< Back Review of Wisconsin's Most Cost-Effective K-12 Program Summary As one of the nation's longest-running private school voucher initiatives, Wisconsin's program has drawn decades of research interest. A recent report from a think tank called School Choice Wisconsin considers the cost-effectiveness of voucher-receiving schools in Racine, Milwaukee, and across the state. Publication Date October 28, 2025 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors School Choice Wisconsin; Bruce Baker, University of Miami Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release False Claims and Faulty Methods Doom Wisconsin Voucher Report OCTOBER 28, 2025 False Claims and Faulty Methods Doom Wisconsin Voucher Report An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: School Choice Wisconsin report's conclusions about the cost effectiveness of private school vouchers rest on invalid methods and inaccurate data. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (OCTOBER 28, 2025) - As one of the nation's longest-running private school voucher initiatives, Wisconsin's program has drawn decades of research interest. A recent report from a think tank called School Choice Wisconsin considers the cost-effectiveness of voucher-receiving schools in Racine, Milwaukee, and across the state. University of Miami professor Bruce Baker reviewed Wisconsin's Most Cost-Effective K-12 Program , which claims that Wisconsin's voucher-receiving schools are far more cost effective than public district schools. Baker found the report's conclusions to be not just flawed, but completely wrong. The report compares revenues and student outcomes between public district schools and private voucher schools, concluding that the latter produce better outcomes for every $1,000 in revenue per pupil. Professor Baker, in concluding that the report is both "flawed" and "wrong," explains that a flawed analysis applies the right method poorly; a wrong analysis uses the wrong method altogether. Charitably, this report does both. Cost-effectiveness ratios, as used in this report, are wholly inadequate for evaluating the relative efficiency or productivity of educational institutions serving non-randomly distributed student populations. Moreover, even if one were to accept the report's unfounded premise, its imprecision and inaccuracy in reporting spending, outcomes, and demographics severely undermine its findings. Put simply, Baker concludes, School Choice Wisconsin has conducted the wrong analysis, and done it the wrong way. The report offers no valid insight for informing education policy in Wisconsin or anywhere else. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Wisconsin's Most Cost-Effective K-12 Program, from School Choice Wisconsin, at: https://schoolchoicewi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wisconsins-Most-Cost-Effective-K-12-Program.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . 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 Bruce D. Baker Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Organizing Schools to Improve Student Achievement: Start Times, Grade Configurations, and Teacher Assignments Summary This report examines three school organizational reforms – moving from middle schools to K-8 schools, delaying the start time of high school classes and increasing teacher specialization by grade and subject. Publication Date November 29, 2011 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Patrick J. McEwan, Wellesley College Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Solid Brookings report highlights little-noticed school reforms Moving to K-8 schools and starting high schools later in the morning could improve education and save taxpayer dollars, Brookings report says EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 29, 2011) — At a time when policymakers and media are fixated on school "reforms" like charter schools and virtual learning, the Brookings Institution has released a report examining school organizational reforms that should be more widely considered. The report, entitled "Organizing Schools to Improve Student Achievement" and released by the Hamilton Project at the Brookings Institution, applies cost-benefit analyses to three reform proposals: starting schools later in the morning; replacing junior high or middle schools with a K-8 grade configuration; and increasing teacher specialization by grade and subject. The Brookings report found that: Moving away from junior high and middle schools and to K-8 schools could increase student achievement while providing benefits that far outweigh the costs. Studies show that 6th and 7th graders in junior high or middle schools perform worse than 6th and 7th graders who attend K-8 schools. Encouraging more K-8 schools could have an even greater effect on student achievement than the laudable goal of reducing class sizes. Ultimately, moving to K-8 schools could provide $40 in future earnings for students for every $1 spent in reconfiguring schools. Starting high school classes later in the morning can save taxpayer dollars while producing better outcomes for students. The Wake County Public School System in North Carolina saved more than $100 million by moving to a staggered transportation system, which allowed greater use of the existing bus fleet. Other studies show that later start times for high school students improves attendance and graduation rates by allowing teens to get more rest during the night. While benefits in any given district depend on local context, overall the Brookings report estimated that moving to later start times could provide $8 in future earnings for students for every $1 spent in changing transportation schedules. Increasing teacher specialization by grade and subject "may not pass a cost-benefit test and is almost certainly politically infeasible." Wellesley College economics professor Patrick J. McEwan reviewed the Brookings report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. McEwan praises the report for using sound research to judge the value of each of the three considered reform proposals. He writes, "The report's discussion of effects is thorough and nuanced, and it draws from high-quality empirical studies conducted in the last several years." "In short, the report's evidence supports its main conclusion that organizational interventions deserve careful consideration alongside more hotly-debated or popular interventions such as charter schools or computer-assisted instruction," McEwan concludes. Find Patrick McEwan's review on the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find "Organizing Schools to Improve Student Achievement: Start Times, Grade Configurations, and Teacher Assignments" by Brian A. Jacob and Jonah E. Rockoff on the web at: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/rc/papers/2011/09_organize_jacob_rockoff/092011_organize_jacob_rockoff_paper.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 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-organizing-schools . --###-- 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: Patrick J. McEwan: (781) 283-2987, pmcewan@wellesley.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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Regulating Charter Schools Summary As part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues, William J. Mathis examines charter school accountability. Mathis finds that despite the premise of market-based accountability, charter schools are not sufficiently being held accountable or regulated. Publication Date August 23, 2016 Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Exploring the Research Behind Charter School Accountability EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 23, 2016) — A new concise brief released today explores the research behind the elements of charter school accountability, including: (1) academic performance; (2) equal opportunity and non-discrimination; (3) financial solvency and stability; (4) and safety. In Regulating Charter Schools , William J. Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, examines tensions found within the charter school debate. Despite the premise of market-based accountability, charter schools are not sufficiently being held accountable or regulated. Mathis explains, “There is no perfect amount of regulation or deregulation, but we need to be regularly reassessing the situation and responding to clear problems.” In this brief, the tenth in a series of concise research summaries, Mathis raises concern for the rapid growth of charter schools, which has been accompanied by charges of corruption, fiscal exploitation, weak academic performance, and increased segregation. Mathis says that charter schools should not be excepted from the requirement that public money comes with reporting, transparency, and guidelines for spending and business practices. Regulating Charter Schools is part of Research-Based Options for Policymaking , a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Find the concise brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The brief can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: 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 State Accountability Rating Systems: A Review of School Report Cards as Indicators of School Quality Summary The federal Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 provided states with slightly more flexibility in the design of their school accountability systems. However, while states may take different approaches to measuring and reporting school performance, they have consistently chosen approaches of public reporting that collapse multiple school performance indicators into a summative rating. In a new NEPC policy brief, State Accountability Rating Systems: A Review of School Report Cards as Indicators of School Quality, Gail L. Sunderman, co-founder and former director of the Maryland Equity Project at the University of Maryland, discusses the difficulties that arise when state's school report cards use this summative-rating approach. Publication Date June 22, 2022 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Gail L. Sunderman, University of Maryland Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Don't Collapse Multiple School Performance Indicators Into a Summative Rating on State School Report Cards, Warns New Policy Brief Key Takeaway: Summative ratings are limited indicators of student learning and can misidentify schools, potentially leading to misappropriation of resources for school improvement. EAST LANSING, MI (June 23, 2022) - The federal Every Student Succeeds Act of 2015 provided states with slightly more flexibility in the design of their school accountability systems. However, while states may take different approaches to measuring and reporting school performance, they have consistently chosen approaches of public reporting that collapse multiple school performance indicators into a summative rating. In a new NEPC policy brief, State Accountability Rating Systems: A Review of School Report Cards as Indicators of School Quality , Gail L. Sunderman, co-founder and former director of the Maryland Equity Project at the University of Maryland, discusses the difficulties that arise when state's school report cards use this summative-rating approach. A core element of the Every Student Succeeds Act is the requirement that states develop statewide systems allowing for meaningful differentiation among schools. States are then required to use this information to identify schools that should be the focus of improvement efforts. Individual states decide on the type of report card, or rating system, that they will use to report this information to the public. These report cards are intended to publicize information about how well schools and districts meet specified goals, which would ideally incentivize school improvement. However, for report card rating systems to be potentially beneficial as a school improvement policy instrument, they must provide fair and valid indicators of school performance. The increased flexibility under ESSA means that states are following different policy paths reflecting their own interests, concerns, political perspectives, and economic conditions. Approaches that collapse multiple school performance indicators into a summative rating are concerning because there is very limited credible research on how well a single score captures the complexity of school performance or provides information on how to improve. "Summative ratings that conflate information into a single score obscure a great deal of information about variations in school performance," Dr. Sunderman explains. "They also do little to explain performance differences between or within schools or to help identify effective strategies to address low performance." Moreover, the available research evidence suggests that summative ratings fail to identify schools with high and equitable achievement, distinguishing such schools from those with high average achievement and large achievement gaps. Indeed, available research suggests that summative ratings advantage schools serving primarily higher income students while obscuring the failure of such schools to serve all children. For policymakers designing accountability systems, Dr. Sunderman provides recommendations for resolving the significant challenges of using a single score that also reflects the complexity of teaching and learning. Find State Accountability Rating Systems: A Review of School Report Cards as Indicators of School Quality , by Gail L. Sunderman, 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, 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: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Gail L. Sunderman: (410) 435-1207, glsunderman@yahoo.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Investing for “Impact” or Investing for Profit? Social Impact Bonds, Pay for Success, and the Next Wave of Privatization of Social Services Summary Is there a role for private investors in public social policy? In the past decade, we have seen the rise of new financial structures entering the social services arena, with corresponding legislation now poised to change how social services are delivered and who delivers them. While different programs use different terms—including, for example, Pay for Success or Results-Based Financing—the umbrella term encompassing these new financing models is the "Social Impact Bond" (SIB). Publication Date February 4, 2020 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers; School Climate & Student Support; School Funding Authors Martin Carnoy, Stanford University; Roxana Marachi, San José State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Martin Carnoy : (650) 725-1254, carnoy@stanford.edu Roxana Marachi : (408) 924-3729, roxana.marachi@sjsu.edu Social Impact Bonds: When Private Investors Shape Public Social Policy A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Brief explores project funding through financial structures designed to yield profits to investors while privatizing social service delivery and evaluation. EAST LANSING, Mich. (February 4, 2020) — Is there a role for private investors in public social policy? In the past decade, we have seen the rise of new financial structures entering the social services arena, with corresponding legislation now poised to change how social services are delivered and who delivers them. While different programs use different terms—including, for example, Pay for Success or Results-Based Financing—the umbrella term encompassing these new financing models is the "Social Impact Bond" (SIB). SIBs have been promoted as a way to help fund projects in such areas as health care, homelessness, early education, workforce development, and prison reform. These projects are often marketed as new, innovative approaches to funding social services, with the potential to cut costs, while shifting financial risks to investors for projects that may not otherwise be feasible given scarce public funds. NEPC released a policy brief today, Investing for "Impact" or Investing for Profit? Social Impact Bonds, Pay for Success, and the Next Wave of Privatization of Social Services and Education , authored by Professors Martin Carnoy of Stanford University and Roxana Marachi of San José State University. The brief examines whether SIB financial structures provide all that they promise and whether results so far yield insights into their future directions and potential pitfalls. The research literature includes a small but useful set of studies that examine SIBs. Carnoy and Marachi analyze these as well as related findings, including several case studies as examples of SIBs in the UK and Pay for Success projects in the United States. They assess different approaches to social service delivery, explore how these financial instruments operate, and note corresponding advantages and disadvantages of the new financial models. SIB projects appear to be most commonly designed in ways that allow for profits to be made by investors on projects purporting to support underserved communities while concurrently shifting three key activities to the private sector: service delivery, data gathering, and program evaluation research. Thus, in the current policy landscape, SIBs are poised to substantially privatize the processes by which public resources are distributed to address social issues. Service Delivery : Public bodies (e.g., school districts) contract with private entities for the actual delivery of public services, eliminating public oversight. Data Gathering : The contracts require data from youth/participants to be siphoned into private tech firms' databases, allowing those firms to sell the data in increasingly valuable longitudinal data markets. By design, such models make social service programs accountable to investors, but not necessarily to the communities ostensibly being served. Program Evaluations : The new structures are also likely to involve the outsourcing of research to third-party evaluators, who may not have the best interests of the public in mind nor be required to ensure participant protections throughout the research process. Ultimately, Carnoy and Marachi question the net benefits of SIBs and related performance-based financing schemes. They express concerns that SIBs add to public costs, with later taxpayers footing the bill in order to pay off investors who provide up-front financing for relatively low-risk social projects that effective public policies would pay for directly. The brief also considers that, like many public-private partnerships framed as providing social solutions, including those in education, SIBs may divert public attention and public sector funding toward short-term needs and measurements—and away from large-scale solutions to structural issues associated with poverty and social segregation. Find Investing for "Impact" or Investing for Profit? Social Impact Bonds, Pay For Success, and the Next Wave of Privatization of Social Services and Education, by Martin Carnoy and Roxana Marachi, at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Carnoy-Marachi-Social-Impact-Bonds.pdf 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

< 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

< Back Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? Summary A recent American Enterprise Institute (AEI) report attempted to examine the impact of student achievement scores on longer-term school-related attainment outcomes. The report suggested that less attention be given to test score comparisons between traditional public schools and school choice models (e.g., charters and school vouchers). A new academic review out today investigates the consistency of the claims made and the evidence used for the report. Publication Date May 3, 2018 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Collin Hitt, Michael Q. McShane, and Patrick J. Wolf; Chris Lubienski, Indiana University; & T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Disappointing test score results shift focus of school choice report EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 3, 2018) — A recent American Enterprise Institute (AEI) report attempted to examine the impact of student achievement scores on longer-term school-related attainment outcomes. The report suggested that less attention be given to test score comparisons between traditional public schools and school choice models (e.g., charters and school vouchers). A new academic review out today investigates the consistency of the claims made and the evidence used for the report. Reviewers Christopher Lubienski , Indiana University, and T. Jameson Brewer , University of North Georgia, find the report to be based on questionable evidence and of little use to policy makers. The report, Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . According to the review, the report is not consistent with previous school choice advocacy papers, and marks a stunning change in school choice policy preferences. The reviewers find that after years of disappointing test score outcomes, school choice advocates are now attempting to move away from test score comparisons with traditional public schools. In terms of evidence, Lubienski and Brewer find the report to be "riddled with numerous internal inconsistencies in its discussion and treatment of a set of studies that were selected by questionable methods." They conclude, "In view of the 180-degree turn based on questionable evidence, the report - despite the authors' assertions — is of little use to policymakers." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? here: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Do-Impacts-on-Test-Scores-Even-Matter.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected 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: Christopher Lubienski , (217) 643-8311, clubiens@iu.edu Great Lakes Center , (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Lights Off: Practice and Impact of Closing Low-Performing Schools Summary A report from the Hoover Institution’s Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) offered a comprehensive analysis of the impact of closing low-performing schools. The report included data from 1,522 low-performing schools from 26 states. An academic review finds the report to be a valuable addition to the research on school closures. Publication Date October 24, 2017 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Chunping Han, Margaret E. Raymond, James L. Woodworth, Yohannes Negassi, W. Payton Richardson, and Will Snow; Matthew Gaertner, SRI International, and Ben Kirshner, University of Colorado Boulder. Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release National report on school closure misses opportunity to illuminate moral dimensions of school closure EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 24, 2017) — A report from the Hoover Institution's Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) offered a comprehensive analysis of the impact of closing low-performing schools. The report included data from 1,522 low-performing schools from 26 states. An academic review finds the report to be a valuable addition to the research on school closures. Matthew Gaertner, SRI International, and Ben Kirshner, University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the report, Lights Off: Practice and Impact of Closing Low-Performing Schools , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Though the report obscures some of its most important findings, Gaertner and Kirshner describe the report as one of the most comprehensive datasets ever assembled for school closure research. The reviewers note that the study was a careful, rigorous study with some missed opportunities for further analysis. The original report found: Schools enrolling higher proportions of minority and low-income students were more likely to be closed; Test scores declined for students who transferred to schools with lower test-score performance and for students who transferred to schools with equivalent test-score performance; and Slightly less than half of students transferred to higher performing schools after a closure; those who did showed academic improvement relative to their matched peers. Gaertner and Kirshner add that the report should have better highlighted the disproportionality of the school closures and the inadequate number of higher quality receiving schools. The reviewers were also concerned about the statistical modeling, which threatens the validity of subgroup analyses (specifically as it relates to charter school comparisons). In their conclusion, the reviewers say that they would have liked to see the report acknowledge the moral dimensions of school closures: "Decisions about school closure and broader questions of reform raise normative political questions about participation and rights – including questions about the voices of students and their parents." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the CREDO report at: https://credo.stanford.edu/closure-virtual-control-records 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. 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: Matthew Gaertner, (650) 823-4320, matt.gaertner@sri.com Ben Kirshner, (303) 492-6122, ben.kirshner@colorado.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 The Financial Impact of Ohio’s Charter Schools Summary This report claims that charter schools in the “Big Eight” urban school districts in Ohio are producing greater student achievement gains, increasing revenues for traditional public schools, and operating at lower costs. Publication Date August 1, 2006 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Pluck & Tenacity: How Five Private Schools in Ohio Have Adapted to Vouchers Summary This report highlights perceived challenges facing private schools brought on by the introduction of vouchers and calls for policymakers to strengthen Ohio's voucher programs. It praises the private schools profiled and cautions against state accountability programs that may "trample" on private schools' ability to provide a unique learning experience. Publication Date March 6, 2014 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Ellen Belcher; Christopher Lubienski and T. Jameson Brewer, University of Illinois Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Fordham's Ohio school voucher report flawed EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 6, 2014) – A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines the impact of school vouchers on five private schools in Ohio. The report highlights perceived challenges facing private schools brought on by the introduction of vouchers and calls for policymakers to strengthen Ohio's voucher programs. However, an academic review out today finds the report unsuitable for policy consideration. The report, Pluck & Tenacity: How Five Private Schools in Ohio Have Adapted to Vouchers , written by Ellen Belcher, praises the private schools profiled and cautions against state accountability programs that may "trample" on private schools' ability to provide a unique learning experience. Dr. Christopher Lubienski of the University of Illinois, along with doctoral student T. Jameson Brewer, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) published the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Overall, the reviewers found the report to be a case-study in how to engage in a slanted selection and interpretation of research evidence. The reviewers note that the report is supported by a total of three endnote references "cherry-picked" to support a contested policy agenda. "Thus, the report is grounded in a twice-skewed and intellectually dishonest view of the research on vouchers and their academic outcomes." The original report sought to examine how private schools changed as a result of enrolling voucher students, but little attention was given to research on the academic effects of vouchers. "Policymakers should be aware that this report is not supported by empirical findings, and is a good example of how ‘cherry-picked' evidence is used to support or reinforce the agendas of various advocacy organizations" Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website : http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Pluck & Tenacity on the web: http://edexcellence.net/publications/pluck-and-tenacity-how-five-private-schools-in-ohio-have-adapted-to-vouchers 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 with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Christopher Lubienski, (217) 333-4382, club@illinois.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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – The 'Portfolio' Approach to School District Governance Summary A new concise policy brief considers the research evidence of “portfolio” districts. According to the brief, the approach shifts decision-making away from local school district leaders. Despite concerns, the approach is now being used in several large urban districts across the country. The authors find that changing the governance structure creates a “false promise” for communities and could distract from larger efforts to address societal inequities. Publication Date March 29, 2016 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors William Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 29, 2016) — A new concise policy brief considers the research evidence of "portfolio" districts. According to the brief, the approach shifts decision-making away from local school district leaders. Despite concerns, the approach is now being used in several large urban districts across the country. The brief, The "Portfolio" Approach to School District Governance , is part of a series of short policy briefs produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, author the brief. According to Mathis and Welner, there exists a very limited body of generally accepted research about the impact of "portfolio" district reform. However, they do find that research evidence does exist for four reform strategies associated with the model: (1) school-level decentralization of management decisions; (2) reconstitution or closing "failing" schools; (3) expansion of school choice, primarily through charter schools; and (4) performance- or test-based accountability. After investigating the available research on these portfolio-related strategies, the authors concluded that there is little promise of meaningful benefits associated with the governance changes. Mathis and Welner caution that larger social inequalities, including structural racism and denied opportunities related to poverty, will continue to drive under-resourced communities. They state that changing the governance structure creates a "false promise" for communities and distracts from larger efforts to address societal inequities. Instead of changing the governance structure in urban districts, Mathis and Welner suggest equity-focused reforms that call for addressing poverty. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that taking an equity-focused approach can be undertaken in a portfolio-based structure. They suggest several strategies that "portfolio managers" could apply to help address opportunities to learn: Adequate funding for the neediest schools; Stable school environments; Relevant, responsive curriculum and pedagogy; Highly qualified and prepared teachers; Personalized instruction with small class size; and On-site, wrap-around services. The authors also suggest that if school choice policies are under consideration, they must hold the "portfolio managers" accountable, ensure high standards and fiscal accountability, and public funding should be transparent and subjected to strict auditing procedures. This is the third 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. Find the brief on the GLC website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options_2015.php This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on How Vouchers Affect Public Schools Summary This report purports to present a summary of previous research about the competitive effect of vouchers on public schools. The report concludes that such competition improves public schools. Publication Date April 27, 2009 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Friedman Foundation’s Voucher Report Misrepresents Research April 27, 2009 Existing studies on competitive effect of vouchers found insufficient to support advocacy claims, new review finds EAST LANSING, MI (April 27, 2009) – A recent report from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice purports to present a comprehensive review of research done on the competitive effect that voucher programs have on public schools. But a Think Twice review of the report finds that it is based on weak studies, most produced by pro-voucher organizations, and that it misrepresents findings. The Friedman report, “A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on How Vouchers Affect Public Schools,” was written by Greg Forster. Forster is a senior fellow at the Friedman Foundation, which was founded to advance Milton Friedman’s belief in a privatized education system. The report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Dr. Christopher Lubienski of the University of Illinois, a nationally recognized expert on school choice research. The Friedman report describes 17 studies of voucher programs and contends that these studies show a consensus that the competitive threat of vouchers causes public schools to improve. In his review, Lubienski finds numerous flaws with the report’s evidence, assumptions and reasoning. Among them is the fact that while it claims to reflect “all available empirical studies on how vouchers affect academic achievement in public schools,” the majority of the studies cited in the report were produced by explicitly pro-voucher advocacy organizations, and almost none underwent peer review. “Such peer review is typical in university-based research in order to instill some objective measure of quality,” says Lubienski. In addition, Lubienski points out that the report is premised on the assertion that private schools are superior to public ones, but it offers no evidence and in fact ignores “a growing body of research—much of it peer-reviewed—suggesting that they are not.” Lubienski concludes that the Friedman report is not one which offers any useful guidance to measuring the benefits or harm of voucher programs. It is, rather, “an overview [that] seems designed to build a pro-voucher argument rather than an evenhanded presentation of research.” Find Christopher Lubienski’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Christopher Lubienski (217) 333-4382; club@illinois.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More