical consideration of how platforms operate, whose values they embed, and what resources they demand. To ensure a platform is truly appropriate for their communities, schools must first define their own needs, values and goals. They can then evaluate whether digital tools support or undermine them. This clarity can shield educators from aggressive marketing and empower them to adopt only those systems aligned with their mission. Policymakers must also provide stronger safeguards. With federal policy promoting artificial intelligence as a cure-all for modern education, schools have good reason to pause and weigh the broader consequences before embracing new technologies. Find Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education , by Faith Boninger and T. Philip Nichols, 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 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 Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back English Language Learners and Parental Involvement Summary Dr. William Mathis summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research and urges policymakers to adopt a series of measures that would welcome and involve the parents of English language learners in U.S. schools to improve the achievement of those students. This two-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date March 19, 2013 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Enhancing Education for English Learners through Parental Involvement EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 19, 2013) – The seventh in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research urges policymakers to adopt a series of measures that would welcome and involve the parents of English language learners in U.S. schools to improve the achievement of those students. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, prepared the brief, Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – English Language Learners and Parental Involvement . Previous sections of Research-Based Options have included: teacher evaluation, common core standards, early childhood education, choice funding, dropout strategies and effective school expenditures. The enrollment of English language learners (ELLs) in U.S. schools has more than doubled over the last two decades, most of whom are native born. The data show we deny these children equitable opportunities to learn to the detriment of them and their communities, and to the detriment of our larger societal health. As part of his examination of related research, Mathis points to an earlier policy brief, also funded by the Great Lakes Center, by Beatriz Arias and Milagros Morillo-Campbell that outlines a series of best practices for schools to establish two-way communication with ELL families and to involve those families in the life of the school, in community collaboration, in school governance, and in their children's schoolwork. To accomplish this will require the school to embrace the culture of the community, both in its activities calendar and in its interactions with the parents. School personnel should communicate with parents in their native languages and also provide parents avenues to learn English as well as techniques to help them with their children's education. To these recommendations for schools, Mathis adds recommendations for policymakers. Adequacy studies identifying resource inequities in serving ELL learners need to be updated and turned into legislation to rectify those problems. He also points to two additional policy needs: to provide adequate professional development that embraces and builds upon the students' cultural backgrounds; and to review and revise state laws and regulations so that school evaluation systems adequately account for high concentrations of ELL students. States must ensure staff, funding, and instructional materials are all of sufficient quality to address ELL students' needs. Mathis's two-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. The brief is produced by the National Education Policy Center and was made possible with support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php Also find William Mathis's brief on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Off Track: An Assessment of Wisconsin's Early Care and Learning System for Young Children Summary The Badger report presents data on trends in Wisconsin's ECE system. It then identifies government regulations-particularly those focused on improving teacher-child interactions--as a problem, concluding that those regulations have limited supply, decreased parental choice in providers, and increased costs. Its recommendations include reducing continuous improvement efforts focused on quality while increasing performance accountability (aka testing burdens), consolidating state agencies, and increasing parental control over use of government childcare subsidies. Publication Date January 31, 2023 Research Areas Early Childhood; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Angela Rachidi; W. Steven Barnett, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Wisconsin's Early Care Serves as Little More Than a Missed Opportunity An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Because of the report's failings with respect to methods and literature review, none of its recommendations are valid. EAST LANSING, MI (January 31, 2023) - A recent Badger Institute report reviews the current early care and education (ECE) landscape and offers a profile of the childcare system in Wisconsin. Yet despite drawing valuable attention to the policy issues of ECE, the report ultimately fails to support its recommendations. W. Steven Barnett, Rutgers professor and Senior Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, reviewed Off Track: An Assessment of Wisconsin's Early Care and Learning System for Young Children and found it to be flawed in its methodology and in its central premise. The Badger report presents data on trends in Wisconsin's ECE system. It then identifies government regulations-particularly those focused on improving teacher-child interactions--as a problem, concluding that those regulations have limited supply, decreased parental choice in providers, and increased costs. Its recommendations include reducing continuous improvement efforts focused on quality while increasing performance accountability (aka testing burdens), consolidating state agencies, and increasing parental control over use of government childcare subsidies. Although a case can be made for reducing regulatory burden, Professor Barnett determined that the report's conclusions and recommendations are not supported by evidence and would in fact increase costs and harm providers, while at the same time placing children and benefits to taxpayers at risk. Though Barnett states that the report should be commended for continuing to spotlight the need for quality childcare and education, he also explains that the report is weakened by significant methodological flaws and omission of important literature. Professor Barnett thus concludes that the report's recommendations should be treated with extreme caution, if not avoided altogether. Find the review, by W. Steven Barnett, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Off Track: An Assessment of Wisconsin's Early Care and Learning System for Young Children , written by Angela Rachidi and published by the Badger Institute, at: https://www.badgerinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/EarlyLearning_091222_FINALforWeb.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 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 W. Steven Barnett: (732) 221-8002, sbarnett@nieer.org Ashley Davison: (848) 932-3142, adavison@nieer.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Pandemic Educational Models Remain Unproven Summary In response to unsafe conditions and school closures, families across the U.S. experimented early in the COVID-19 pandemic with new educational models. Two recent publications from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) describe two related strategies that exemplify such experimentation: microschools and learning pods. However, a review recommends that neither report should be used to guide policy and practice. Publication Date October 18, 2022 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI Authors Christopher Doss, Elizabeth Steiner, Bryan C. Hassel; Bryan Mann of the University of Kansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Pandemic Educational Models Remain Unproven An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Twin reports, discussing microschools and learning pods, provide insufficient evidence to support their claims and recommendations. EAST LANSING, MI (October 18, 2022) - In response to unsafe conditions and school closures, families across the U.S. experimented early in the COVID-19 pandemic with new educational models. Two recent publications from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) describe two related strategies that exemplify such experimentation: microschools and learning pods. However, a review recommends that neither report should be used to guide policy and practice. Professor Bryan Mann of the University of Kansas reviewed (a) Use of Personalized Learning Platforms in One Pandemic-Era Microschool: A Case Study ; and (b) "The Most Professionally Satisfied I've Been." How Could the Best Aspects of Learning Pod Staffing Be Scaled Up? Professor Mann's past research has examined digital schooling and other alternative school models. He found in both reports methodological and analytical shortcomings that limit their utility for policymakers. The first report, on learning platforms, analyzes engagement patterns and success rates of a digital platform used at one microschool in Nevada. Despite calling itself a case study, the report lacks the research and qualitative analysis to be classified as such, according to Professor Mann's review. The second report, on staffing, praises learning pods' staffing features and argues that these approaches might be adopted in traditional schools. Moreover, although the report overstates its conclusions and presents inadequate evidence, the author uses it to promote school models developed by his company. (The report's suggestions are from examples of so-called Opportunity Culture designs and multi-classroom leader models created by the author's company, Public Impact.) Though both reports paint the new strategies in a positive light, Professor Mann found little evidence in support of the strategies' overall benefits. Find the review, by Bryan Mann, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Use of Personalized Learning Platforms in One Pandemic-Era Microschool: A Case Study ,written by Christopher Doss and Elizabeth Steiner and published by CRPE, at: https://crpe.org/wp-content/uploads/final-SNUMA-report.pdf Find "The Most Professionally Satisfied I've Been." How Could the Best Aspects of Learning Pod Staffing Be Scaled Up? ,written by Bryan C. Hassel and published by CRPE, at: https://crpe.org/wp-content/uploads/final-Staffing-learning-pods-working-paper.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: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Bryan Mann: (785) 864-2097, bryanmann@ku.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 Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems Summary EdTrust recently published a report using what it calls an "equity analysis" to critique states' accountability plans, recommending several steps states might take to improve their systems. But a new review explains how that report rehashes old arguments for the original No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Publication Date November 20, 2024 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Nicholas Munyan-Penney, Abigail Jones, and Shayna Levitan; Derek Gottlieb, University of Northern Colorado Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's Proposals for Reforming ESSA Reveals How Little Has Been Learned from the Recent Past An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: EdTrust report fails to support its recommendations for ensuring increased equity in state accountability plans. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 19, 2024) - EdTrust recently published a report using what it calls an "equity analysis" to critique states' accountability plans, recommending several steps states might take to improve their systems. But a new review explains how that report rehashes old arguments for the original No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). In his review of Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems , Derek Gottlieb of the University of Northern Colorado details the shortcomings of the report's vision for how high-quality accountability structures would look and perform. The report, Prof. Gottlieb explains, calls for publicizing information that we have seen-through NCLB and related laws and policies-to be incomplete or gamed. The report also points to the potential for targeting resources that have proven to be chronically inadequate. Such tactics never achieved systemic equity or excellence when packaged as NCLB, yet this report, which relies heavily on indicators and tools that EdTrust has developed or compiled itself, does not see the historical record of failure as a reason to abandon the approach. To get on board with the report's analysis and recommendations, one would have to valorize its vacuous (and largely undefined) notion of "equity", gloss over the many failures and perverse outcomes of federal educational oversight across the decades, and ultimately place an implausible amount of faith in the power of rules alone-unsupported by additional resources-to transform the educational destinies of the nation's most vulnerable children. In critiquing state ESSA plans, Professor Gottlieb concludes, the report offers nothing more original than the very same strategy that gave rise to ESSA in the first place. Find the review, by Derek Gottlieb at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Reassessing ESSA Implementation: An Equity Analysis of School Accountability Systems , written by Nicholas Munyan-Penney, Abigail Jones, and Shayna Levitan and published by EdTrust, at: https://edtrust.org/rti/reassessing-essa-implementation-an-equity-analysis/ 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 Derek Gottlieb (503) 568-2004 derek.gottlieb@unco.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 Religious Charter Schools: Legally Permissible? Constitutionally Required? Summary The Manhattan Institute recently published a report concluding that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue requires states to grant charters to religious organizations, including those that intend to deliver an explicitly religious curriculum that teaches religion as truth. Publication Date January 26, 2021 Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Nicole Stelle Garnett; Derek Black, University of South Carolina School of Law Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Informative Report on Religious Charters Weakened by Key Omissions An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Recent Manhattan Institute report is useful in clearly identifying the main issues to be resolved regarding religious charter schools, but its conclusions and proposals lack an adequate foundation upon which states should act. EAST LANSING, MI (January 26, 2021) -The Manhattan Institute recently published a report concluding that the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue requires states to grant charters to religious organizations, including those that intend to deliver an explicitly religious curriculum that teaches religion as truth. Derek Black of the University of South Carolina School of Law reviewed Religious Charter Schools: Legally Permissible? Constitutionally Required? He determined that the report is useful in identifying the key issues to be resolved regarding religious charter schools, but its conclusions lack an adequate foundation to guide states in policymaking. The report reasons that the logic of Espinoza, which struck down the exclusion of religious schools from a publicly financed private school voucher program, applies in full force to charter schools as well. That outcome is certainly possible, given the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court. And Professor Black praises the report for raising an important question and for identifying the essential issues for answering it. But Black points to several weaknesses in the report's legal arguments, including the omission of key federal and state case law. Similarly, the report fails to acknowledge extensive key expert analysis on matters left unresolved by courts. The result, Professor Black concludes, is a one-sided analysis of the issue that is not a reliable basis for state action. Find the review, by Derek Black, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Religious Charter Schools: Legally Permissible? Constitutionally Required?, written Nicole Stelle Garnett and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/religious-charter-schools-legally-permissible-NSG.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Derek W. Black: (803) 777-9652, blackdw@law.sc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools during COVID-19 Summary A new report from the Mercatus Center argues that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, education budgets should be reallocated toward investments in virtual schools. It describes the pandemic as presenting Americans with the opportunity to see the benefits of virtual schooling, which "could change education content delivery forever, making instruction more flexible and suited to the needs of each individual student." Publication Date April 7, 2020 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Jonathan Butcher; Kevin Welner, CU Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Unconvincingly Argues that Crisis Should Initiate a Long-Term Shift to Virtual Schooling An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report asks policymakers to use the coronavirus crisis to embrace virtual schooling for the long term, notwithstanding clear evidence of the limitations and problems with this online approach. EAST LANSING, MI (April 7, 2020) - A new report from the Mercatus Center argues that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, education budgets should be reallocated toward investments in virtual schools. It describes the pandemic as presenting Americans with the opportunity to see the benefits of virtual schooling, which "could change education content delivery forever, making instruction more flexible and suited to the needs of each individual student." CU Boulder professor of education policy, Kevin Welner, who is the Director of the National Education Policy Center, reviewed Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools during COVID-19. As the report points out, these virtual schools are primarily run by two private vendors, so the "public-private partnerships" involve school districts contracting with one of these vendors. While immediate crisis responses in some jurisdictions may reasonably involve such partnerships, the report's broader call for this crisis response to lead to a long-term shift to virtual schooling is not supported by the report. In fact, this recommendation flies in the face of a half-dozen clear shortcomings of this online approach: low achievement outcomes, disproportionate harm to students with the fewest advantages, limited ability to serve children with special needs, lack of needed infrastructure, an inability to fulfill schooling's group/team activities or social purposes, and a lack of wraparound services. The sector has also been plagued by misuse of taxpayer funds. With the exception of brief discussions of infrastructure and special education, these issues are not addressed in the Mercatus report. Professor Welner concludes that the report makes an uncompelling plea for policymakers to use this crisis to embrace an educational approach that the author sees as beneficial, notwithstanding the clear evidence of its limitations and problems. He nonetheless predicts that additional reports are likely to follow, making similar arguments for a lasting transformation of schooling. Find the review, by Kevin Welner, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools during COVID-19, written by Jonathan Butcher and published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, at: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/butcher-virtual-schools-covid-19-mercatus-v1.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Kevin Welner: (303) 492-8370, kevin.welner@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Estimating a Price Tag for School Vouchers Summary Brief considers the public cost of a universal voucher system, with its attendant requirements for new systems of governance, information, transportation, and accreditation. Publication Date May 24, 2021 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Robert Shand, American University; Henry Levin of Teachers College, Columbia University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Robert Shand : (202) 885-6917, rshand@american.edu What Are the Economic Costs of a Shift to School Vouchers? A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Brief considers the public cost of a universal voucher system, with its attendant requirements for new systems of governance, information, transportation, and accreditation. EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 25, 2021) - Private-school vouchers are multiplying. In 2021, at least a dozen state legislatures expanded voucher programs or created new such programs. This growth poses questions about what effects a universal voucher system would have on taxpayers. According to a new economic analysis, this economic cost would conservatively amount to between $66.5 billion and $203 billion annually. Authored by professors Robert Shand of American University and Henry Levin of Teachers College, Columbia University, the policy brief released today titled, Estimating a Price Tag for School Vouchers notes that these input questions around vouchers have gone relatively unexamined, compared to the body of research around voucher outcomes. The brief also notes that any cost estimation must be based on considerable assumptions, which is why the brief errs toward conservative estimates and why the resulting range of estimates is quite large. This brief focuses on examining the factors that determine these costs and provides an overview of the literature on the effects and costs of vouchers. It applies recent empirical evidence on policy effects, behavioral responses, and contextual factors to determine administrative costs of a universal voucher system. Based on this evidence, the brief analyzes five areas of potential increased costs, including the accommodation of additional students and system administration. Because there is no state that currently operates a universal voucher system, Shand and Levin extrapolate based on empirical evidence from a wide range of smaller-scale voucher systems, pilot programs, and experiments to estimate a range of costs. They find that the total public costs of education would increase by between 11% and 33% with universal vouchers, depending upon both the exact design of the policy and the behavioral responses. Nationally, this would-as noted above-amount to from $66.5 billion to $203 billion per year. Such research on costs has clear implications for further research and policy. True cost analyses consider what's being purchased as well as the price tag. Because the body of research concerning outcomes suggests that vouchers are, as compared with traditional public schools, equally or less effective in raising student achievement, the larger price tag calls into serious question any empirical rationale for the current scale-up of voucher policies in states across the nation. These calculations also point to the need for increased transparency about the higher price tag of a voucher system, detailed data collection, and weighing the total voucher spending against current and future evidence of their likely effectiveness or benefits. Professor Shand points out that, while the new analysis is not directly applicable to non-universal voucher plans, it provides a roadmap of factors to consider. Policymakers may be interested in how these costs may change at levels short of a universal program. Estimating how costs would vary requires some speculation, as each voucher system has its own set of rules, and costs would depend on local context such as population density, as well as how schools and families respond to those rules in each context. For instance, more stringent eligibility criteria would lower costs by reducing the number of largely wealthy students who would have always attended private school and would now be subsidized by vouchers to do so, but also increase administrative costs to determine and monitor eligibility and divide administrative and transportation costs among fewer students. "The universal estimate in this report builds upon a framework of factors that must be considered to understand how a voucher system and its transaction costs drive additional costs of the voucher infrastructure relative to the more conventional public school system," adds Professor Levin. Find Estimating a Price Tag for School Vouchers , by Robert Shand and Henry M. Levin, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center 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