< Back Fix the City Schools: Moving All Schools to Charter-Like Autonomy Summary This report argues for the decentralization of urban school districts and cites increased student achievement in post-Katrina New Orleans as support for city schools moving toward a "portfolio" of schools model. Publication Date April 14, 2010 Authors Katrina E. Bulkley, Montclair State University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report citing New Orleans as a model for changing urban education ignores key facts and makes faulty arguments, reviewer finds EAST LANSING, Mi., (April 15, 2010) – A recent Reason Foundation report points to the post-Katrina school system in New Orleans as evidence to support massive decentralizing of urban school systems. But a Think Twice review of the report concludes that it lacks evidence for its claims and ignores key facts about the New Orleans situation that would undermine its case. The Reason Foundation report, Fix the City Schools: Moving All Schools to Charter-Like Autonomy, was reviewed by Katrina Bulkley, an education professor at Montclair State University in New Jersey. Under the plan advocated in Fix the City Schools , schools in urban districts would operate with autonomy and accountability similar to charter schools. School districts would manage a "portfolio" of these autonomous schools, and they would receive funding based on enrollment. The report draws heavily on the author's claims that the post-Katrina New Orleans schools, a highly decentralized system in which 60 percent of students attend charter schools and the traditional public schools have much greater autonomy, have experienced remarkably improved student achievement. Bulkley's review of this report identifies a number of flaws. She notes that it relies primarily on advocacy articles and anecdotal media reports; the report is unable to provide readers with any valid, generalizable research supporting the claims of beneficial outcomes. At times, Bulkley notes, the report "addresses issues that have been assessed in high-quality research, but neglects to include that research or its findings." For instance, while Fix the City Schools asserts that closing schools can lift achievement, Bulkley points to research that undermines those assertions. Similarly, the report ignores large-scale studies that show charter schools do not, on average, improve student achievement. Additionally, in making the New Orleans story the centerpiece of its evidence for the "portfolio management" approach, the report ignores several key facts: (a) the New Orleans district was already showing steady improvement before the post-Katrina reforms; (b) other districts in the state not devastated by the hurricane have continued to improve in the post-Katrina era as well; (c) Katrina led to a disproportionate exodus of poor families from the district, where enrollment is less than two-thirds of pre-Katrina levels; and (d) post-Katrina resources for the city's public schools have been significantly greater than before the hurricane. Bulkley does not disparage the New Orleans schools' possible improvement, but she cautions that without much more study, it cannot be used as a blueprint for school reforms elsewhere. "This report offers no strong evidence in support of the proposals it advocates," Bulkley concludes. While it might offer advocates of its approach a useful guide to implementing the reforms it proposes, the absence of meaningful research to support its conclusions "limits the use of this piece for policymakers or others trying to determine the best research-based strategies for improving urban schools." Find Katrina Bulkley's review and a link to Fix the City Schools on the web at: 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: Katrina Bulkley (973) 655-5189; bulkleyk@mail.montclair.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Pay for Performance Summary This report claims that students in nations where teachers are paid on "merit" score higher on an international achievement test. Publication Date May 30, 2011 Authors Mattias von Davier, Education Testing Service Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release International merit pay study inadequate for making policy decisions, independent review finds March 31, 2011 Harvard PEPG study used 'unreliable and invalid' information to back up its conclusions EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 31, 2011) — A study promoting merit pay for teachers is flawed and should not be used to guide public policy decisions, according to an independent review released today. The study entitled, Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Performance Pay, was released by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance (an abridged version was also published in Education Next). The study claims that students in nations that use merit pay for teachers score higher on an international achievement test. The study was thoroughly reviewed by researcher Matthias von Davier, Ph.D., principal research scientist with the Education Testing Service, a nonprofit organization that develops, administers and scores tests in more than 180 countries. Von Davier, a research fellow at the University of Oxford, found that the study reached overly broad conclusions. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Von Davier said the study uses numbers that are "unreliable and invalid" and "leaves too many questions unanswered." He also found that the study compares apples and oranges, making comparisons between nations that have different standards and are socially, economically and culturally distinct. According to von Davier: Grade levels are ambiguous between nations. Some of the nations tested in the Education Next report have universal pre-school or kindergarten, while others don't. Different countries have different criteria for certifying teachers - some can become teachers after simply passing an oral exam, while others must undergo more rigorous education and testing. Merit pay methods differ by nation, with some merit pay decisions made by principals and others made by local or national authorities. The study also looked only at a small set of nations, resulting in simplistic generalizations. Removing just one nation from the set of 28 countries studied substantially skews the results. For example, von Davier found that by just removing Mexico from the Education Next study, the correlation between student performance and merit pay dropped to zero. "As a consequence, the study does not yield results powerful enough to support the adoption of a policy of performance pay," von Davier said. The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely and 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. Find von Davier's complete review and a link to Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Performance Pay at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The review is also available on the National Education Policy website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-pisa-performance-pay . 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 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 Matthias von Davier: (609) 734-1717, mvondavier@ets.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipient's Family Income, 2009-10 Summary This report attempts to counter claims made by two AZ newspapers that the state's tuition tax credit voucher program has failed to increase private school access for low-income families. Publication Date November 17, 2010 Authors Casey D. Cobb, University of Connecticut Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi. (November 18, 2010) –A new review finds that a recent defense of an Arizona tax credit program to help students attend private schools uses sound and reasonable methods and offers useful information. But the review also notes limitations in the data and the report's overstated claims. The report, reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Casey D. Cobb of the University of Connecticut, was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Since 1998 Arizona has allowed state taxpayers to receive dollar-for-dollar tax credits by making donations to School Tuition Organizations (STOs) that provide voucher-like scholarships enabling students to attend private schools. Although the law does not currently require STOs to consider student financial need in making awards, a rationale for its initial adoption was to expand access to private schools for low-income families. Reports in two Arizona newspapers in 2009, however, exposed various abuses in the program and suggested that the program was not meeting the objective of serving lower-income families. In An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipients' Family Income, 2009-2010 School Year , published by the Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG), Vickie E. Murray of the Pacific Research Institute collected survey data from STOs. The surveys sought information about the income levels of recipient families. Murray's report concludes that the scholarship/voucher recipients had a median family income of about $5,000 less than the statewide median, according to federal data. Murray also accuses the two papers, the Arizona Republic and the East Valley Tribune , of "sweeping allegations" that the program "disproportionately serves privileged students from higher income families..." In his review, Cobb takes issue with that latter characterization, finding from his own review of the cited newspaper articles no evidence of "careless or unsubstantiated" allegations in the news reports. He also notes that the articles uncovered abuses in the tuition tax credit program and that they did find the program "was not serving as many low-income students as was originally intended" – but that the "tenor of the language in the articles seemed much less extreme" than Murray's report suggested. As for Murray's survey of the STOs, Cobb credits the analysis for transparency and a demonstrated concern for accuracy and thoroughness. But he notes that the survey sample was not random. Instead, the report is based on a survey of 15 of Arizona's 51 STOs; the STOs that responded to the survey accounted for 79.4 percent of scholarships/vouchers awarded in 2009. This was a good response rate, because the largest STOs provided information, but Cobb discusses possible issues of biased data. He also points out that the survey didn't report information about the amount of scholarships awarded, linked to families' income levels. Thus, there's no way of telling whether the dollar value of scholarship awards to lower-income families was systemically greater or lesser than that of awards to higher-income families. Further, because the survey generated voluntary, self-reported data from STOs, it raises questions about accuracy and consistency. That may change for future research, he notes, thanks to the upcoming changes in the law that will "require more transparency in the reporting of scholarship information, including the percent of low-income recipients." Find Casey Cobb's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Cobb_AzTaxCredit.pdf . Find An Analysis of Arizona Individual Income Tax-credit Scholarship Recipients' Family Income, 2009-2010 School Year , by Vickie E. Murray, on the web at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG10-18_Murray.pdf . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-arizona-tax-credit . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Casey D. Cobb (860) 486-0253; casey.cobb@uconn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Toward Equitable School Choice Summary A new report from the Hoover Institution’s Education Success Initiative purports to offer evidence-based guidance for policymakers in shaping more equitable outcomes from school choice programs. Publication Date February 3, 2021 Authors Paul E. Peterson; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Promotes School Choice by Inadequately Presenting the Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's underlying assumption is that all choice is good and desirable as an end in itself, regardless of negative impacts on achievement and even equity. EAST LANSING, MI (February 4, 2021) -A new report from the Hoover Institution's Education Success Initiative purports to offer evidence-based guidance for policymakers in shaping more equitable outcomes from school choice programs. However, Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University reviewed Toward Equitable School Choice and found that although the report is useful as a snapshot of the current status of choice programs in the United States, its use of research is often problematic. The report is apparently a response to two ongoing concerns. The first is the choice movement's ties to past segregationists seeking to avoid post-Brown integration efforts. The second is evidence of a continuing link between choice and inequitable opportunities. These concerns have caused choice advocates to instead highlight the theoretical potential of non-residential-based school choice programs to improve upon residence-based school assignments. Professor Lubienski found some of the research in the report to be misrepresented, with several other claims being made without citations to evidence. Further, some of the recommendations bear no connection to the evidence provided in the report. As such, the report is, as intended, a political guidebook for conservative policymakers that fails to offer evidence-based guidance on making choice more equitable. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Toward Equitable School Choice , written by Paul E. Peterson and published by the Hoover Institution, at: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/peterson_webready.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 Christopher Lubienski: (812) 856-8389, clubiens@iu.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: Making Next Year Count: Equity in School Accountability Summary The series correctly concludes that state accountability systems have not improved student achievement or closed achievement gaps over the last decade. Despite this conclusion, however, the series puzzlingly insists that state testing and accountability systems must be reinstated in 2020-21 and must focus on schools with the lowest performance levels. Publication Date October 14, 2020 Authors Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O'Neal Schiess, and Andrew J. Rotherham; Edward J. Fuller, Penn State University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Flawed Reports Insist Ineffective Accountability Systems Must Continue An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Series of reports fails to make a cogent argument for continuing the use of test-based accountability systems. EAST LANSING, MI (October 15, 2020) - A four-part series on accountability from Bellwether Education Partners explores school accountability systems from several different angles: their historical roots, their theory of change, and their impact on student outcomes, as well as the effect of COVID-related school closures on testing and accountability. These publications, collectively entitled, Making Next Year Count: Equity in School Accountability , were reviewed by Professor Edward J. Fuller of Penn State University, who found them problematic for a number of reasons. The series correctly concludes that state accountability systems have not improved student achievement or closed achievement gaps over the last decade. Despite this conclusion, however, the series puzzlingly insists that state testing and accountability systems must be reinstated in 2020-21 and must focus on schools with the lowest performance levels. Professor Fuller pointed out that underlying this conclusion was the reports’ failure to adequately review the existing literature. As a result, the reports overstate some research conclusions and ignore a large body of research about factors that influence student outcomes. Specifically, the reports do not acknowledge the critical need for access to quality educators and fiscal resources, which are foundational to any serious effort to improve student outcomes. Moreover, the reports focus very narrowly on test scores as the primary outcome of schooling and ignore outcomes such as critical thinking, media literacy, and civics that are more important than ever. For these reasons, Professor Fuller concludes, policymakers are advised to ignore this series and access more nuanced reviews and recommendations regarding school accountability in the coming years. Find the review, by Edward J. Fuller, at: https://greatlakescenter.org Find the overview page for the series, Making Next Year Count: Equity in School Accountability, written by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O'Neal Schiess, and Andrew J. Rotherham and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/publication/updated-making-next-year-count-equity-school-accountability Find the individual reports: The Historical Roots and Theory of Change of Modern School Accountability , by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O’Neal Schiess, & Andrew J. Rotherham: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-HistoricalRoots_Final.pdf The Impact of Standards-Based Accountability by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O’Neal Schiess, & Andrew J. Rotherham: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-Impact_Final.pdf Assessment and Accountability in the Wake of COVID-19 , by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, Jennifer O’Neal Schiess, & Andrew J. Rotherham : https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-COVID19_Final.pdf Refocusing the Priorities of Accountability , by Alex Spurrier, Chad Aldeman, & Jennifer O’Neal Schiess: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_Accountability-RefocusingPriorities_Final.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 Edward J. Fuller: (814) 865-2233, ejf20@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Missouri The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Indiana The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Texas The High Cost of South Carolina’s Low Graduation Rates The High Cost of Low Graduation Rates in North Carolina Summary These five sister reports have been published by the Friedman Foundation over the past two years. They assert that private-school voucher programs can reduce the social costs of dropping out while increasing graduation rates. Publication Date January 8, 2008 Authors Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORTS CLAIMING VOUCHERS CAN REDUCE DROPOUT RATES FOUND TO BE OF POOR QUALITY Reviewer says the conclusions reached by Friedman Foundation reports are flawed and untrustworthy EAST LANSING , Mich. (Jan. 9, 2008) – A series of five reports released over the past two years asserts that dropout rates can be reduced by implementing private-school voucher programs. A new review of those reports, however, finds that they are of little value because they ignore the abundance of relevant research and offer no means by which to gauge the alleged benefits of vouchers against other alternatives. The five reports, each specific to a given state – Missouri, Indiana, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina – follow a parallel structure and were written by Brian Gottlob and published by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation. The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida. Among their more serious flaws, Dorn finds that all five reports: largely ignore existing research on dropping out and school competition; present a superficial calculation of the costs of dropping out; improperly rely on a single, imperfect 1998 article as the entire basis for their calculations on the purported impact of voucher programs on improving graduation rates; and ignore possible alternative approaches for raising graduation rates, instead focusing exclusively on private school voucher programs. According to Dorn, “the reports make no mention of the extensive literature exploring graduation, dropping out and the factors that shape educational attainment.” As a result, “each report obscures other program options that policymakers could consider.” These other options include preschool programs, intervention in middle and high school grades, changes in child labor laws, reduction in class sizes and modification of exit-exam requirements. Dorn notes that dropping out is a serious problem which deserves serious rather than superficial analysis. He concludes by advising state policymakers who are interested in increasing graduation rates to bypass these reports and instead seek out “the available, well-researched scholarship on the topic,” much of which he identifies in the review. Find the complete review by Sherman Dorn as well as a link to the Friedman Foundation reports at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review 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 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: Sherman Dorn – (813) 205-6143; sherman.dorn@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The School Choice Voucher: A “Get Out of Jail” Card? Summary The authors of the working paper used data from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to compare crimes processed through the Wisconsin courts for program participants and a matched sample of students. Although most of these comparisons showed no association, the report finds that some subgroups of MPCP students were less likely to commit crimes as adults. Publication Date April 5, 2016 Authors Corey DeAngelis and Patrick J. Wolf; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY) Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Milwaukee school voucher report has several weaknesses, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 6, 2016) – A recent working paper from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas suggested the benefits of Milwaukee’s school voucher program extended to reduced criminal behavior. The working paper attempted to study the relationship between crime and the school voucher program. However, an academic review of the paper finds that it has several weaknesses and does not support the implication that voucher programs caused a reduction in crime. The paper, The School Choice Voucher: A "Get Out of Jail" Card? , was reviewed by Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The authors of the working paper used data from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to compare crimes processed through the Wisconsin courts for program participants and a matched sample of students. Although most of these comparisons showed no association, the report finds that some subgroups of MPCP students were less likely to commit crimes as adults. On a positive note, Belfield says that the paper contributes to policy in one important respect: it bases its findings on behavioral outcomes (criminal activity) rather than cognitive outcomes (test scores). Despite this, Belfield is very clear in his review, the findings from the paper should not warrant any strong claims of voucher effects on crime. Belfield raises the following concerns: the study’s results are highly variable, with most comparisons showing statistically insignificant results; the methods used do not justify a causal inference; and the evidence, despite the paper’s title, is associational, not causal. In short, Belfield cautions that a better interpretation of the report would be that vouchers and crime are, in fact, not correlated. Belfield concludes that it is unclear how useful the findings are for policymakers. Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the working paper at: http://www.uaedreform.org/downloads/2016/03/the-school-choice-voucher-a-get-out-of-jail-card.pdf The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219, Clive.Belfield@gmail.com Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Ohio's Lost Einsteins: The Inequitable Outcomes of Early High Achievers Summary A recent Thomas B. Fordham Institute report examines the achievement growth of Ohio's "early high achievers," some of whom are identified as gifted and talented (GT). Its conclusion-which was examined in a new review-was that closing the "gifted identification gap" can help to close the "excellence gap." Publication Date December 1, 2021 Authors Scott Imberman; Eunice Han, Yongmei Ni, University of Utah Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Uses Ungrounded Assumptions to Make Claims About the Effectiveness of a Gifted and Talented Label An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Recent study offers no solid answer as to whether more investment should be made for gifted and talented identification for early high achievers. EAST LANSING, MI (December 2, 2021) - A recent Thomas B. Fordham Institute report examines the achievement growth of Ohio's "early high achievers," some of whom are identified as gifted and talented (GT). Its conclusion-which was examined in a new review-was that closing the "gifted identification gap" can help to close the "excellence gap." Eunice Han and Yongmei Ni of the University of Utah reviewed Ohio's Lost Einsteins: The Inequitable Outcomes of Early High Achievers . They found that the report's data limitations and research design did not support a causal inference on the effectiveness of GT identification. The report tracks the students' academic performance from fourth grade to enrollment in college. It finds that early high-achieving students who are Black, Hispanic, and low-income tend to perform worse than White, non-disadvantaged peers in various educational outcomes. In addition, Black, Hispanic, and economically disadvantaged early high-achieving students are less likely to be identified as GT than their White, Asian/Pacific Islander, and non-disadvantaged peers. The report then makes a causal inference with insufficient grounding. It finds that GT identification improves the academic performance of early high achievers, especially for Black students and students in high-minority but low-poverty schools. Based on this finding, the report concludes that if economically disadvantaged and minority early high-achievers were identified for GT programs at the same rate as their non-disadvantaged, high-achieving peers, it could decrease the "excellence gaps" in the long run. This central causal claim is unsubstantiated, given the data limitations and key assumptions in the study's research design. The report, therefore, is premature in offering its policy recommendations to, for instance, use universal screening for GT services to help early higher achievers "maintain their altitude" and close "excellence gaps" for economically disadvantaged students and students of color. Find the review, by Eunice Han and Yongmei Ni, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Ohio's Lost Einsteins: The Inequitable Outcomes of Early High Achievers , written by Scott Imberman and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/ohios-lost-einsteins-report-web-final.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 Eunice Han : (801) 587-1398, eunice.han@economics.utah.edu Yongmei Ni: (801) 587-9298, yongmei.ni@utah.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

Privacy Policy Effective date: July 20, 2026 The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (“Great Lakes Center,” “we,” “us,” or “our”) respects your privacy. This Privacy Policy explains what information we may collect when you visit greatlakescenter.org, how we use it, and the choices available to you. Information We Collect We may collect information that you voluntarily provide when you: Subscribe to our email newsletter Contact us by email or through a website form Otherwise communicate with us This information may include your name, email address, and any information you choose to include in your message. Our website may also collect limited technical information automatically, such as: Internet Protocol (IP) address Browser and device type General geographic location Pages visited and time spent on the website Referring website or source How We Use Information We may use the information we collect to: Send newsletters and other communications you have requested Respond to questions or messages Maintain and improve our website Understand how visitors use the website Protect the security and operation of the website Comply with applicable legal requirements We do not sell or rent personal information. Email Communications Our email subscriptions are managed through Mailchimp. If you subscribe, the information you provide will be processed through Mailchimp in accordance with its privacy practices . You may unsubscribe from Great Lakes Center emails at any time by using the unsubscribe link included in each message. Cookies and Analytics Our website is hosted on Wix, which may use cookies and similar technologies to operate the site securely and collect information about website performance and use. Cookies are small data files stored on your device. Depending on your browser and location, you may be able to accept, decline, or manage nonessential cookies through our cookie banner or your browser settings. Disabling certain cookies may affect how the website functions. More information is available in Wix’s privacy policy . Service Providers We may share information with trusted service providers that help us operate the website and communicate with subscribers, including Wix and Mailchimp. These providers may access information only as necessary to perform services on our behalf or as otherwise permitted by their own privacy policies. We may also disclose information if required by law or if reasonably necessary to protect the rights, safety, or security of the Great Lakes Center, our website visitors, or others. Third-Party Links Our website contains links to publications, social media platforms, and other websites operated by third parties. We are not responsible for the privacy practices, security, or content of those websites. We encourage you to review their privacy policies before providing personal information. Data Retention and Security We retain personal information only for as long as reasonably necessary to fulfill the purposes described in this policy or meet legal and operational requirements. We take reasonable measures to protect the information entrusted to us. However, no website or electronic transmission can be guaranteed to be completely secure. Your Choices You may contact us to request access to, correction of, or deletion of personal information you have provided to us. Depending on where you live, you may have additional rights under applicable privacy laws. To make a request, contact us at info@greatlakescenter.org . We may need to verify your identity before completing certain requests. Children’s Privacy This website is intended for a general audience and is not designed to collect personal information from children under 13. If we learn that we have collected such information, we will take reasonable steps to delete it. Changes to This Policy We may update this Privacy Policy periodically to reflect changes to our website, practices, or legal obligations. The effective date at the top of this page indicates when it was last updated. Contact Us If you have questions about this Privacy Policy, please contact: Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice 1971 E. Beltline, Suite 106 PMB 950 Grand Rapids, MI 49525 info@greatlakescenter.org (517) 203-2940

< Back The School Staffing Surge: Decades of Employment Growth in America's Public Schools Summary The report finds that although staffing in U.S. public schools dramatically increased, student achievement did not. The report concludes that more school choice would result in decentralized governance and a better allocation of resources – "so that individual parents, teachers and educators can decide how to best organize schools." Publication Date December 3, 2012 Authors Joydeep Roy, Visiting Professor Teachers College – Columbia University & Senior Economist for the New York City Independent Budget Office Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Staffing Report Offers Little Value EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 4, 2012) – Between 1992 and 2009, the number of school employees grew at more than twice the rate that the population of students increased, a recent report found. Author Benjamin Scafidi and the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, which published the report, used the finding to argue for expanding school choice, including private school vouchers. But a new review finds that the report is based on faulty premises, lacks any analysis of why school staffing has grown, and promotes choice without offering any evidence that it would have altered the trend. Joydeep Roy, a visiting professor at Teachers College – Columbia University and a senior economist for the New York City Independent Budget Office, prepared the review for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Roy points out that the report lacks any exploration of the causes and consequences of faster employment growth. Roy observes: "Unless we know the duties and responsibilities of the new employees, any assertion about the effects of hiring them is merely speculative." The report lacks any evidence to support the contention that school choice would have changed the trend of employment growth. The record of school choice policies in improving outcomes or efficiency is much more mixed than the report would have us believe. The report's promotion of these policies as a way to hold down employment growth is particularly questionable, "given that private schools have smaller class sizes and charter schools appear to spend a substantially greater portion on administrative costs – two of the main policies attacked in the report." Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The School Staffing Surge by Benjamin Scafidi on the web: http://www.edchoice.org/Research/Reports/The-School-Staffing-Surge--Decades-of-Employment-Growth-in-Americas-Public-Schools.aspx Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-school-staffing --###-- 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: Joydeep Roy, (202) 821-2572, jr3137@columbia.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 Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy Summary This report argues that schools can save money by increasing class sizes without seriously affecting student achievement. Publication Date June 15, 2011 Authors Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Northwestern University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brookings Institution report calls for larger class sizes, uses misleading data New review finds "Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy" report mischaracterizes prior research EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 16, 2011) –—A Brookings Institution report that suggests schools can save money by increasing class sizes without seriously affecting student achievement is based on a misleading summary of research on the benefits of class-size reduction, according to a new review released today. The Brookings report, Class Size: What Research Says and What It Means for State Policy , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, associate professor in the School of Education and Social Policy at Northwestern University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report contends that the nation can save $12 billion annually by allowing class sizes to increase by one student, and that negative impacts from larger classes can be offset by better instruction that would result from laying off "least-effective" teachers. In her review, Schanzenbach found that the Brookings report mischaracterizes prior research on the benefits of class-size reduction. The Brookings report consists mainly of a literature review of class-size research, and its "primary contribution is in summarizing what it deems to be high quality studies on the impact of class-size reduction," according to Schanzenbach. While the report correctly states that only valid research should be used when assessing the benefits of class-size reduction, it "does not uniformly apply these standards to its literature review, and as a result the report presents misleading results," Schanzenbach said. The Brookings report also claims that increasing class sizes is an effective cost-savings mechanism, asserting that allowing average class sizes to rise by one student will net a savings of $12 billion a year, or 2 percent of total spending on K-12 public education. Yet increasing the size of every class by one student isn't guaranteed to save money on teachers, even if schools get rid of the "least effective" ones, as is proposed in the report. Schanzenbach offers the example of a hypothetical K-5 school with 24 classrooms: 100 students divided among 4 teachers in each grade. Reducing the teaching force by one would bring the average pupil-teacher ratio from 1:25 to 1:26. Yet it would be impossible to simply increase the resulting class sizes by a single student; instead, while most grades would have four teachers and a class size of 25, one grade would be cut to three teachers and class size would jump from 25 to 33.3. "Among the children in this grade, the negative impacts would be striking," Schanzenbach said. The Brookings report also ignores or mischaracterizes a growing body of research showing long-term benefits from smaller class sizes. A landmark study of 79 Tennessee elementary schools found that reducing the average class size from 22 students to 15 students vastly improved math and reading scores, especially among low-income and African American students. Even the Brookings Institution called the Tennessee study, known as Project STAR, "the most influential and credible study" of class-size reduction. While Schanzenbach credits the report for making "the important point that class-size reduction may be more effective for disadvantaged students and young students," she found that it fails to make the case that increasing class sizes can be cost-effective, while having no serious effect on achievement. Find Diane Whitemore Schanzenbach's review and a link to the Brookings report at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . 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-class-size-brookings --###-- 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 . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach: (847) 491-3884, dws@northwestern.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, TBattaglieri@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 K-12 Without Borders: Public School Students, Families, and Teachers Shut In by Education Boundaries Summary A recent report from the directors of EdChoice, published by the Manhattan Institute, oversimplifies important equity issues as problems of school zone boundaries. Publication Date March 1, 2023 Authors Martin F. Lueken and Michael Q. McShane; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University; T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Illogical Assumptions and Lack of Evidence Render School Choice Analysis Useless An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's claims that school choice can fix education, housing markets, and teacher pensions are unsupported and unfounded. EAST LANSING, MI (March 2, 2023) - A recent report from the directors of EdChoice, published by the Manhattan Institute, oversimplifies important equity issues as problems of school zone boundaries. Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University and T. Jameson Brewer of the University of North Georgia reviewed K-12 Without Borders: Public School Students, Families, and Teachers Shut In by Education Boundaries . Their review criticizes the report for illogical assumptions, lack of evidence, sleight of hand, and improbable leaps of logic, all of which make its advice to policymakers useless. The report's core contention is that diminishing or eliminating school district boundaries and expanding school choice will allow for three desirable outcomes: (1) students attending better schools, (2) homeowners moving to cheaper housing or seeing their property value rise, and (3) teachers enjoying improved pensions. The review points to a dearth of reliable evidence offered in the report to support these assertions. For example, despite noting mixed research results on how school choice affects housing patterns, the report assumes that eliminating school zone boundaries will necessarily result in wealthy families voluntarily relocating into poorer neighborhoods. It never addresses the documented reality that many parents work to ensure that school district boundaries replicate segregation and inequity. Similarly, the report offers no solutions to such concurrent problems as transportation for students choosing distant schools or housing for residents displaced by gentrification. Instead, the report glibly assumes someone, somewhere, will somehow find solutions. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski and T. Jameson Brewer, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find K-12 Without Borders: Public School Students, Families, and Teachers Shut In by Education Boundaries , written by Martin F. Lueken and Michael Q. McShane and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/k-12-without-borders.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://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 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: https://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 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