< Back The Productivity of Public Charter Schools Summary The authors of the report claim that this is the first national study of productivity of charter schools relative to traditional public schools. The report utilizes finding from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and “revenues received” to support that charter schools spend less per pupil than traditional public schools and produce achievement as good or superior to that of traditional public schools. Publication Date August 18, 2014 Authors Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay F. May, Sheree T. Speakman, Patrick J. Wolf, Albert Cheng; Gene V. Glass, University of Colorado Boulder and Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Charter School Productivity Report, Recommendations Indefensible Nothing in the report provides any guidance for educators or policymakers EAST LANSING, Mich. (August 19, 2014) – A recent report from the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform (DER) on charter school productivity claims superiority of charter schools in producing achievement per dollar invested. The report, the third in a series of reports, asserts charter schools are more effective in producing achievement on standardized tests and are also less costly per pupil than traditional public schools. An academic review finds the claims made by the report rest on shaky ground and suffer from multiple sources of invalidity, rendering the report useless. Gene V. Glass, Regents' Professor Emeritus at Arizona State University, reviewed The Productivity of Public Charter Schools 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 utilizes findings from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and "revenues received" to support that charter schools spend less per pupil than traditional public schools and produce achievement as good or superior to that of traditional public schools. In his review, Glass found the report inaccurately utilizes NAEP test results while discounting the fact that demographic differences between the two sectors are highly correlated with NAEP performance. In short, Glass says, "The sector with the higher percentage of poor pupils scores lower on the NAEP test." Additionally, Glass also finds that the assessment of expenditures is based on questionable data, leaving readers with little evidence on which to base any valid conclusions. In his conclusion, Glass says, "The report continues a program of advocacy research that will be cited by supporters of the charter school movement." Despite its many shortcomings, charter school supporters will attempt to utilize the report for an expansion of funding for charter schools. Read his full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Productivity of Charter Schools on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/the-productivity-of-public-charter-schools/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu 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: Gene V. Glass, (480) 294-1120, gene.glass@asu.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – The Purpose of Education: Truing the Balance Wheel Summary In The Purpose of Education: Truing the Balance Wheel, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses what it would take for Horace Mann’s ideal of education as the “great equalizer of the conditions of men” to become a reality. Mann proclaimed that education was the bedrock of democracy and that it had the potential to serve as a “balance wheel of social machinery.” Mathis recommends that in order to true the balance wheel (as Mann desired), both in-school and out-of-school factors need to be addressed. Publication Date June 1, 2016 Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Strong Investments and Supports Needed for Education to Become "Great Equalizer" EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 2, 2016) – The seventh in a series of concise policy briefs addresses how Horace Mann's vision for public schools has been undermined by substantial disparities in educational resources, opportunities, and outcomes. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is 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. In The Purpose of Education: Truing the Balance Wheel , William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses what it would take for Mann's ideal of education as the "great equalizer of the conditions of men" to become a reality. Mann proclaimed that education was the bedrock of democracy and that it had the potential to serve as a "balance wheel of social machinery." Moreover, he believed that education needed to be "universal, non-sectarian, free, and that its aims should be social efficiency, civic virtue, and character, rather than mere learning for the advancement of sectarian ends." Dr. Mathis says in this concise brief, "Given the broad scope of inequities in schools and in society writ large, the most sensible approach would be to inventory the full range of social and economic needs, and address the multiple factors—which extend well beyond the traditional boundaries of schools—that contribute to the enduring and increasing opportunity gap that children experience in schools." Mathis recommends that in order to true the balance wheel (as Mann desired), both in-school and out-of-school factors need to be addressed. He suggests that policymakers and the general public: (1) embrace a broad set of goals of education; (2) ensure that all schools have the fundamental educational resources they need to promote student success; (3) expand the scope of schools in high-poverty neighborhoods to provide wrap-around services; and (4) promote a policy context that is supportive of equal opportunity. The concise brief is based on Jennifer King Rice's Investing in Equal Opportunity: What Would it Take to Build the Balance Wheel? , which was also produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ 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 High Stakes for High Achievers / High Stakes for High Schoolers Summary Two recent think tank reports from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute called into question the impact of accountability systems on “high achievers.” The reports claimed that states have failed to address the needs of higher-scoring students, and that state accountability systems should be redesigned under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with those students in mind. Publication Date January 25, 2017 Authors Michael J. Petrilli, David Griffith, Brandon L. Wright, and Audrey Kim / Michael J. Petrilli, David Griffith, and Brandon L. Wright; Beth C. Rubin, Rutgers University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Recommendations from two accountability reports on "high achievers" could further educational inequities, academic review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 26, 2017) — State accountability systems have several purposes, most of which include improving teaching and learning to ensure all students receive quality instruction and opportunities to learn. Two recent think tank reports from the Fordham Institute called into question the impact of accountability systems on "high achievers." The reports claimed that states have failed to address the needs of higher-scoring students, and that state accountability systems should be redesigned under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with those students in mind. Though, an academic review of the reports finds that the recommendations could result in a furthering of the inequitable educational opportunities that ESSA was designed to reduce. Beth Rubin, Rutgers University, reviewed the reports, High Stakes for High Achievers and High Stakes for High Schoolers , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Despite arguing that "high achievers" are being neglected educationally, Rubin's review finds that both reports fail to address the concerns productively. Rubin identifies four key areas that need strengthening: The reports' central assumptions about higher-achieving students are problematic; Growth measures are not an effective means for directing attention to higher-achieving students; Narrow, high-stakes forms of assessment may negatively impact the education provided to these students; and Further stratifying educational settings and reallocation of resources to these students has troublesome implications for the democratic goals of education. Rubin concludes that these reports contribute to the collective discussion regarding the federal role in education, but they must be approached with caution. She says, "the policy changes recommended by the reports are overly simplistic and do not take into account the complexities of evaluating student growth, the impact of high-stakes testing on the quality of students' educational experiences, and the needs of the underserved students who are the focus of [the] ESSA." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find both reports on the Fordham Institute website: https://edexcellence.net/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Beth C. Rubin, (848) 932-0677, beth.rubin@gse.rutgers.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of As a Matter of Fact: National Charter School Study III 2023 Summary In a recent report, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) examined charter school students' year-to-year test score growth over four years, and across 31 states. The report shows very small differences favoring charter schools and has been repeatedly trumpeted by charter school advocates as having policy significance-as weighing in favor of charter school expansion. Publication Date September 6, 2023 Authors Margaret E. Raymond, James L. Woodworth, Won Fy Lee, and Sally Bachofer; Joseph J. Ferrare University of Washington Bothell Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding; Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release CREDO Report Makes Overstated Claims of Charter School Gains An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Unobserved factors may be driving the very small reported differences in test score growth across sectors. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 7, 2023) - In a recent report, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) examined charter school students' year-to-year test score growth over four years, and across 31 states. The report shows very small differences favoring charter schools and has been repeatedly trumpeted by charter school advocates as having policy significance-as weighing in favor of charter school expansion. A review reveals, however, how the report's main findings fail to meet the minimum baseline experts consider to be meaningful. In fact, CREDO itself has labeled these small differences as "meaningless" and "small" -back when they found charter schools to be on the losing end of those differences. Joseph J. Ferrare of the University of Washington Bothell reviewed As a Matter of Fact: National Charter School Study III 2023 and warns that it should be approached with caution by policymakers, given the nonexperimental design that renders it unable to fully account for the factors that drive families to choose charter schools. Those omitted factors could account for the small measured differences. The recent CREDO report finds that charter school students, when compared to those in traditional public schools, experienced small, positive impacts in reading and math (0.028 and 0.011 standard deviations, respectively), but with considerable variation between groups and types of schools. For instance, Black and Hispanic students in the study showed more positive outcomes than other racial and ethnic identities. Virtual charter schools, meanwhile, produced strongly negative outcomes. The geographic scope of the report and the researchers' access to detailed data sets offer the potential to provide policymakers with an expansive bird's-eye view, comparing charter school students' learning in reading and math to students in traditional public schools. Unfortunately, the CREDO researchers repeat mistakes of their past charter school studies, including the use of the "days of learning" unconventional metric, that leads to more confusion than clarity. This and other problems have been pointed out by several past NEPC reviews: in 2009 , when the small differences were flipped; 2013 and again later in 2013 ; 2015 ; and 2017 . Similar and additional concerns were raised by Andrea Gabor in 2015 and by Carol Burris as regards the 2023 study. CREDO's reports do have potential, but that potential will not be realized unless and until the researchers respond constructively to these sincere and important criticisms. Find the review, by Joseph J. Ferrare, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find As a Matter of Fact: National Charter School Study III 2023 , written by Margaret E. Raymond, James L. Woodworth, Won Fy Lee, and Sally Bachofer and published by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), at: https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-NCSS3-Report.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The 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: Michelle Renee Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Joseph J. Ferrare: (425) 352-3801, jferrare@uw.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The State of High School Education in Wisconsin: A Tale of Two Wisconsins Summary This report calls for sweeping reforms in the state’s effort to reduce the widening achievement gap between rich and poor schools districts by increasing rigor in coursework. Publication Date February 16, 2006 Authors William Mathis, University of Vermont Research Areas Governance & Public Education 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 Decoding Progress in Reading Preparation (National Council on Teacher Quality, June 2026) Summary This review examines a National Council on Teacher Quality report on elementary teacher preparation for reading instruction and concludes that its recommendations are not supported by rigorous evidence. The review argues that the report relies on outdated research, flawed methodology, and apparent conflicts of interest, and cautions policymakers against using it to guide teacher preparation or literacy policy. Publication Date August 11, 2026 Authors Elena Aydarova, University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Areas Teacher Workforce; Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Reading Instruction Falls Far Short of the Standards It Promotes A recent report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) evaluates how well university-based teacher education programs prepare candidates to teach reading, but the report itself fails to meet the scientific research standards it ostensibly expects of those programs. Elena Aydarova of the University of Wisconsin-Madison reviewed Decoding Progress in Reading Preparation, and she concludes that its claims don’t withstand scrutiny. She found unsubstantiated assertions about how reading should be taught and what policymakers should do in response, while failing to incorporate current research evidence and relying on flawed methodology. Professor Aydarova also identifies apparent conflicts of interest, noting that NCTQ repeatedly directs readers to products and services offered by members of its own technical and advisory panels. According to Professor Aydarova, the report narrows conceptions of reading instruction, promotes the de-professionalization of teacher educators, and undermines academic freedom in higher education. Rather than providing a rigorous, evidence-based assessment of reading teacher preparation, she concludes, the report functions more as an ideological critique of university-based teacher education programs. Professor Aydarova urges policymakers, journalists, and education leaders to approach the report’s findings and recommendations with significant caution. Find the review, written by Elena Aydarova, at: https://nepc.colorado.edu/review/reading-prep Find Decoding Progress in Reading Preparation, written by Christie Ellis, Ron Noble, Graham Drake, and Heather Peske, and published by the National Council on Teacher Quality, at: https://teacherquality.nctq.org/review/standard/Reading-Foundations/2026 NEPC Reviews (https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.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 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Michigan Higher Education: Facts and Fiction Summary This report argues that Michigan ’s colleges and universities did financially fine during a period of sharp cutbacks to higher education between 2000-2004. Further, based on an analysis of a national set of data, the report finds that states with greater appropriations for higher education are more likely to have lower economic growth. Publication Date July 17, 2007 Authors Jose Luis Santos, UCLA Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release MACKINAC CENTER’S HIGHER EDUCATION REPORT IS MISLEADING Review concludes that study is poorly grounded and findings are grossly overstated EAST LANSING, Mich. – A recently released report published by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy claims that state funding to support colleges and universities actually results in lower statewide economic growth. A review of this report finds that the report’s analysis and data are weak and misleading and that the report relies on ideology rather than evidence to make its case. The report, Michigan Higher Education: Facts and Fiction , was authored by Richard Vedder and Matthew Denhart. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Jose Luis Santos of UCLA. The report’s authors argue that Michigan’s colleges and universities did fine financially during the period from 2000 to 2004, even though the state sharply cut back on higher education appropriations during that time. Moreover, they analyze a national set of data and find that states with greater appropriations for higher education are more likely to have lower economic growth. At a time when public higher education institutions have been required to increase tuition and fees while many state governments are reducing their appropriations, the Mackinac report offers conclusions that are potentially very important. In tough financial times, one wouldn’t want to waste state resources on something that would lower state economic growth. Santos’ review, however, shows how the report’s counter-intuitive findings are easily explained once the reader understands how the report is misleading. The report’s authors mislead the reader by narrowly focusing on benefits from higher education that accrue to individual students despite considerable empirical research from scholars showing societal benefits. Santos offers the example of high-tech companies choosing to locate near research universities, thus bringing jobs and tax revenues to a region. He also mentions that residents with greater education tend to pay more taxes and are less likely to become burdens on the state. He notes that while it is hard to attach specific dollar figures to these benefits, there is no doubt that they exist. Yet the report’s authors refuse to include them in the calculations they present. Another misleading element of the report is the numbers used to support the finding that colleges and universities have done fine financially despite sharp state cutbacks. The report discusses and draws conclusions about state allocations, but the numbers used for these calculations include (in addition to those allocations) all revenues, including fees, tuition, and private fundraising. In Santos’ words, the authors use “data about pears to draw lessons about mangos.” The report’s authors also make much of the fact that the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor was able to raise fees and tuition and to find other sources of revenue, even while state appropriations were trimmed. But Professor Santos’ review points out that this flagship university was well-positioned to behave “more and more like a private university.” By contrast, he states, “less sought-after colleges and universities will not be in the same position to demand higher tuition and fees, and smaller universities are usually not able to raise the amount of dollars that can be raised at larger ones.” In short, the authors grossly overstate their findings and policy-makers should view with great caution the conclusions drawn and the policy recommendation proffered to reduce state funding for public universities. Find the complete review by Jose Luis Santos as well as a link to the Mackinac Center for Public Policy’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About Think Twice 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 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: José Luis Santos (520) 971-9971 (email) jsantos@gseis.ucla.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – The 'Portfolio' Approach to School District Governance Summary A new concise policy brief considers the research evidence of “portfolio” districts. According to the brief, the approach shifts decision-making away from local school district leaders. Despite concerns, the approach is now being used in several large urban districts across the country. The authors find that changing the governance structure creates a “false promise” for communities and could distract from larger efforts to address societal inequities. Publication Date March 28, 2016 Authors William Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 29, 2016) — A new concise policy brief considers the research evidence of "portfolio" districts. According to the brief, the approach shifts decision-making away from local school district leaders. Despite concerns, the approach is now being used in several large urban districts across the country. The brief, The "Portfolio" Approach to School District Governance , is part of a series of short policy briefs produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, author the brief. According to Mathis and Welner, there exists a very limited body of generally accepted research about the impact of "portfolio" district reform. However, they do find that research evidence does exist for four reform strategies associated with the model: (1) school-level decentralization of management decisions; (2) reconstitution or closing "failing" schools; (3) expansion of school choice, primarily through charter schools; and (4) performance- or test-based accountability. After investigating the available research on these portfolio-related strategies, the authors concluded that there is little promise of meaningful benefits associated with the governance changes. Mathis and Welner caution that larger social inequalities, including structural racism and denied opportunities related to poverty, will continue to drive under-resourced communities. They state that changing the governance structure creates a "false promise" for communities and distracts from larger efforts to address societal inequities. Instead of changing the governance structure in urban districts, Mathis and Welner suggest equity-focused reforms that call for addressing poverty. Nevertheless, the authors conclude that taking an equity-focused approach can be undertaken in a portfolio-based structure. They suggest several strategies that "portfolio managers" could apply to help address opportunities to learn: Adequate funding for the neediest schools; Stable school environments; Relevant, responsive curriculum and pedagogy; Highly qualified and prepared teachers; Personalized instruction with small class size; and On-site, wrap-around services. The authors also suggest that if school choice policies are under consideration, they must hold the "portfolio managers" accountable, ensure high standards and fiscal accountability, and public funding should be transparent and subjected to strict auditing procedures. This is the third part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. Find the brief on the GLC website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options_2015.php This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Opportunity Myth: What Students Can Show Us About How School Is Letting Them Down—and How to Fix It Summary A recent report from TNTP, formerly The New Teacher Project, aims to expose what it labels the “opportunity myth” in American education: that while schools purport to prepare students well, they don’t deliver. Publication Date January 23, 2019 Authors Amanda Datnow of the University of California, San Diego Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report about "Opportunity Myth" Faults Educators but Lacks Rigor Key Takeaway: Though a unique contribution, report's inconsistency and lack of clarity make many of its conclusions questionable. East Lansing, MI (January 24, 2019) – A recent report from TNTP, formerly The New Teacher Project, aims to expose what it labels the "opportunity myth" in American education: that while schools purport to prepare students well, they don't deliver. Amanda Datnow of the University of California, San Diego reviewed The Opportunity Myth : What Students Can Show Us About How School Is Letting Them Down—and How to Fix It . Professor Datnow notes that the report conveys a great sense of urgency, with descriptions of students spending significant time on below-grade-level assignments, lacking strong instruction and high expectations, and being disengaged in school. It paints a dramatic picture of American students being misled by false promises of opportunity, when they could make significant learning gains if they experienced grade-level content, strong instruction, deep engagement, and high expectations. In this sense, the report addresses important issues. Yet the report's claims are not fully supported by evidence, and there are questions about how key constructs are measured and how data are analyzed. Professor Datnow found its conclusions reported in a way that seems to be aimed at creating a sense of crisis around the claims rather than reporting nuanced, in-depth research findings based on rigorous methods. The report also focuses primarily on educators' daily decisions. Professor Datnow concludes that the report does not sufficiently account for larger systemic and societal impediments to opportunity that serve to establish and maintain many of the obstacles and problematic patterns it observes. Moreover, the report's practical implications relate only to the aspects of the opportunity myth on which that the authors chose to focus. While educators' daily decision-making could undoubtedly be improved, large-scale improvement will depend on addressing larger systemic and societal impediments to opportunity. Find the review, by Amanda Datnow, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Datnow-Opportunity-Myth.pdf Find The Opportunity Myth : What Students Can Show Us About How School Is Letting Them Down—and How to Fix It, published by TNTP, at: https://www.publicagenda.org/files/PublicAgenda_OurNextAssignment_2018.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), 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: 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/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Amanda Datnow: (858) 534-9598, adatnow@ucsd.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Strengthening the Link between Effective School Expenditures and State Funding Mechanisms 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 July 13, 2008 Authors Anthony Rolle of Texas A&M University Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New report calls for stronger link between school finance formulas and research on student achievement. EAST LANSING, Mich. (July 14, 2008) – School funding formulas that determine how to spend the more than half a trillion dollars we invest in K-12 public education each year are often arbitrary and not reflective of reliable research findings on student achievement according to a new policy brief released by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In Strengthening the Link Between Effective School Expenditures and State Funding , author Anthony Rolle of Texas A&M University explains that improving school finance formulas in accordance with up-to-date research on the most effective teaching and learning methods can advance student achievement. The brief examines which spending categories improve academic quality and identifies obstacles that prevent the adoption, into state funding formulas, of research-based spending guidelines. It then recommends ways to strengthen the link between funding formulas, expense components and desired academic outcomes. The brief also addresses issues of equity and of the effective use of spending. Rolle outlines the standard approach to funding schools and observes that, to achieve equity, state legislatures typically adjust district-level financing to account for such circumstances as the cost of living, special education needs and the presence of at-risk students. However, state funding formulas are slow to include many of the adjustments that research as shown to be effective. According to Rolle, “Failure to formulate financial policy in light of research findings is failure to maximize chances for school success. Such failure is likely to reduce educational opportunities for students and to increase the probability of poor educational (and perhaps economic) outcomes for students.” Find Anthony Rolle’s policy brief on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Anthony Rolle – (979) 862-3519; arolle@tamu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking—Public Funding of School Choice Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research and describes important issues and questions policymakers should consider in determining public funding of alternatives to conventional public schools. This three-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date December 12, 2012 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Calls for Increased Scrutiny in Funding 'Choice' Schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 13, 2012) – The fourth in a new series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research describes important issues and questions that policymakers should consider in determining public funding of alternatives to conventional public schools. 'Choice' schools include charter schools, conventional vouchers, neovouchers, magnet schools, open enrollment, and across-district school choice. In regards to the funding of 'choice' schools, Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, suggests, "Issues such as democratic governance, accountability of public funds, quality control and church/state concerns must be carefully deliberated." In Public Funding of School Choice , Mathis further explains, "When lawmakers do decide to allocate public funding to choice schools, as they have increasingly done over the past couple of decades, they must then engage in a new level of scrutiny regarding the structure, level and conditions of these subsidies." Mathis notes that the specific costs as well as the specific needs of students will vary from school to school, meaning the funding requirements can correspondingly vary widely. Similarly, wide variations among states in funding levels, funding sources, regulatory scrutiny, and the details of choice mechanisms complicate the decisions policymakers face. Mathis also explains that recipients of public funding should be open to rigorous scrutiny that emphasizes equity, transparency, and the assurance that the funding is reaching the intended students. Public Funding of School Choice is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. This brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publications/options --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Reform With Results for New Jersey Schools Summary This report presents findings on the effectivenss of New Jersey's Abbott v. Burke court decisions. The report argues that the reforms ordered by the court have failed to increase student achievement despite what it terms dramatic spending increases. Based on this, the report argues for instituting such reforms as charters schools, changes to union contracts and vouchers. Publication Date February 9, 2011 Authors Alan R. Sadovnik, Rutgers University Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Lexington Institute's New Jersey Report of Little Value to Policymakers February 10, 2011 Shortcomings of current school reforms are exaggerated while problems with the report's favored reforms are ignored, according to new review EAST LANSING, MI (February 10, 2011) – A review released today finds fundamental errors in a Lexington Institute report that condemns existing reforms in New Jersey and instead suggests its own reforms, such as merit pay for teachers and private school vouchers. According to the reviewer, the report offers only a one-sided presentation of the issue and ignores relevant research. The report, Reform with Results for New Jersey Schools , by Lori Drummer and Don Soifer, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Alan R. Sadovnik, a professor of education, sociology, and public administration and affairs at Rutgers University, Newark and co-director of the Institute on Education Law and Policy and the Newark Schools Research Collaborative The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Lexington report claims to analyze the impact of reforms instituted as a result of New Jersey's Abbott v. Burke school funding litigation in the 1990s. The Abbott reforms included pre-school for three- and four-year-olds, funding to build new and renovate existing schools, and supplemental funding for up to 31 low-income school districts. The report states that these reforms have failed to significantly improve educational achievement, especially for African American students. It recommends replacing the reforms associated with Abbott with a variety of school-choice policies as well as tying teacher pay to student test results Sadovnik found that the report largely avoids research-based conclusions, cherry-picks evidence, and "is a straightforward advocacy document for market-based and competition-oriented reforms." As one example of the report's research flaws, it overstates the per-pupil spending in Newark by $4,000 by crediting to the district money passed through to charter schools and to pre-kindergarten programs. Further, while advocating expansion of the charter school sector, the report ignores "a body of research indicating that Newark charter schools perform at similar levels to district schools, after controlling for family background and other variables," according to Sadovnik. "Even an advocacy report has an obligation to reach conclusions based on all of the available evidence, not simply that which supports its point of view." Lacking the sort of "carefully collected evidence" and sound social science methodology that should drive school reform, Sadovnik concludes that "this report will be useful only to those already predisposed to its point of view." Find Alan Sadovnik's review and a link to the Lexinton Institute report on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-reform-with-results . --###-- 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: Alan R. Sadovnik: (973) 353-3882 or sadovnik@andromeda.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071 or greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More