< Back Spreading Freedom and Saving Money: The Fiscal Impact of the D.C. Voucher Program Summary This report evaluates the impact of the D.C. public schools’ voucher program after its first year and its impact on educational spending. Publication Date February 20, 2006 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois 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 School Choice: Evidence and Recommendations (Introduction) 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 20, 2008 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Gary Miron, Kevin G. Welner, Patricia H. Hinchey and Alex Molnar (Editors) 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 Improving Trauma-Informed Education: Responding to Student Adversity With Equity-Centered, Systemic Support Summary Talking about education in the United States without talking about trauma has become increasingly difficult. Today’s youth suffer through challenges on multiple fronts, going far beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and its related social and educational fallout. Children experience trauma because of social conditions such as poverty, homelessness, family separation related to immigration, and increasingly frequent school shootings and community violence. Publication Date November 15, 2022 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Stacy Gherardi, New Mexico State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release How Trauma-Informed Education Needs to Change Key Takeaway : Trauma-informed policy in education cannot ignore the social conditions creating trauma. EAST LANSING, MI (November 15, 2022) - Talking about education in the United States without talking about trauma has become increasingly difficult. Today’s youth suffer through challenges on multiple fronts, going far beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and its related social and educational fallout. Children experience trauma because of social conditions such as poverty, homelessness, family separation related to immigration, and increasingly frequent school shootings and community violence. Schools, unsurprisingly, have been asked to heal these traumatic wounds. But the approaches currently used may be missing key elements. NEPC today released a policy brief, Improving Trauma-Informed Education: Responding to Student Adversity With Equity-Centered, Systemic Support , in which author Stacy Gherardi of New Mexico State University explores the promise and the challenges of trauma-informed education. Many schools have responded to students’ trauma-related needs, offering counseling and emotional supports as well as educational practices that increase individual students’ awareness of and responsiveness to the impact of trauma on their lives. In doing so, however, they tend to simply accept the social causes—the structural dimensions of trauma as it occurs both inside and outside of schools. As a result, educators are expected to respond to trauma, but their training never prepares them to understand or engage with those causes. Their resulting decontextualized understanding of trauma can lead educators to implement deficit-oriented responses arising from their never acknowledging the role of schools and social policy in perpetuating the trauma—or the reasonable responses to the trauma by the children and youth. In addition, trauma-informed practices are often treated as an intervention for affected students, isolated from other efforts to improve the school environment or provide holistic student support. In the brief, Dr. Gherardi suggests that trauma-informed education may be best designed as a systemwide commitment, rather than an intervention, and that the concept of equity-centered trauma-informed education may offer a productive path to addressing the conceptual and implementation challenges critics have noted. Specifically, equity-centered trauma-informed education is rooted in social justice concerns, highlighting the systemic roots of trauma as well as the need for equitable, systemic solutions. To support effective integration of such an approach and address identified weaknesses of trauma-informed education to date, the brief offers specific recommendations for district and school leaders. And, in the interest of not only responding to trauma but of working to prevent it, also included are recommendations for state and local policymakers to promote broader social and education policy changes through specific funding strategies. Find Improving Trauma-Informed Education: Responding to Student Adversity With Equity-Centered, Systemic Support , by Stacy Gherardi, at: https://greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and 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. 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: Alex Molnar : (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger : (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Stacy Gherardi : (575) 646-0306, sgherard@nmsu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Suspended Reality: The Impact of Suspension Policy on Student Safety Summary A recent Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) report suggests a relationship between school suspension rates and some students' perceptions of safety in Milwaukee schools. Its conclusion-which was examined in a new review-claims a causal chain that begins with unpunished misconduct in schools and ends with disruptive classroom environments that harm primarily African American students. Publication Date December 7, 2021 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Climate & Student Support Authors Will Flanders and Ameillia Wedward; Kathryn E. Wiley, University of Colorado Boulder; Kate Somerville, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Misleading Report Obscures School Safety Issues An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report uses faulty interpretations and cherry-picked research in its attempt to portray the impact of suspension reforms on students. EAST LANSING, MI (December 7, 2021) - A recent Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) report suggests a relationship between school suspension rates and some students' perceptions of safety in Milwaukee schools. Its conclusion-which was examined in a new review-claims a causal chain that begins with unpunished misconduct in schools and ends with disruptive classroom environments that harm primarily African American students. Kathryn E. Wiley and Kate Somerville of the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed Suspended Reality: The Impact of Suspension Policy on Student Safety . They found numerous concerns, including unsupported claims, misleading interpretations, and the use of racially criminalizing stereotypes of African American students. Specifically, the report finds that following an agreement with the U.S. Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, lowered suspension rates for African American students were associated with higher numbers of students reporting feeling unsafe. But the report doesn't stop at pointing to a correlation; it claims (in bold heading text) that this means, "Reduced Suspension for African American Students Resulted in Lower Reports of Safety." The review of this report, however, explains not just this basic error of conflating correlation with causation. Wiley and Somerville also point out that the report ignores substantial peer-reviewed research on its subject and oversimplifies relevant issues to arrive at its conclusions. Interestingly, the report includes a separate finding that-for the overall student population-as the suspension rate decreased, the percentage of students feeling unsafe also decreased. But this is not the finding that the report chooses to focus on. Due to the report's flaws, its policy conclusions are not useful to policymakers as a basis for decisions about school discipline. Instead, policymakers would be better served by continuing to use peer-reviewed, evidence-based research on school discipline, racial disparities, and school climate interventions. Policymakers should also consider whether adequate supports are in place for schools to effectively implement alternatives to exclusionary discipline. As many experts have cautioned, merely reducing suspensions is not a comprehensive reform; well-implemented alternatives must be included. Find the review, by Kathryn E. Wiley and Kate Somerville, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Suspended Reality: The Impact of Suspension Policy on Student Safety , written by Will Flanders and Ameillia Wedward and published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, at: https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/SuspensionStudy.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Kathryn E. Wiley: (303) 579-7385, Kathryn.wiley@colorado.edu Kate Somerville: (410) 830-9927, Kate.somerville@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Multiple Shortcomings Mar Report Ranking Michigan High Schools 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 April 30, 2019 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher M. Saldaña, of the University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 30, 2019) — Personalized learning programs are proliferating in schools across the United States, fueled by philanthropic dollars, tech industry lobbying, marketing by third-party vendors, and a policy environment that provides little guidance and few constraints. In Personalized Learning and the Digital Privatization of Curriculum and Teaching , Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher M. Saldaña, of the University of Colorado Boulder, consider how we got to this point. Beginning with an examination of the history of personalized learning and the key assumptions made by its proponents, they review the research evidence and reflect on the roles and possible impacts of the digital technologies deployed by many programs. As the authors explain, these personalized learning products will continue to be aggressively marketed, so policymakers and educators should be prepared to critically evaluate those products and that marketing. They need a clear understanding of the history and evidence if they are to craft appropriate guidelines for personalized learning initiatives. The research brief’s specific findings are alarming. It reveals questionable educational assumptions embedded in influential programs, self-interested advocacy by the technology industry, serious threats to student privacy, and a general lack of research support for personalized learning programs. Despite the many red flags, however, the pressure persists for the adoption of personalized learning programs. States, for example, continue to embrace policies that promote implementation of digital instructional materials but that do little to provide for oversight or accountability. Unless guided by informed policies, linking personalized learning with proprietary software and digital platforms can put important educational decisions in private hands and compromise the privacy of children and their teachers. It can also distort pedagogy in ways that stifle students’ ability to learn and grow as people and as participants in democratic civic life. By emphasizing data collection and analysis over other instructional considerations, digital personalized learning programs inevitably reflect a restricted, hyper-rational approach to curriculum and pedagogy that reduces students’ agency, narrows what they can learn in school, and limits schools’ ability to respond effectively to a diverse student body. Given the current manifest lack of oversight and accountability, the authors recommend that schools and policymakers pause in their efforts to promote and implement personalized learning programs until rigorous review, oversight, and enforcement mechanisms are established. They also recommend that states establish an independent government entity responsible for evaluating the pedagogical approaches, assessment, and data collection embedded in digital personalized learning programs. This new entity should also be responsible for implementing and enforcing safeguards to ensure the security and privacy of student and teacher data. Find Personalized Learning and the Digital Privatization of Curriculum and Teaching , by Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar and Christopher M. Saldaña, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Boninger-Molnar-Personalized-Learning.pdf This research brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (greatlakescenter.org). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back District Awards for Teacher Excellence: Final Report Summary Gratz's review finds although the report is thorough and presents some interesting findings, "it suffers from two major constraints: data not collected and questions not asked." Gratz cautions against using this report for policymaking. Publication Date March 3, 2011 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Donald B. Gratz, Curry College Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Texas Pay for Performance Plan Offers Little to Guide Policy March 3, 2011 EAST LANSING, MI (March 3, 2011) –A Think Twice review of a new report which evaluates the performance pay plan for Texas teachers concludes that though it is thorough and presents interesting findings, the limitations in the data and analyses caution against its usefulness in guiding policymaking. The review, by Donald Gratz, chair of the Education Department of Curry College, found that the report, published by Vanderbilt University's National Center for Performance Incentives (NCPI), "suffers from two significant limitations: data not available and questions not asked." 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 NCPI report, District Awards for Teacher Excellence: Final Report , comes amid growing interest in ways to tie teacher pay to performance. As the largest program of incentive-based teacher pay in the nation, the Texas District Awards for Teacher Excellence (D.A.T.E.) plan is "bound to attract attention," Gratz writes. The experimental Texas plan is voluntary, with districts opting in if they want to share in a pool of $150 million to $190 million annually. This money funds merit awards that are made to teachers on the basis of their students' performance on the state achievement test plus other factors determined by individual districts. Sixteen percent of the state's districts participate, and these districts, which tend to be urban and poor, serve nearly half the students in the state. Although Vanderbilt NCPI identifies the District Award report as "Final," Gratz points out that the report is based on only one or two years of data. The analyses of teacher perceptions of the program and of teacher retention are based on a single cycle of awards for teachers. The analysis of student achievement data covers just two years. This is, Gratz notes, "not enough data to draw solid conclusions." Moreover, he writes that "little is known about how districts actually implemented D.A.T.E., or about such factors as school culture, leadership and class size." The report's authors also acknowledge many of these limitations, stating for example, "It is important to emphasize again that this is a simple comparison, and does not account in any way for school or student characteristics that might also influence students' gains" (p. 91). Gratz found that the report focuses mostly on describing the Texas program, which districts took part, and why and how they designed their version of the program. As a program evaluation, the report "does not consider broader questions such as whether incentive pay produces positive results, not just higher test scores, and under what conditions." Nor does the report consider the validity of using the Texas achievement test (TAKS) as the single measure of achievement. The review also points out that while the report finds large differences in how participating school districts implemented the program, "[t]he report can't determine whether higher test scores are due to better teaching, more drill, professional development, or something else." Gratz credits the report for presenting "many intriguing findings about teacher attitudes, the potential impact of group versus individual awards, and other program factors." He also praises the authors for noting many, although not all, of the key limitations of the report. However, he concludes that its evaluation design does not yield results from which policymakers can determine the success of the program. The report's findings, according to Gratz, "are interesting but not sufficient for guiding policy." Find Don Gratz's review and a link to the NCPI 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-district-awards . --###-- 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: Teri Battaglieri – (517) 203-2940; greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Donald B. Gratz – (617) 333-2130; dgratz@curry.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admission Standards in Teacher Prep Summary A recently issued report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) advocated raising the bar for entry into teacher preparation programs as a means to improve teacher quality across the country. The report reviewed the academic requirements at 221 institutions in 25 states, and argued for boosting entry requirements. Publication Date March 23, 2017 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Kate Walsh, Nithya Joseph and Autumn Lewis; Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Boston College; Megina Baker, Project Zero, Harvard University; Wen-Chia Chang, Boston College; M. Beatriz Fernández, Alberto Hurtado University, Chile; and Elizabeth Stringer Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Multiple unsupported, unfounded claims limit report on raising the bar for teacher admissions EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 23, 2017) — In a recently issued report, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) advocated raising the bar for entry into teacher preparation programs as a means to improve teacher quality across the country. The report, Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admission Standards in Teacher Prep , reviewed the academic requirements at 221 institutions in 25 states, and argued for boosting entry requirements. An academic review of the report released today finds the report to be problematic and lacking research to support its claims. A team of reviewers, led by Boston College's Marilyn Cochran-Smith, reviewed the report 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 . Also contributing to the review were Megina Baker, Wen-Chia Chang, M. Beatriz Fernández, and Elizabeth Stringer Keefe. The reviewers are part of Project TEER (Teacher Education and Education Reform) , which is a collaborative research group interested in the intersection of teacher education policy and practice, on one hand, and neoliberal education reform, on the other. According to the reviewers, the report suggests that raising the bar through higher admission standards for teacher education programs will improve teacher quality. Unfortunately, the report does not provide sufficient supports for its assertions or recommendations. Additionally, the review find the report fails to adequately address claims regarding: The impact on teacher diversity of raising admissions requirements for teacher candidates; The public perceptions of teaching and teacher education; or Attracting more academically able teacher candidates. The review team concludes that the report ignores a large body of research and offers little guidance for policymakers or institutions seeking to use the information. Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admissions Standards in Teacher Prep at: http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Admissions_Yearbook_Report 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 Dr. Cochran-Smith is the Cawthorne Professor of Teacher Education for Urban Schools and Director of the Doctoral Program in Curriculum and Instruction at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College. 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: Marilyn Cochran-Smith , (617) 552-4591, cochrans@bc.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 Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2014: Politics, Performance, Policy, and Research Evidence Summary Second annual virtual schools report cautions against unchecked expansion: As virtual education has become a focal point for policymakers interested in expanding educational choices and improving the efficiency of public education, virtual schools have attracted a great deal of attention. In 2013, the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, released the first of a planned series of annual reports on the policy issues that virtual schools raise, the available research evidence on K-12 virtual teaching and learning, and the performance of such virtual schools. The second report on virtual education in the U.S. is released today. Publication Date March 4, 2014 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Alex Molnar, University of Colorado Boulder (editor) Gary Miron, Western Michigan University Luis Huerta, Teachers College, Columbia University Jennifer King Rice, University of Maryland Michael Barbo Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Second Virtual Schools Report Released Analysis uncovers little credible research to support expansion EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 4, 2014) – As virtual education has become a focal point for policymakers interested in expanding educational choices and improving the efficiency of public education, virtual schools have attracted a great deal of attention. In 2013, the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, released the first of a planned series of annual reports on the policy issues that virtual schools raise, the available research evidence on K-12 virtual teaching and learning, and the performance of such virtual schools. The second report on virtual education in the U.S. is being released today. Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2014: Politics, Performance, Policy, and Research Evidence , is edited by Alex Molnar, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. Contributing authors to the research brief include Gary Miron of Western Michigan University, Luis Huerta of Teachers College, Columbia University, Jennifer King Rice of the University of Maryland, and Michael Barbour of Sacred Heart University. Contributors to this study also include Sheryl Shafer of Teachers College, Columbia University, Brian Horvitz of Western Michigan University, and Charisse Gulosino at the University of Memphis According to Barbour, "While there has been some improvement in what is known about supplemental K-12 online learning, there continues to be a lack of reliable and valid evidence to guide the practice of full-time K-12 online learning. Yet it is the full-time K-12 online learning that has seen the greatest growth in recent years." The 2013 report offered a number of troubling statistics and provided an initial set of research-based recommendations to guide policy making on virtual education. The 2014 report revisits those recommendations to document progress being made toward more sound policies for virtual education in the U.S. The report is organized in three major sections: Section one identifies three key challenges faced by policymakers: (1) funding and governance; (2) instructional program quality; and (3) recruitment and retention of high quality teachers. Section two examines the disconnect between policy and research into virtual schooling. Section three investigates enrollment, student characteristics, and performance of K-12 full-time virtual schools. Identifying funding, governance and accountability mechanisms associated with operating virtual schools continues to be a challenge for policymakers and practitioners. Regarding access to quality teachers, Huerta and Rice King found: "While a great deal of research has focused on defining teacher quality in traditional settings, little is known about what constitutes teacher quality in virtual schools." Additionally, the report identified – despite a notable lack of credible research evidence related to online education – 30 states and the District of Columbia that allow full-time virtual schools to operate, and even more states allow, or require, one or more courses be delivered online to public school students. It's imperative for policymakers to slow or stop the growth of these schools until more research is done and accountability measures can be put into place, the report's authors concluded. According to Barbour, "The vast majority of the research into the design, delivery, and support of K-12 online learning has focused on the supplemental K-12 online learning environment. More research on strategies for the effective design, delivery and support of full-time K-12 online learning is crucial." Find the report on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This report 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: 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 School Choice and Segregation by Race Class and 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 Review of 2020 Teacher Prep Review: Clinical Practice and Classroom Management Summary The authors of the NCTQ report reviewed over 2,400 programs, including what NCTQ terms "traditional" and "alternative" programs in two areas: clinical practice and classroom management. Only 3% of traditional programs received the highest grade for their approaches to clinical practice, signaling their compliance with the internal standards set by NCTQ. Asserting that a "positive" environment is the product of classroom management, the report offers as a major conclusion that there was a 26% increase in the number of programs that taught five specific classroom management strategies Publication Date March 16, 2021 Research Areas Technology & AI; Curriculum & Instruction; Teacher Workforce Authors Laura Pomerance and Kate Walsh; Jamy Stillman and Katherine Schultz, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Outdated Research and Ideas About Teacher Quality Render Report Useless An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Despite its urgent calls to improve teacher quality in the midst of educational struggles suffered because of COVID-19, a new NCTQ report fails to provide useful information that might help teacher prep programs do so. EAST LANSING, MI (March 16, 2021) - Professors Jamy Stillman and Katherine Schultz of the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed 2020 Teacher Prep Review: Clinical Practice and Classroom Management . They found it unlikely to improve teacher preparation due to its use of invalid measurements, limited research base, and reliance on questionable methods. The authors of the NCTQ report reviewed over 2,400 programs, including what NCTQ terms "traditional" and "alternative" programs in two areas: clinical practice and classroom management. Only 3% of traditional programs received the highest grade for their approaches to clinical practice, signaling their compliance with the internal standards set by NCTQ. Asserting that a "positive" environment is the product of classroom management, the report offers as a major conclusion that there was a 26% increase in the number of programs that taught five specific classroom management strategies. Professors Stillman and Schultz explain how the report assumes that a methodology relying exclusively on review of publicly available program artifacts is a valid approach for determining program quality. They state further that the report largely ignores the body of empirical literature that investigates clinical practice and classroom management. Of particular note is the exclusion of scholarship that centers equity and justice. The review concludes that the report, rather than analyzing the characteristics of successful programs preparing teachers for a wide range of contexts, is based exclusively on adherence to or compliance with NCTQ internal standards that are neither widely accepted nor evidence-based. Find the review, by Jamy Stillman and Katherine Schultz, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find 2020 Teacher Prep Review: Clinical Practice and Classroom Management , written by Laura Pomerance and Kate Walsh and published by NCTQ, at: https://www.nctq.org/review/docs/NCTQ 2020 Teacher Prep Review_Clinical Practice and Classroom Management_Final_10.19.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: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Jamy Stillman: (303) 492-5648, jamy.stillman@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Squeezing the Public School Districts: The Fiscal Effects of Eliminating the Louisiana Scholarship Program / Two recent papers from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas predicted the budgetary consequences of ending the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The two closely allied papers concluded that terminating the LSP would not relieve pressure on public spending in Louisiana. The first paper uses an economic model to conclude that terminating the LSP would increase costs. While, the second paper confirms the findings from the first paper and advances that the findings would apply to almost all school districts in Louisiana. Summary Two recent papers from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas predicted the budgetary consequences of ending the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The two closely allied papers concluded that terminating the LSP would not relieve pressure on public spending in Louisiana. A new review of the papers says that the findings are reasonable, but they fail to make a convincing case. Publication Date September 29, 2016 Research Areas School Funding Authors Corey A. DeAngelis & Julie R. Trivitt; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release A new Think Twice review of two papers on the Louisiana Scholarship Program EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 29, 2016) — Two recent papers from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas predicted the budgetary consequences of ending the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The two closely allied papers concluded that terminating the LSP would not relieve pressure on public spending in Louisiana. A new review of the papers says that the findings are reasonable, but they fail to make a convincing case. Clive Belfield, Queens College, CUNY, reviewed Squeezing the Public School Districts: The Fiscal Effects of Eliminating the Louisiana Scholarship Program and The Fiscal Effect of Eliminating the Louisiana Scholarship Program on State Education for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The first paper uses an economic model to conclude that terminating the LSP would increase costs. While, the second paper confirms the findings from the first paper and advances that the findings would apply to almost all school districts in Louisiana. In his review Belfield says, "These papers are useful in that they apply an economic model to understanding the consequences of voucher systems." However, he says that the papers do not make a fully convincing case. Additionally, Belfield questions the omission of contradictory evidence provided by the state's Legislative Fiscal Office. Belfield concludes, "There may be savings or additional expenditures, depending on several key parameters which have not been precisely estimated." Regardless of the economic consequences, Belfield adds, "the poor performance of LSP might in itself be justification for termination." Find the review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the papers on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/category/department-of-education-reform/scdp/lsp/ 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Teach For America: A Return to the Evidence Summary In a report released today, Julian Vasquez Heilig and Su Jin Gatlin Jez update the research on Teach For America (TFA). The organization has received hundreds of millions of dollars and generated considerable public attention for sending college graduates, who do not typically have an education background, to teach in low-income rural and urban schools for a two-year commitment. Despite glowing accolades, the impact of this alternative teacher-training program is hotly debated. In a follow up to a previously released brief, two noted education professors address public concerns about TFA and offer a template for the general public to conduct citizen research on TFA locally. Publication Date January 7, 2014 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Julian Vasquez Heilig, University of Texas – Austin Su Jin Gatlin Jez, Sacramento State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Teach For America: A Return To The Evidence New brief points to investments in other evidence-based educational reforms EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 7, 2014) – Teach For America (TFA) has received hundreds of millions of dollars and generated considerable public attention for sending college graduates, who do not typically have an education background, to teach in low-income rural and urban schools for a two-year commitment. Despite glowing accolades, the impact of this alternative teacher-training program is hotly debated. In a follow up to a previously released brief, two noted education professors address public concerns about TFA and offer a template for the general public to conduct citizen research on TFA locally. Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas at Austin and Su Jin Gatlin Jez of California State University, Sacramento authored the brief, Teach For America: A Return to the Evidence . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) published the brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. As local communities make decisions about educational reforms, it is important to understand the true impact of TFA on student achievement on test scores, the increased costs districts and communities face, and whether or not TFA is at least as effective as other reforms. The brief concludes that TFA is less effective than other well-studied reforms. Peer-reviewed research on the impact of TFA teachers on student test scores continues to produce a mixed picture, with results affected by the experience and certification level of the TFA teachers and their comparison groups. Heilig and Jez find that available information regarding TFA varies by community, as do the results. According to the authors, TFA should not be considered a panacea, or major factor for improving teacher quality in hard-to-staff schools. Instead of trying to understand whether or not TFA teachers are as good as non-TFA teachers, the authors propose a shift in thinking about the impact of TFA – a shift toward substantially improving student learning rather than continuing to focus on reforms that have inconsistent results that, at best, result in marginal improvements. Heilig and Jez call for increased attention on programs that are more likely to "move the needle" on America's educational quality. The authors advise that policymakers and districts invest strategically in evidence-based reforms that are already improving student success by larger margins than the mixed evidence on TFA. Based on a review of the evidence available, Heilig and Jez propose the following to districts in regards to hiring TFA: Support TFA staffing only when the alternative hiring pool consists of uncertified and emergency teachers or substitutes. Consider the additional costs of TFA teachers and press for contractual five-year commitments to improve student test-score achievement and reduce costly teacher turnover. Require TFA teachers to receive additional teacher training that is based on well-supported best practices in in-service teacher professional development. Independently obtain contracts and data to compare finder fees, placement, and attrition rates of TFA teachers, and various costs by community. In conclusion, Heilig and Jez maintain that, "Policymakers and stakeholders should consider TFA teachers for what they are – a slightly better alternative when the hiring pool is comprised of primarily uncertified and emergency teachers." Overall, the authors recommend that attention should be prioritized on attracting America's most talented college students to teaching as a profession and not a temporary solution. Find the brief, Teach For America: A Return to the Evidence, on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Julian Vasquez Heilig is currently an Associate Professor of Educational Policy and Planning and African and African Diaspora Studies (by courtesy) at the University of Texas at Austin. He is also a Faculty Affiliate of the Center for Mexican American Studies and the Warfield Center for African and African American Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Su Jin Gatlin Jez is an Assistant Professor of Public Policy and Administration at California State University, Sacramento. She also serves as the Associate Director of the Independent Education Doctorate Program, a joint effort of the Department of Public Policy and Administration and the College of Education's Educational Leadership and Policy Studies, and is a Faculty Associate with the Institute for Higher Education Leadership and Policy. 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: Julian Vasquez Heilig, (512) 475-8586, jvh@austin.utexas.edu Su Jin Gatlin Jez, (916) 278-5955, jez@csus.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