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

< Back The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar Summary An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. In his review, Peter W. Cookson, Jr. found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." Cookson further states: "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." Publication Date June 7, 2014 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Andrew Smarick & Juliet Squire; Peter W. Cookson, Jr., Georgetown University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds State Education Agency report is earnest but oversimplifies Report called for less state involvement in school reform EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 17, 2014) – A recent report from the Fordham Institute and Bellwether Education Partners argues that states should get out of the reform business directly and hand it over to an "ecosystem of nonprofit organizations." It proposes a governance overhaul to replace the role of State Education Agencies in school improvement. An academic review finds the report is well written, but reveals that the findings and recommendations are not based on original research. Peter W. Cookson, Jr. of Georgetown University reviewed The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report outlines the responsibilities of SEAs and suggests that they struggle to deliver. It cautions against strengthening SEAs to meet new accountability obligations. In his review, Cookson found the report fails to support its findings or recommendations with the in-depth research needed to support the sweeping claims in the report. "There is no real substantiation of their claims about the failings of SEAs or the efficacy of their solutions; it relies on the preponderance of secondary evidence as the authors' have collected it." He also calls into question the validity of the findings and recommendations, because the data are subjective in nature. Cookson says "The methods used in this report are more akin to advocacy journalism than scholarship." On a positive note, Cookson says that the report "is a useful document for those who are engaged in educational reform because it lays out an argument for change that needs to be addressed honestly by those who support it and those who do not." In his conclusion, Cookson finds value in this flawed work because it pushes us to question our own unexamined assumptions. He says, "The report is an earnest attempt, but conflates the people's work with the work of reformers-for-hire." Read this review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The State Education Agency: At the Helm, Not the Oar on the web: http://edexcellence.net/publications/the-state-education-agency-at-the-helm-not-the-oar Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Peter W. Cookson, Jr., (202) 403-6203, pcookson@air.org Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Teacher Qualifications and Work Environments Across School Types Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date March 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors 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 Ending the Blame Game on Educational Inequity: A Study of High Flying Schools and NCLB Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date January 1, 2006 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors 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 Measures of Effective Teaching—Asking Students About Teaching Summary A recent report from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project presents advice on administering and using information from student surveys to evaluate teachers and provide feedback to teachers. Publication Date November 15, 2012 Research Areas Teacher Workforce; Curriculum & Instruction Authors Eric M. Camburn, The University of Wisconsin-Madison Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Gates Report on Student Surveys Oversells Strengths, Ignores Weaknesses EAST LANSING, Mich. (November 15, 2012) –A recent report from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project presents advice on administering and using information from student surveys to evaluate teachers and provide feedback to teachers. A new review, however, finds that the report doesn't provide sufficient justification for many of its conclusions. Professor Eric M. Camburn of the University of Wisconsin-Madison reviewed Asking Students about Teaching for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review is published by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Asking Students about Teaching seeks to establish that student surveys provide valid evidence usable to evaluate teachers. The report then offers guidance about optimal practices for using and acting on such surveys. Camburn agrees that student surveys are potentially useful and that the report "contains many practical pieces of advice that are sensible and worth putting into practice." However, he cautions that the report's claims of a strong relationship between student survey results and teacher effectiveness are not supported by evidence in the report itself. He further warns that a "broader limitation of the report is that many of the findings and conclusions are presented too uncritically and without sufficient justification." "Developers of the MET project embrace the idea that multiple measures of teaching effectiveness are needed to represent such a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon. However, in discussing the potential uses of student surveys, this report's stance is lopsided, placing too much weight on the strengths of student surveys and not enough weight on their weaknesses." In short, student surveys can potentially provide useful information, but the report's policy recommendations far outpace the available evidence. Find Eric Camburn's review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Asking Students about Teaching on the web: http://www.metproject.org/downloads/Asking_Students_Practitioner_Brief.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 by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-asking-students --###-- 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: Eric M. Camburn, (608) 263-3697, camburn@wisc.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Virtual Schooling and Student Learning: Evidence from the Florida Virtual School Summary A recently released paper from the Harvard Kennedy School attempted to compare the performance of students at the Florida Virtual School (FLVS) to students in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. The paper concluded that FLVS students performed about the same or somewhat better on state tests and at a lower cost. Publication Date October 28, 2014 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Technology & AI Authors Matthew M. Chingos and Guido Schwerdt; Michael K. Barbour, Sacred Heart University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds major methodological errors in Florida Virtual School report Brings attention to the need for data-driven solutions to real problems EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 28, 2014) – A recently released paper from the Harvard Kennedy School attempted to compare the performance of students at the Florida Virtual School (FLVS) to students in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. The paper concluded that FLVS students performed about the same or somewhat better on state tests and at a lower cost. An academic review out today, finds that the report is flawed in several important ways and that the paper does not advance our understanding of conditions necessary for effective K-12 online or blended learning. Michael K. Barbour, Director of Doctoral Studies for the Isabelle Farrington College of Education at Sacred Heart University, reviewed Virtual Schooling and Student Learning: Evidence from the Florida Virtual School for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Dr. Barbour has been involved with K-12 online learning in several countries as a researcher, teacher, course designer, and administrator. The paper claimed to be the first empirical study of K-12 student performance in virtual education. However, in his review, Dr. Barbour specifically calls attention to the fact that this paper is not the first, and the report merely "confirms the findings and repeats the methodological flaws and limitations of previous research." Specifically, Barbour exposes several methodological errors that need to be addressed: (1) a potential bias of student selectivity in the FLVS sample; (2) the potential impact of regression effects, differential mortality in the two groups, and (3) the fact that the virtual environment is simply a delivery medium. Regarding the report's use of research literature, he finds: "The report almost completely ignored the wealth of literature on K-12 online learning." Barbour brings into question the line of inquiry used in the paper; one that attempts to determine which medium is better. Instead, Barbour suggests that research needs to be focused on "investigating under what conditions K-12 online and blended learning can be effectively designed, delivered, and supported." Moreover, the paper ignores the fact that online and blended learning continue grow, and there is a need for better information to enhance and improve K-12 online learning programs. Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Virtual Schooling and Student Learning on the web: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG14_02FVS_Chingos_Schwerdt.pdf 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: Michael Barbour, (203) 997-6330, barbourm21@sacredheart.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 An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipient's Family Income, 2009-10 Summary This report attempts to counter claims made by two AZ newspapers that the state's tuition tax credit voucher program has failed to increase private school access for low-income families. Publication Date November 18, 2010 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Casey D. Cobb, University of Connecticut Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi. (November 18, 2010) –A new review finds that a recent defense of an Arizona tax credit program to help students attend private schools uses sound and reasonable methods and offers useful information. But the review also notes limitations in the data and the report's overstated claims. The report, reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Casey D. Cobb of the University of Connecticut, was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Since 1998 Arizona has allowed state taxpayers to receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits by making donations to School Tuition Organizations (STOs) that provide voucher-like scholarships enabling students to attend private schools. Although the law does not currently require STOs to consider student financial need in making awards, a rationale for its initial adoption was to expand access to private schools for low-income families. Reports in two Arizona newspapers in 2009, however, exposed various abuses in the program and suggested that the program was not meeting the objective of serving lower-income families. In An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipients' Family Income, 2009-2010 School Year , published by the Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), Vickie E. Murray of the Pacific Research Institute collected survey data from STOs. The surveys sought information about the income levels of recipient families. Murray's report concludes that the scholarship/voucher recipients had a median family income of about $5,000 less than the statewide median, according to federal data. Murray also accuses the two papers, the Arizona Republic and the East Valley Tribune , of "sweeping allegations" that the program "disproportionately serves privileged students from higher income families..." In his review, Cobb takes issue with that latter characterization, finding from his own review of the cited newspaper articles no evidence of "careless or unsubstantiated" allegations in the news reports. He also notes that the articles uncovered abuses in the tuition tax credit program and that they did find the program "was not serving as many low-income students as was originally intended" – but that the "tenor of the language in the articles seemed much less extreme" than Murray's report suggested. As for Murray's survey of the STOs, Cobb credits the analysis for transparency and a demonstrated concern for accuracy and thoroughness. But he notes that the survey sample was not random. Instead, the report is based on a survey of 15 of Arizona's 51 STOs; the STOs that responded to the survey accounted for 79.4 percent of scholarships/vouchers awarded in 2009. This was a good response rate, because the largest STOs provided information, but Cobb discusses possible issues of biased data. He also points out that the survey didn't report information about the amount of scholarships awarded, linked to families' income levels. Thus, there's no way of telling whether the dollar value of scholarship awards to lower-income families was systemically greater or lesser than that of awards to higher-income families. Further, because the survey generated voluntary, self-reported data from STOs, it raises questions about accuracy and consistency. That may change for future research, he notes, thanks to the upcoming changes in the law that will "require more transparency in the reporting of scholarship information, including the percent of low-income recipients." Find Casey Cobb's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Cobb_AzTaxCredit.pdf . Find An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipients' Family Income, 2009-2010 School Year , by Vickie E. Murray, on the web at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-18_Murray.pdf . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-arizona-tax-credit . ### 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: Casey D. Cobb (860) 486-0253; casey.cobb@uconn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Supplemental Education Services under NCLB: Emerging Evidence and Policy Issues Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date May 1, 2017 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Patricia Burch, Ph.D., University of Wisconsin-Madison Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich., (May 1, 2007) – Supplemental Education Services, a key component of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act, has been adopted and implemented with little evidence to support its effectiveness according to a new policy brief funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The policy brief, “Supplemental Education Services under NCLB: Emerging Evidence and Policy Issues,” is by Patricia Burch, Ph.D of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. The brief examines the supplemental education services (SES) provision of NCLB, which requires school districts to pay the cost of after-school tutoring services for eligible students attending schools that have failed to meet mandated Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) benchmarks three years in a row. Those schools must set aside up to 20 percent of their Title I funds to pay for third-party tutoring services provided by state-approved providers. Currently, this field of providers is dominated by private, for-profit companies. The report finds that SES programs have low participation rates and offer limited services for English Language Learners and special education students. It also finds that states and school districts lack the capacity to offer significant monitoring or accountability for SES programs—in stark contrast to the NCLB law’s strict accountability measures applied to the schools themselves. The report emphasizes the overwhelming lack of evidence to support (or refute) the wisdom of the SES policy. The report states, “existing research offers little information about specific conditions that support positive outcomes” from supplemental education services provided under the law. “To make well-informed decisions in the future, policy makers will require additional empirical evidence.” The report recommends policy makers redesign NCLB to commission federally funded studies that assess the effectiveness of SES programs and their accessibility to at-risk students. It also offers concrete recommendations for amending NCLB to assist local school districts and state education agencies in administering SES programs. The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Patricia Burch – (303) 492-8370; pburch@wisc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effects of Means Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation Summary A recent Urban Institute report brings together certain findings from studies of three school voucher programs. The report concludes that students using vouchers to attend private schools sometimes have higher rates of college enrollment and completion than their public school counterparts. Publication Date October 16, 2019 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability Authors T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Vouchers Struggles to Find Claimed Benefits An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Measuring voucher success using educational attainment produces lackluster results at best. EAST LANSING, MI (October 17, 2019) - A recent Urban Institute report brings together certain findings from studies of three school voucher programs. The report concludes that students using vouchers to attend private schools sometimes have higher rates of college enrollment and completion than their public school counterparts. Here's how Urban Institute researchers summarized these studies in a piece they wrote for Education Next (published in March): [A] series of Urban Institute papers…found that participating in private school choice usually increased the rate at which students went to and graduated from college. The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program offers the one exception, as students in this program were no more or less likely to go to college. They were, however, more likely to graduate high school, and parents reported higher levels of satisfaction. But a new review points out that the Urban Institute is, at the very least, putting a problematic spin on the college-attainment research. T. Jameson Brewer, of the University of North Georgia, reviewed The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation . He explains that, of the three voucher-programs studies—in Washington DC, Milwaukee, and Florida—only the latter study shows clear benefits. Yet that Florida study was previously shown to have clear comparability problems (comparisons of apples to oranges). As noted in the above Education Next excerpt, no benefits whatsoever could be teased out of the Washington DC data. And the Milwaukee results were decidedly mixed and again could not sufficiently account for potentially pivotal differences between choosers and non-choosers. Only the Washington DC data were based on randomized assignment (a lottery) – and, as noted, that study showed no college attainment benefits. Professor Brewer notes two other concerns with the report. First, the literature review places an unbalanced reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources. Second, the report attempts to “move the goalposts” away from the test-score outcomes that have been the center of voucher advocacy and debate for decades—coinciding with recent voucher studies finding null or negative effects on test scores. These shortcomings, Brewer concludes, render the report of limited value for evaluating voucher policies. Find the review, by T. Jameson Brewer, at: https://greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation , written by Matthew Chingos, Daniel Kuehn, Tomas Monarrez, Patrick J. Wolf, John F. Witte, and Brian Kisida, and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100665/the_effects_of_means-tested_private_school_choice_programs_on_college_enrollment_and_graduation_2.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net T. Jameson Brewer: (678) 910-2744, jameson.brewer@ung.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More