< Back Does Class Size Matter? Summary In a new policy brief, professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach points out that class size reduction is an important determinant of student outcomes, one that can be directly determined by policy. Schanzenbach indicates that the evidence suggests that increasing class size will not only harm children’s test scores in the short run, but also their long-run human capital formation. “Money saved today by increasing class sizes will result in more substantial social and educational costs in the future.” Furthermore, Schanzenbach finds that the pay-off from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children. Increases to class-size for those populations will likely be harmful. Publication Date February 17, 2014 Authors Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Northwestern University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Policy brief finds strong evidence for the benefits of making classes smaller EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 18, 2014) – The critics are mistaken. Class size matters. A new policy brief out today demonstrates the common-sense notion that children learn more and teachers are more effective in smaller classes and is supported by research. In a new policy brief, professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach points out that class size reduction is an important determinant of student outcomes, one that can be directly determined by policy. The brief, Does Class Size Matter? , is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Schanzenbach indicates that the evidence suggests that increasing class size will not only harm children's test scores in the short run, but also their long-run human capital formation. "Money saved today by increasing class sizes will result in more substantial social and educational costs in the future." Furthermore, Schanzenbach finds that the pay-off from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children. Increases to class-size for those populations will likely be harmful. According to Professor Schanzenbach, class-size reduction has been the victim of a popular misconception that the strategy has been largely unsuccessful. "Policymakers should carefully weigh the efficacy of class-size policy against other potential uses of funds," Schanzenbach concludes. "While lower class size has a demonstrable cost, it may prove to be the more cost-effective policy overall." Find Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach's brief, Does Class Size Matter? on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. You can also find the brief on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/does-class-size-matter Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach is Associate Professor of Human Development and Social Policy and Chair of the Institute for Policy Research's Program on Child, Adolescent, and Family Studies at Northwestern University. She studies education policy, child health, and food consumption. Her current work examines the life paths of children who were randomly assigned to kindergarten classrooms in the 1980s as part of the Tennessee Project STAR experiment. 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: Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, (847) 491-3884, dws@northwestern.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 The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Teacher Differences Summary This report describes serious problems with teacher evaluation systems based on surveys conducted in 12 school districts in four states. The report urges changes to establish more effective evaluation systems that will be able to discern the highest and lowest quality teachers. Publication Date August 4, 2009 Authors Raymond Pecheone and Ruth Chung Wei, Stanford University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ‘Widget Effect’ Report Draws Praise for Analysis of Teacher Evaluation Systems August 5, 2009 Critique of evaluation systems is strong, but omissions in methodology and failure to report on promising strategies are weaknesses, according to reviewers EAST LANSING, Mi., Aug. 5, 2009 – A recent report from the New Teacher Project describes serious problems with teacher evaluation systems. The report, based on survey results from 12 school districts in four states, urges changes to establish more effective systems that will be able to discern the highest (and lowest) quality teachers. A new review of that report finds it well grounded and praises the report’s policy recommendations as sound and consistent with prior research. The review does, however, note that the report lacks important details about its own methods and fails to consider or to draw upon any promising teacher evaluation strategies in current use. The report, The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Teacher Differences , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Raymond Pecheone, Co-Executive Director of the Stanford University School Redesign Network and Director of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers, and Ruth Chung Wei, Director of Assessment Research and Development at the Stanford University School Redesign Network. Pecheone and Wei credit The Widget Effect with presenting an extensive analysis of teacher evaluation systems in 12 districts across four states. The report is based on surveys of current and former teachers as well as administrators; on an examination of teacher evaluation records in the districts surveyed; and on interviews with school district leaders, school board officials, labor relations and human resources experts, and union leaders. Its extensive reporting of the data collected enables the authors “to build a compelling case for the inadequacy of the current teacher evaluation processes, uses, and policies in the four states,” Pecheone and Wei write. The report falls short, however, in its omission of key details that might help readers to understand the sampling choices. The reviewers write: “it is unclear … how and why particular districts were selected, and whether they represent the range of teacher evaluation practices being implemented in school districts and states across the United States.” Omissions in the report’s description of its methodology (e.g., sampling strategy and survey response rates) and its sample lead to questions about the generalizability of the findings. Pecheone and Wei also point out that the report does not consider important prior research in two areas: (1) why many evaluation systems don’t work well (for example, because they rely on administrators with limited time and pedagogical expertise, tools and processes that have a limited relationship with effective teaching); and (2) how some innovative and effective evaluation systems do work. The latter omission is particularly important, because considering these evaluation systems and research about those systems would have allowed the authors to draw upon current successes in designing their recommendations. Transforming the system rather than tinkering around the edges, Pecheone and Wei conclude, will require broader thinking and a commitment to provide much greater investments and support for innovation to build, test, and audit evaluation systems that can stand up to public scrutiny and be practically feasible. Find the review by Raymond Pecheone and Ruth Chung Wei and a link to The Widget Report 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: Raymond L. Pecheone (650) 723-4106; pecheone@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Charter School Funding: Inequity in New York City Summary A report from the Department of Education Reform (EDRE) at the University of Arkansas claimed that charter schools in NYC were not being fairly funded because of a funding gap favoring district schools. The authors of the report also asserted that certain co-located schools had fiscal advantages over other charters. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report finds it to be dated and of little use for policymakers or researchers. Publication Date October 10, 2017 Authors Larry D. Maloney and Patrick J. Wolf; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY) Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NYC charter school funding report not useful, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 11, 2017) — A report from the Department of Education Reform (EDRE) at the University of Arkansas (UARK) claimed that charter schools in NYC were not being fairly funded because of a funding gap favoring district schools. The authors of the report also asserted that certain co-located schools had fiscal advantages over other charters. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report finds it to be dated and of little use for policymakers or researchers. Dr. Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY), reviewed the report, Charter School Funding: Inequity in New York City , 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 . In his review, Belfield raises some concerns about the report, including: The report does not attempt a rigorous comparison of charters to non-charter schools; It assumes that any differences in student characteristics across charter and district schools were trivial; and It concludes that raw, unadjusted funding amounts were sufficient for assessing fairness. Additionally, Belfield identifies that the data are based on 2014 figures, which fails to capture funding reforms and regulations enacted in NYC charter schools since that time. In response, Belfield writes: "In light of these reforms, this report has been superseded by events." Belfield finds the report is no longer policy-relevant and that it is unlikely to be very useful for policymakers or the research community. Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the UARK EDRE report at: http://www.uaedreform.org/charter-school-funding-inequity-in-new-york-city/ 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: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219, Clive.Belfield@gmail.com 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 Trends in Charter School Authorizing Summary This report surveyed charter school authorizers to explore how they rated on factors that the report’s authors considered important. Publication Date May 10, 2006 Authors Ernest House, University of Colorado Research Areas Charter Schools 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 Data-driven Improvement and Accountability Summary In a report released today, Andy Hargreaves and Henry Braun of Boston College describe how data-driven accountability initiatives have created “perverse” incentives for educators. The legislative brief highlights the flawed use of DDIA in much, though not all, of the U.S. education system. To restore focus on improvement, schools should consider systematic reforms that capture the full range of learning and assess educational values holistically, instead of relying on narrow metrics to define success that punish teachers and students. The brief includes twelve recommendations for establishing more effective systems and processes of Data-Driven or Evidence-Informed Improvement and Accountability. Model legislation by attorney Kathy Gebhardt accompanies Data-Driven Improvement and Accountability. Publication Date October 21, 2013 Authors ndy Hargreaves, Boston College Henry Braun, Boston College Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief 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 Making a Difference: Six Places Where Teacher Evaluation Systems Are Getting Results Summary Narrow focus and methodological flaws also diminish report’s attempt to promote the benefits of teacher evaluation linked to measures of student growth. Publication Date December 3, 2018 Authors Hannah Putman, Kate Walsh, and Elizabeth Ross; Amy Farley and Leah Chamberlain, University of Cincinnati Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Fails to Sufficiently Address the Evidence Surrounding Teacher Evaluation BOULDER, CO (December 4, 2018) – A new report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) highlights six teacher evaluation systems purportedly "yielding substantial benefits." This comes at the end of a decade when reformed teacher evaluation systems that link teacher performance to measures of student growth have been at the center of educational debate. Amy Farley and Leah Chamberlain of the University of Cincinnati reviewed Making a Difference: Six Places Where Teacher Evaluation Systems Are Getting Results . They find that the report does little to enrich an already tired conversation about linking teacher evaluation to student achievement. Overall, the research regarding teacher evaluation is mixed, at best. Most notably, a recent multi-year RAND report suggests that a $500 million investment in teacher evaluation that heavily weighted student growth measures, with considerable funding from the Gates Foundation, did not improve student outcomes. In fact, the reform may have exacerbated unequal access to effective teachers for low-income students and students of color. While the NCTQ report promotes these approaches to teacher evaluation, Farley and Chamberlain explain how it fails to seriously counter the groundswell of academic literature critiquing these systems. It also does not present a compelling justification for its site selection or the criteria used for inclusion of evidence. Instead, it appears to rely on a limited set of data drawn mostly from internal reports or interviews with district or state representatives and does not adequately consider disconfirming or contradictory evidence. These methodological flaws limit the validity of the report's findings, they conclude, which ultimately diminishes its usefulness for policy and practice. Find the review, by Amy Farley and Leah Chamberlain, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Making a Difference: Six Places Where Teacher Evaluation Systems Are Getting Results, written by Hannah Putman, Kate Walsh, and Elizabeth Ross and published by the National Council on Teacher Quality, at: https://www.nctq.org/dmsView/NCTQ_Report_-_Making_a_Difference About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back An Opportunity Culture for All : Making teaching a highly paid, high-impact profession Summary A report from Public Impact calls for a sweeping restructuring of the teaching profession. Public Impact in its consulting work promotes school turnarounds, charter schools, and market-based reforms. Publication Date December 11, 2013 Authors Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel; Patricia Hinchey, Penn State University Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Unsubstantiated wishes and beliefs mar Public Impact report EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 12, 2013) – A recent report from Public Impact calls for redesigned teacher roles to extend the reach of "excellent" teachers to more students through a variety of structural school changes. The report claims to provide a scalable way to increase teacher pay and planning time within current school budgets. Despite its assertions, an academic review released today finds the report short on evidence to support either its premises or recommendations. An Opportunity Culture for All : Making teaching a highly paid, high-impact profession , authored by Emily Ayscue Hassel and Bryan C. Hassel, calls for a sweeping restructuring of the teaching profession. Dr. Patricia Hinchey, an education professor at Penn State University who has written extensively on teaching and teacher assessment, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report is based on two unsupported premises: (1) that only one in four teachers is good enough to help close achievement gaps, and (2) that current efforts to recruit and retain excellent teachers are inadequate. The authors call for changes to the teaching profession to increase the reach of excellent teachers through new types of team-based teaching positions, increased use of paraprofessionals, and increased reliance on technology. It also suggests that teacher salaries might rise because of savings from restructured staffing and shifting of other resources. Increased teacher pay would be linked to a variety of arrangements that increased the number of students a teacher was accountable for. In her review, Hinchey, finds that the report targets teacher excellence, but it offers no specific means of identifying and assessing that quality. The report does implicitly define excellent teachers as those who produce greater gains in student achievement based on test scores. It also assumes that teachers alone can close the achievement gap, despite evidence that outside factors have a far greater impact on student achievement than in-school factors. The review highlights that no evidence was presented to ground the report's assertions and projections. In addition, Hinchey finds that the report fails to acknowledge existing literature that contradicts many of its claims regarding teacher quality, promised gains in student achievement, or large increases in teacher pay. She also calls attention to the lack of references to support the report's heavy reliance on technology. "Overall, the proposal is based on unsupported assumptions, assertions and projections—wishes and beliefs that if the approach were put into practice, it would somehow play out to the benefit of students," Hinchey concludes. "Lacking an empirical base, the report is not a useful guide for policy." Find this Think Twice review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find An Opportunity Culture for All : Making teaching a highly paid, high-impact profession on the web: http://opportunityculture.org/an-opportunity-culture-for-all/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Patricia H. Hinchey, (570) 333-5285, pxh12@psu.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 Review of Suspended Reality: The Impact of Suspension Policy on Student Safety Summary A recent Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) report suggests a relationship between school suspension rates and some students' perceptions of safety in Milwaukee schools. Its conclusion-which was examined in a new review-claims a causal chain that begins with unpunished misconduct in schools and ends with disruptive classroom environments that harm primarily African American students. Publication Date December 6, 2021 Authors Will Flanders and Ameillia Wedward; Kathryn E. Wiley, University of Colorado Boulder; Kate Somerville, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Climate & Student Support Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Misleading Report Obscures School Safety Issues An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report uses faulty interpretations and cherry-picked research in its attempt to portray the impact of suspension reforms on students. EAST LANSING, MI (December 7, 2021) - A recent Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) report suggests a relationship between school suspension rates and some students' perceptions of safety in Milwaukee schools. Its conclusion-which was examined in a new review-claims a causal chain that begins with unpunished misconduct in schools and ends with disruptive classroom environments that harm primarily African American students. Kathryn E. Wiley and Kate Somerville of the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed Suspended Reality: The Impact of Suspension Policy on Student Safety . They found numerous concerns, including unsupported claims, misleading interpretations, and the use of racially criminalizing stereotypes of African American students. Specifically, the report finds that following an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, lowered suspension rates for African American students were associated with higher numbers of students reporting feeling unsafe. But the report doesn't stop at pointing to a correlation; it claims (in bold heading text) that this means, "Reduced Suspension for African American Students Resulted in Lower Reports of Safety." The review of this report, however, explains not just this basic error of conflating correlation with causation. Wiley and Somerville also point out that the report ignores substantial peer-reviewed research on its subject and oversimplifies relevant issues to arrive at its conclusions. Interestingly, the report includes a separate finding that-for the overall student population-as the suspension rate decreased, the percentage of students feeling unsafe also decreased. But this is not the finding that the report chooses to focus on. Due to the report's flaws, its policy conclusions are not useful to policymakers as a basis for decisions about school discipline. Instead, policymakers would be better served by continuing to use peer-reviewed, evidence-based research on school discipline, racial disparities, and school climate interventions. Policymakers should also consider whether adequate supports are in place for schools to effectively implement alternatives to exclusionary discipline. As many experts have cautioned, merely reducing suspensions is not a comprehensive reform; well-implemented alternatives must be included. Find the review, by Kathryn E. Wiley and Kate Somerville, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Suspended Reality: The Impact of Suspension Policy on Student Safety , written by Will Flanders and Ameillia Wedward and published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, at: https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SuspensionStudy.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 Kathryn E. Wiley: (303) 579-7385, Kathryn.wiley@colorado.edu Kate Somerville: (410) 830-9927, Kate.somerville@colorado.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 Changes in the Performance of Students in Charter and District Sectors of U.S. Education: An Analysis of Nationwide Trends Summary The Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University recently published a research study touting improvement in the charter sector relative to district schools. The study attributes this, in part, to "enhanced charter performance." Publication Date December 2, 2020 Authors M. Danish Shakeel and Paul E. Peterson; Yongmei Ni and Eunice Han of the University of Utah Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Attempts to Make Hay of Different Trends in Charter Schools and District Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The analysis of performance trends of different NAEP cohorts does not allow for causal conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the charter and district sectors in raising student achievement. EAST LANSING, MI (December 3, 2020) - The Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University recently published a research study touting improvement in the charter sector relative to district schools. The study attributes this, in part, to "enhanced charter performance." Yongmei Ni and Eunice Han of the University of Utah reviewed Changes in the Performance of Students in Charter and District Sectors of U.S. Education: An Analysis of Nationwide Trends and determined that no such causal inferences can be drawn from its comparison of national performance trends in the charter and district sectors. Using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math test results for seven different cohorts of fourth and eighth graders, the study compares student performance trends in the charter and district sectors between 2005 and 2017. Based on the comparisons of overall performance changes as well as subgroup analysis by student ethnicity, socioeconomic status, region, and locale, the study offers its conclusion that charter-school trends are better than those of district schools. The report then spins a storyline about "political resistance to charters [from] both the management and labor sides of the district sector" that feel threatened by the "disruptive ... innovation" of successful charter schools. However, professors Ni and Han explain that, because NAEP does not track the performance of individual students over time, the analysis of performance trends of different cohorts does not allow causal conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the charter and district sectors in raising student achievement. The reviewers also point out that the study suffers from several methodological weaknesses around sampling, control of extraneous variables, and determination of statistical significance. Due to these limitations, the study fails to advance our knowledge of charter school effectiveness and offers no solid base for policy recommendations regarding whether charters merit more or less investment, nor any insight into what practices and changes might benefit the charter sector. Find the review, by Yongmei Ni and Eunice Han, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Changes in the Performance of Students in Charter and District Sectors of U.S. Education: An Analysis of Nationwide Trends , written by M. Danish Shakeel and Paul E. Peterson and published by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Taubman/PEPG/research/PEPG20_04.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: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Yongmei Ni: (801) 587-9298, yongmei.ni@utah.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 Charter School Funding: Dispelling Myths about EMOs, Expenditure Patterns, & Nonpublic Dollars Summary The latest in a series of reports from the University of Arkansas Department of Education unconvincingly attempts to show that charter schools are inequitably funded compared to public district schools. The report, Charter School Funding: Dispelling Myths about EMOs, Expenditure Patterns, & Nonpublic Dollars, runs into several major problems according to Dr. Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective in the latest NEPC review. Publication Date January 17, 2022 Authors Angela K. Dills, Patrick J. Wolf, Corey A. DeAngelis, Jay F. May, Larry D. Maloney, and Cassidy Syftestad Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Another Charter Funding Report Comes up Short An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report purporting to compare funding for charter and public district schools runs afoul of several basics of school finance research. EAST LANSING, MI (January 18, 2022) -The latest in a series of reports from the University of Arkansas Department of Education unconvincingly attempts to show that charter schools are inequitably funded compared to public district schools. The report, Charter School Funding: Dispelling Myths about EMOs, Expenditure Patterns, & Nonpublic Dollars, runs into several major problems according to Dr. Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective in the latest NEPC review . First, it relies on a proprietary (not publicly available) dataset to make its claims, but the data conflict with publicly reported figures, and the methods used to create the dataset are not documented. The report's analysis also ignores several basics of school finance. Differences in student characteristics and school programming are not accounted for, categorical spending is conflated with potential profit taking from charter management organizations, and philanthropic giving is inadequately evaluated. Dr. Weber concludes that the report's sparse documentation of its methods, combined with basic flaws in its analysis frameworks, render it useless in guiding charter school funding policy. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter School Funding: Dispelling Myths about EMOs, Expenditure Patterns, & Nonpublic Dollars, written by Angela K. Dills, Patrick J. Wolf, Corey A. DeAngelis, Jay F. May, Larry D. Maloney, and Cassidy Syftestad and published by University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform, at: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/9/544/files/2018/10/21-1018-charter-school-funding-dispelling-myths-002.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 Mark Weber: (908) 358-5828, mark.weber@rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Model Legislative Language for Comprehensive Assessment and Accountability Summary In a report released today, Andy Hargreaves and Henry Braun of Boston College describe how data-driven accountability initiatives have created “perverse” incentives for educators. The legislative brief highlights the flawed use of DDIA in much, though not all, of the U.S. education system. To restore focus on improvement, schools should consider systematic reforms that capture the full range of learning and assess educational values holistically, instead of relying on narrow metrics to define success that punish teachers and students. The brief includes twelve recommendations for establishing more effective systems and processes of Data-Driven or Evidence-Informed Improvement and Accountability. Model legislation by attorney Kathy Gebhardt accompanies Data-Driven Improvement and Accountability. Publication Date October 21, 2013 Authors Andy Hargreaves, Boston College Henry Braun, Boston College Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Policy Brief 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 Consumer-Oriented School Rating Systems and Their Implications for Educational Equity Summary Professor Powers describes the growing evidence base about these rating systems, their purpose purportedly being to help families navigate increasingly complex school choice options. One consistent research finding is that schools’ ratings, or the measures that comprise school ratings, are associated with schools’ demographic characteristics, such as students’ race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The association between ratings and demographics is stronger for status metrics (or measures of a school’s performance at a specific moment in time) and weaker but still influential for growth metrics (or measures of a school’s performance trends over time). Status metrics tend to generate lower ratings for racially diverse schools, while growth metrics tend to generate higher ratings for them. School demographics also shape the way parents and other stakeholders respond to surveys or provide descriptive comments about schools. Publication Date April 12, 2023 Authors Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University Research Areas School Funding; Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Can We Trust Privately Run School Rating Systems? Key Takeaway : Because consumer-oriented school rating systems are increasingly viewed as trusted sources of information, policymakers should work to ensure that the information they provide is, in fact, reliable. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 13, 2023) - School ratings are a ubiquitous feature of the U.S. educational system. Following the federal requirements for states to report school performance with a standardized measure of accountability, non-state organizations such as GreatSchools.org and Niche have drawn on states' publicly available information to create their own consumer-oriented rating systems. NEPC today released a policy brief, Consumer-Oriented School Rating Systems and Their Implications for Educational Equity , in which author Jeanne M. Powers of Arizona State University examines these consumer-oriented rating systems, their cultural effects, how they work in practice, and their implications for educational equity. Professor Powers describes the growing evidence base about these rating systems, their purpose purportedly being to help families navigate increasingly complex school choice options. One consistent research finding is that schools' ratings, or the measures that comprise school ratings, are associated with schools' demographic characteristics, such as students' race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The association between ratings and demographics is stronger for status metrics (or measures of a school's performance at a specific moment in time) and weaker but still influential for growth metrics (or measures of a school's performance trends over time). Status metrics tend to generate lower ratings for racially diverse schools, while growth metrics tend to generate higher ratings for them. School demographics also shape the way parents and other stakeholders respond to surveys or provide descriptive comments about schools. Not surprisingly, school ratings shape how the general public and parents perceive schools, with negative scores or comments having a particularly strong influence. School ratings can also influence the work of school personnel and the value of houses in the neighborhoods surrounding schools. Parents who consult school ratings often rely on status metrics and thus avoid racially diverse schools. This could change with expanded use of growth metrics, but that shift is unlikely to happen without policy intervention. The format and display of ratings can also influence perceptions. The choices made by those running consumer-oriented ratings systems are driven in large part by their status as private businesses. This is apparent from some of the consumer-oriented ratings system websites that offer gateways into multiple fee-generating services (beyond the free initial searches). Further, by requiring users to provide personal information to use such advanced search features as school comparison tools, the websites enable non-state organizations to collect valuable information about families that can be sold to others. Because parents and others see consumer-oriented rating systems as trusted sources of information, policymakers should understand the implications and outcomes associated with them. To the extent that the information they provide reflects schools' demographics rather than school's contributions to students' academic growth, consumer-oriented ratings systems may also contribute to the acceleration or deepening of residential and school segregation, particularly in the wake of the pandemic and widening test score gaps. To that end, Professor Powers provides recommendations for both policymakers and the organizations that create and maintain the ratings systems. Find Consumer-Oriented School Rating Systems and Their Implications for Educational Equity , by Jeanne M. Powers, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3078&type=policy_brief This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, 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 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 Jeanne M. Powers : (480) 965-0841, jeanne.powers@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More