< Back Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind Summary The report, from a noted conservative think tank, attempts to isolate the effects of NCLB’s threat of sanctions on underperforming schools. The authors infer that federal pressure and punishment are promising policy avenues. Publication Date August 27, 2013 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Bruce Fuller, University of California Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release AEI Report Beneficial, Offers Little Guidance For Policymakers Relies on faith of government pressure and top-down accountability EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 27, 2013) – In June, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released a report which investigates the effects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on North Carolina achievement scores. The report attempts to isolate the effects of NCLB's threat of sanctions on underperforming schools, while inferring that federal pressure and punishment are promising policy avenues. Yet, little can be determined about whether NCLB or any of the touted reforms caused the very small score increases reported. Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California Berkeley, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report, Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind , by Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor, praises accountability systems (NCLB included) as having beneficial systematic effects on standardized test scores. However, very little evidence was presented regarding how local educators comprehended or responded to these pressures. In his review, Fuller notes that the report feels out of date because, due to congressional inaction – education secretary Arne Duncan's agenda, pursued through waivers, has largely bypassed NCLB. The report does highlight how complicated NCLB once was, but this very complexity makes drawing inferences about what works virtually impossible amidst this policy noise. The authors do note that collateral damage was done by unbalanced high-stakes testing, specifically inattention in non-tested content areas. However, no evidence was provided of the negative effects of high-stakes accountability inside classrooms. Fuller's review further finds that the literature review fails to include the large body of literature that details the downside costs of high-stakes accountability tied to standardized testing. In regards to the methods, Fuller found a "naïve design assumption" which surfaces throughout the report – "that achievement trends can be attributed to a complicated bundle of policy tools implemented simultaneously across the country." He concludes, "Readers of the AEI report will benefit from the information provided, but they will remain uninformed as to how the search for an effective federal role can be informed by scarce evidence on the effects of various elements of NCLB." Find Bruce Fuller's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind, by Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor, on the web at: http://www.aei.org/papers/education/k-12/accountability/were-all-those-standardized-tests-for-nothing-the-lessons-of-no-child-left-behind/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible with support from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also 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: Bruce Fuller, (510) 642-9163, b_fuller@berkeley.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 Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education Summary Kenneth Howe and David Meens, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, examine the suppression of local control by policymakers and what it means for our democracy. A new report presents a comprehensive review of research on two key elements—democratic policymaking and democratic education. The evidence surveyed in this report suggests that contemporary reforms “run afoul of democratic principles in several critical ways.” Publication Date October 16, 2012 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Kenneth Howe, University of Colorado-Boulder David Meens, University of Colorado- Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Report Cautions Against Federal Education Policies that Undermine Democracy and Local Control EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 16, 2012)—While transmission of educational services happens at the local level, increasingly the power has shifted to state or national control. With the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) the politics of education have been nationalized to an unprecedented degree. A new report out today concludes the concept of local control "has all but disappeared" in discussions of education policy. The report, Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education , by Kenneth Howe and David Meens of the University of Colorado Boulder, examines the impact on democratic ideals of vanishing local control over education. The report examines the making of education policy as well as the decisions about what schools teach and how they teach it. The authors review suggests that many contemporary reforms "run afoul of democratic principles in several critical ways." While local discretion is allowed for how to comply with state and federal mandates, the constraints imposed by those mandates have been enormous. Consequently, Howe and Meens contend, NCLB and its progeny have been fundamentally anti-democratic. The same is true of the reform policies that have been advanced by President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan. The authors warn that current reform approaches are marginalizing community involvement. "Democratic reform should involve local stakeholders, especially marginalized members of society, because inclusion is a democratic value that increases not only the likelihood that policies will be just, but also the likelihood that reform will succeed," Howe and Meens write. "Such inclusion also helps create the conditions in which all students can attain the democratic threshold." They conclude with a series of recommendations, urging schools and education policymakers to take three key steps. First, move away from a punitive model based on threats to withhold funding. This should be replaced by a participatory model – such as support and incentives for school employees, parents and community members to collaborate together on resolving educational problems. Second, encourage states and local communities to adopt curriculum standards "that include a conscious and substantive focus on developing the deliberative skill and dispositions required of democratic citizenship." Third, curtail the privatization of public education resources. Instead, build up democratic values by holding schools receiving public funds accountable to the public through democratically elected school boards and other democratic institutions. Moreover, "If the future reauthorization of ESEA is to safeguard and strengthen democracy, it should make education for democracy a fundamental aim of public education." Find Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education , by Kenneth Howe and David Meens, on the web at http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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, produced the policy brief. The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: 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 . Contact: Kenneth Howe, (303) 492-7229, Ken.Howe@Colorado.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Ohio Charter Schools After the Pandemic: Are Their Students Still Learning More Than They Would in District Schools? Summary A recent Fordham Institute report contends that the state's charter schools have outperformed traditional public schools and implies that they merit continued or expanded state investment. Publication Date September 24, 2024 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Stephane Lavertu; Bryan Mann, University of Kansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Ohio Charter Schools Report Misleads With Flawed Methods and Overstated Findings An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's analysis lacks any substantial evidence in its attempt to differentiate between charter and traditional public schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 24, 2024) - A recent Fordham Institute report contends that the state's charter schools have outperformed traditional public schools and implies that they merit continued or expanded state investment. The report's conclusions lack research evidence and sound methodology, however. These flaws are detailed in a review of Ohio Charter Schools After the Pandemic: Are Their Students Still Learning More Than They Would in District Schools? University of Kansas professor Bryan Mann finds that the report's evidence does not match its claims. Instead, Professor Mann explains, the report relies on previously critiqued methods and provides findings that lack the strength to suggest meaningful differences between charter and traditional public schools. For instance, the study fails to control for the different student populations attending charter and comparison schools. Ultimately, the report simply recycles flaws of past arguments and offers nothing new to the literature on charter school achievement. Though there are undoubtedly high-performing Ohio charter schools just as there are high-performing public schools, the effort and energy spent on expanding the sector could be better spent elsewhere, Professor Mann concludes. He suggests focusing on the mechanisms that lead to successful practice in both sectors. As such the report's wholesale endorsement of one type of school over another is unfounded, and the report is of little use to policymakers. Find the review, by Bryan Mann, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Ohio Charter Schools After the Pandemic: Are Their Students Still Learning More Than They Would in District Schools? , written by Stephane Lavertu and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/research/ohio-charter-schools-after-pandemic-are-their-students-still-learning-more-they-would NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Bryan Mann Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Beyond Race: What Really Drives Wisconsin's Achievement Gap Summary A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) highlights stark achievement gaps between White and Black students in Wisconsin, particularly in elementary-level English language arts and reading. While the report deserves credit for bringing attention to this important issue, its analysis is incomplete and misleading. Publication Date May 12, 2026 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; Curriculum & Instruction Authors Will Flanders; Jaekyung Lee, University at Buffalo Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MAY 12, 2026 Report on Wisconsin Achievement Gaps Oversimplifies Causes, Ignores Systemic Inequalities An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: WILL's report identifies real problems but misreads their causes, and offers overly simplistic policy solutions. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 12, 2026) - A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty (WILL) highlights stark achievement gaps between White and Black students in Wisconsin, particularly in elementary-level English language arts and reading. While the report deserves credit for bringing attention to this important issue, its analysis is incomplete and misleading. In his review of Beyond Race: What Really Drives Wisconsin's Achievement Gap , University at Buffalo distinguished professor Jaekyung Lee finds that the report offers an overly simplistic account of the causes of these disparities, attributing them to factors framed as separate from race. Professor Lee is the author of the book, The Anatomy of Achievement Gaps: Why and How American Education is Losing (But Can Still Win) the War on Underachievement . The WILL report contends that policymakers have misdiagnosed the achievement gap as a product of systemic racism, contending instead that poverty, disability, and family instability-presented as race-neutral mediation factors-explain the disparity. However, this framing reflects a fundamental misdiagnosis. These factors are not "beyond race" but are deeply intertwined with it due to longstanding structural inequalities. Those other factors therefore cannot be understood in isolation. The report further fails to acknowledge well-documented racial inequities in educational opportunity within schools, and it overlooks racial differences in the interaction between family and school learning environments. Moreover, the report's endorsement of the Science of Reading phonics-based approach, based on what is known as the "Mississippi Miracle," is unwarranted. Although improved phonics instruction is likely among the factors driving Mississippi's gains on the Grade 4 NAEP reading exam, those higher scores stem from a combination of factors. Further, those gains largely disappear by eighth grade. Professor Lee concludes that, beyond encouraging renewed attention to persistent achievement gaps, the report offers policymakers limited practical guidance. Addressing these disparities will require multifaceted, evidence-based solutions. Find the review, written by Jaekyung Lee, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Beyond Race: What Really Drives Wisconsin's Achievement Gap , written by Will Flanders and published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, at: https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/RaceAchievementStudy-web.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Jaekyung Lee Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Unleashing Educational Opportunity: The Untapped Potential of Expanded Tax Credit Scholarships Summary A Commonwealth Foundation report argues that expanding a program that uses tax credits to create vouchers for private schooling can lead to large economic gains for the state of Pennsylvania. Such gains would result from two purported benefits: increased lifetime earnings for those attending private schools on vouchers, and reduced social costs associated with crime. Publication Date October 22, 2020 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Authors Corey DeAngelis; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Concocts Supposed Economic Benefits of Pennsylvania's Neovoucher Program An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Due to report's false claims based on misrepresentation and misapplication of research findings, it is of little value for informing policies. EAST LANSING, MI (October 22, 2020) - A Commonwealth Foundation report argues that expanding a program that uses tax credits to create vouchers for private schooling can lead to large economic gains for the state of Pennsylvania. Such gains would result from two purported benefits: increased lifetime earnings for those attending private schools on vouchers, and reduced social costs associated with crime. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed Unleashing Educational Opportunity: The Untapped Potential of Expanded Tax Credit Scholarships , and found issues that undermine the report's conclusions and its usefulness. The report's assertions, Professor Baker points out, are based on the erroneous claim that a vast body of rigorous research shows higher academic achievement among voucher recipients and shows that these voucher recipients are more likely to attend and graduate college and less likely to commit felonies. Supporting that thesis would require sufficient evidence that expanding vouchers for private schooling in Pennsylvania or similar contexts would likely lead to the projected outcomes. The report cannot honestly muster that evidence. Instead, it ignores recent negative studies of statewide private school choice programs, misapplies findings on charter schools, and misrepresents literature on crime reduction. Moreover, Professor Baker points out, the core claim that vouchers improve reading achievement is based on findings from some charter school studies, not studies of children attending private school on taxpayer-subsidized vouchers. Given the negative effects on student achievement found in recent studies of voucher programs, this data selection choice makes the estimates particularly suspect. Finally, the report applies facile assumptions to suggest that vouchers generate additional cost savings, a suggestion that's achieved by setting public expenditure levels for vouchers that are lower than average district per-pupil spending levels. For all these reasons, Professor Baker concludes that the report is of no practical use to policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Unleashing Educational Opportunity: The Untapped Potential of Expanded Tax Credit Scholarships, written by Corey DeAngelis and published by Commonwealth Foundation, at: https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docLib/20200813_UnleashingEducationalOpportunityDeAngelis08_13_2020reduced.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Bruce D. Baker: (303) 492-8370, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Economic Benefits of Closing Education Achievement Gaps Summary This report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) claimed that closing racial and ethnic achievement gaps would have substantial economic benefits, including raising incomes and the size of the economy. The gains would result from higher levels of student achievement and specifically from higher achievement by minority students. The report estimates that if Black and Hispanic high school math scores converged to equal those of white high school students, the size of the U.S. economy would increase by $20 trillion. Additionally, federal and state/local tax revenues would increase as a result. Publication Date December 4, 2014 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Robert Lynch and Patrick Oakford; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY) Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds achievement gap report makes sense economically Cites need for more calculations EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 4, 2014) – A recently released report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) claimed that closing racial and ethnic achievement gaps would have substantial economic benefits, including raising incomes and the size of the economy. The gains would result from higher levels of student achievement and specifically from higher achievement by minority students. However, despite being persuasive, an academic review finds that the report does not incorporate enough detail to justify the claims. Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY), reviewed The Economic Benefits of Closing Education Achievement Gaps 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. Professor Belfield is an Economist specializing in resource allocation and cost-effectiveness. The report estimates that if Black and Hispanic high school math scores converged to equal those of white high school students, the size of the U.S. economy would increase by $20 trillion. Additionally, federal and state/local tax revenues would increase as a result. In his review, Belfield says, "the report does not include much detail concerning specific calculations, and does not check the accuracy of its estimates." Moreover, he finds that the report: (1) relies on a single study, and that study has limitations; and (2) implies a very powerful role for cognitive skills (test scores) over behaviors. Regarding the report's use of research literature, Belfield finds that the report does a good job of highlighting key trends from the data and identifying important studies. In reviewing the report's methods, Belfield asserts that, despite being straightforward, the association between achievement and economic growth most likely cannot be estimated with the certainty that the report implies. According to Belfield, "the report does not provide enough detail for readers to see how big the efficiency gains are, and readers are asked to accept that closing achievement gaps – rather than raising graduation rates or enhancing socioemotional skills – will lead to the biggest economic pay-off." In his conclusion, Belfield affirms that despite being helpful to policymakers, a closer look at the economic models would be useful for deciding how much investment is needed for long-term improvements. Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Economic Benefits of Closing Educational Achievement Gaps on the web: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/report/2014/11/10/100577/the-economic-benefits-of-closing-educational-achievement-gaps/ 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: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219, clive.belfield@gmail.com 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 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

< Back Reports on 10 state public opinion surveys on K-12 school choice Summary This is a series of reports based on public opinion polls in 10 states that claim that voters view public schools as unsatisfactory, that they prefer private over public schools, that vouchers should be available and that potential voters are more likely to support candidates who support school choice proposals. Publication Date December 2, 2008 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Jon Lorence and A. Gary Dworkin, University of Houston Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds Pro-voucher Polls Plagued by Biased Questions and Sampling Problems EAST LANSING, Mi., (December 2, 2008)—A series of reports based on public opinion polls in 10 states claims that state political candidates could increase their electability if they support school vouchers and other school-choice measures. A Think Twice review of the reports, however, finds that the polls on which they rely contain poorly worded, biased questions and suffer from sampling problems. The states surveyed thus far are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, and the reports were published by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a think tank that promotes school-choice proposals, including taxpayer-funded private-school vouchers. They were reviewed by professors Jon Lorence and A.Gary Dworkin, both of the University of Houston. The 10 reports conclude that voters view public schools as performing unsatisfactorily, that they prefer private over public schools, that public funds should be available so parents can send their children to private schools and that potential voters are more likely to support candidates who back school choice proposals such as vouchers. Lorence and Dworkin note that none of the reports cite any other surveys or research literature regarding opinions on vouchers or on public, private, or charter schools. By comparison, the reviewers cite a series of Gallup polls, conducted annually for Phi Delta Kappa, that include questions measuring public support for private-school vouchers and for public education in general. Those surveys consistently find less support for voucher proposals than shown by the Friedman surveys. In fact, the Gallup surveys consistently show that more Americans oppose vouchers than support them. In addition, the reviewers point to a number of other factors which might explain why the Friedman surveys yielded more favorable results for school choice proposals. First, they note that that the population samples surveyed might not represent the voting populations of their states nor the population of parents for whose children school vouchers are intended. Information to establish sampling accuracy is largely missing from the reports, and in at least one of the three instances where sufficient data were provided, the low response rate raises a red flag about possible sample bias. Additionally, Lorence and Dworkin found repeated instances in which the wording of questions appeared likely to bias the results. These questions appeared to be worded in ways to encourage respondents to favor private-school funding. The reviewers use the corresponding Gallup questions to highlight these problems with wording. Additionally, the survey questions in some instances used terms not widely understood, such as questions about proposals to grant tax credits to companies that finance private school scholarships (vouchers). “Had the respondents been presented more neutral questions about tax credits and vouchers, the findings may have been less favorable towards these issues,” the reviewers write. Lorence and Dworkin observe that the 10 papers reviewed are aimed at driving a pro-school-choice agenda through the promotion of tax credits, vouchers, and charter schools. They conclude that the reports should not guide policy and recommend that policymakers avoid relying on, “public opinion surveys that present beliefs as fact,” and encourage them to, “examine research investigating whether charter schools and vouchers actually increase student achievement and other important outcomes.” Find the review by Jon Lorence and A. Gary Dworkin on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Contact: Jon Lorence, (713) 743-3959; jlorence@uh.edu A. Gary Dworkin, (713) 743-3955; gdworkin@uh.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Charter Management Organizations 2017 Summary A report from the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) looked at the impact of charter school operating organizations. The report found that students in charter schools demonstrated slightly greater gains in performance than peers in traditional public schools, especially in charter schools operated by certain types of management organizations. The report contributes to an expansive body of existing research on charter schools by expanding on its prior work by exploring differences in charter school performance based on management organization type. Publication Date September 7, 2017 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors James Woodworth, Margaret Raymond, Chunping Han, Yohannes Negassi, W. Payton Richardson, and Will Snow; Gary Miron and Christopher Shank, Western Michigan University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An academic review raises concerns about the practical utility of CREDO findings EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 7, 2017) — A recent report from the Center for Research on Educational Outcomes (CREDO) looked at the impact of charter school operating organizations. The report found that students in charter schools demonstrated slightly greater gains in performance than peers in traditional public schools, especially in charter schools operated by certain types of management organizations. An academic review out today highlights a number of concerns that have gone unaddressed. Gary Miron and Christopher Shank, Western Michigan University, reviewed the report, Charter Management Organizations 2017 , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . According to the reviewers, the CREDO report contributes to an expansive body of existing research on charter schools by expanding on its prior work by exploring differences in charter school performance based on management organization type. Despite this, the report fails to build on prior research in creating its charter school classification system. Miron and Shank note that the report uses confusing and illogical distinctions between organization types, which are arbitrary and unsupported by research. Additionally, the review calls into question other methodological decisions that threaten the validity of the study. The reviewers identified several overarching problems that have been identified, including: (1) the report dramatically overstates its findings; (2) CREDO fails to address or acknowledge the report's methodological limitations; and (3) the report does not take into account other research beyond CREDO's own work. As a result, Miron and Shank conclude that readers should use extreme caution when interpreting the results. They say, "The general findings from this study do not have relevance to policymakers." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the CREDO report at: https://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/CMO FINAL.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 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: Gary Miron , (269) 599-7965, gary.miron@wmich.edu Daniel J. Quinn , (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Impact of School Choice Reforms on Student Achievement 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 Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking "Last-Hired, First-Fired" Policies Summary This report urges making teacher layoff decisions on the basis of teacher quality and performance as opposed to the seniority system used by most school districts. Publication Date May 12, 2010 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Richard Ingersoll and Lisa Merrill, University of Pennsylvania Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (May 12, 2010) – In a recent report, the National Council for Teacher Quality urges making teacher-layoff decisions on the basis of teacher quality and performance. A Think Twice review of that report credits it for being straightforward and reasonable but notes that its proposals are not unique or easily implemented. Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking "Last Hired, First Fired" Policies was reviewed by Professor Richard Ingersoll of the University of Pennsylvania, assisted by graduate student Lisa Merrill. Ingersoll is an expert on teacher supply and quality. The issue of how to prioritize which teachers to lay off is of growing interest in light of teacher downsizing spikes in the troubled economy. Some 60,000 teachers were laid off in 2009, about 2 percent of the nation's teacher workforce, which is four to five times the annual average number during the 1990s. Teacher Layoffs considers layoff procedures at 100 of the largest U.S. school districts and finds that in 75 of them, seniority is the primary criterion for choosing who will be dismissed. The report argues that while "teacher quality" is not frequently used to make those decisions, it can and should be. Ingersoll and Merrill observe, however, that while the report's ideas are "straightforward and common sense," they are not new, and they are not easy to implement: "For a century we have seen numerous attempts to measure, recognize and reward differences in teacher quality," they write. "Often, unfortunately, these reform attempts have met little or no success." Among the challenges confronting teacher quality reforms are deciding among the multiple and competing definitions of the "good" teacher, and deciding who decides which teachers are better and worse. The reviewers commend the report for recognizing some of the obstacles to changing teacher-layoff policies—such as its acknowledgement that when principals make evaluations, their systems need to be transparent and systematic. Moreover, principals themselves should be held accountable for their evaluations. But while the report makes "a useful contribution" in documenting variations in school-district layoff policies and summarizing options, the reviewers note in conclusion that it omits discussion of a potentially broad-based strategy in addressing layoff policies: involving teachers themselves in design and implementation. "Layoff policies do not have to be conceived as something done by others to teachers," they write. Indeed, they add, "a long tradition of research on implementation has shown that one way to aid the successful implementation of difficult employee reform initiatives is to enlist those being reformed." Find the review by Richard Ingersoll and Lisa Merrill and a link to Teacher Layoffs on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Richard Ingersoll (215) 573-5674 or (215) 573-0700 (x226); rmi@gse.upenn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More