< Back Review of Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Education Summary A recent report from Bellwether considers the role of generative AI (GenAI) in education, posing the question: When does the ease afforded by GenAI enable deeper learning, and when is ease merely a shortcut with hidden costs? Publication Date October 20, 2025 Authors Amy Chen Kulesa, Marisa Mission, Michelle Croft, and Mary K. Wells; Thomas M. Philip, University of California, Berkeley Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Asks Important Questions About the Benefits and Risks of AI in Schools, but Its Answers Are Poorly Grounded and Generic OCTOBER 21, 2025 Report Asks Important Questions About the Benefits and Risks of AI in Schools, but Its Answers Are Poorly Grounded and Generic An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Bellwether takes a balanced yet overly simplistic approach to evaluating the use of artificial intelligence in schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (OCTOBER 21, 2025) - A recent report from Bellwether considers the role of generative AI (GenAI) in education, posing the question: When does the ease afforded by GenAI enable deeper learning, and when is ease merely a shortcut with hidden costs? Thomas M. Philip of the University of California, Berkeley reviewed Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Educatio n. He found that while the report raises important questions, its analysis is limited. To explore its central question, the report examines how AI tools interact with students' memory and information processing, attention and engagement, motivation and mindset, and metacognition and self-regulation. However, Professor Philip finds that the report conflates the multiple meanings of "learning," leading to unjustified conclusions about AI's potential impact. In particular, by adopting an overly individualistic lens to learning, the report often overlooks the realities of complex classroom environments, making unfounded inferences about classroom use of AI-powered tools. Further, the report stops short of offering proactive recommendations to mitigate the known harms of GenAI, particularly for children and youth. As a result, while it highlights important questions that policymakers must consider, the report's usefulness as a guide for decision-making is quite limited. Find the review, by Thomas M. Philip, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Education , written by Amy Chen Kulesa, Marisa Mission, Michelle Croft, and Mary K. Wells and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/publications/productive-struggle/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Thomas M. Philip Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Teachers in the Digital Age of Digital Instruction: Creating sound policy for digital learning Summary Teachers in the Digital Age of Digital Instruction: Creating sound policy for digital learning Publication Date April 2, 2012 Authors Luis A. Huerta, Teachers College, Columbia University Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Latest Review of Online Learning Reports Lacks Evidence of Rigor Policymakers should seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments EAST LANSING, Mich (April 3, 2012) –A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute outlines a vision for how technology might transform the teaching profession. A new review of the report found little or no empirical research evidence to support its central claim that digital age technologies will improve the education system. The report, Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction : Creating sound policy for digital learning , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Luis Huerta, an associate professor of education at Teachers College-Columbia University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Huerta, in his review, writes that the report's rationale is based on claims that the current education system lacks the capacity to support revolutionary changes needed to unleash the technological innovations of online instruction that will yield increased effectiveness and efficiency. The report explains that effective teachers are central to the demands of online instruction and will be even more necessary in the digital age than in the current system. Further, it asserts that the elements that constitute effective teaching can be broken down into discrete skills, packaged and then distributed to a wider group of learners via digital media. Huerta considers that while the report does address an important topic, the impact of effective teaching, the empirical research evidence to support its fundamental premise is insufficient and inadequate. Consequently, he concludes, the report amounts to only an advocacy document that outlines a vision of what changes might be necessary as the digital revolution comes of age in public education. Find Luis Huerta's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction , by Brian and Emily Hassel on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/teachers-in-the-age-of-digital-instruction.html 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 in part from funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-teachers-digital-age . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 531-1638, huerta@tc.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 Review of The Persistence of Religious Discrimination in Publicly Funded Pre-K Programs Summary A recent report from the Manhattan Institute asserts that many religious pre-K providers are being unconstitutionally excluded from publicly funded education programs that remain open to other private schools. But incomplete research and methodological flaws render the report of relatively little value to policymakers or the public. Publication Date April 30, 2025 Authors Nicole Stelle Garnett, Tim Rosenberger, and J. Theodore Austin; Joshua Weishart, Suffolk University Law School Research Areas Early Childhood; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Levies Unsubstantiated Claims of State Discrimination Against Religious Pre-K Providers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Methodological gaps and lack of evidence weaken Manhattan Institute report's claims of discrimination in publicly funded programs. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 1, 2025) - A recent report from the Manhattan Institute asserts that many religious pre-K providers are being unconstitutionally excluded from publicly funded education programs that remain open to other private schools. But incomplete research and methodological flaws render the report of relatively little value to policymakers or the public. Joshua Weishart of Suffolk University Law School expands on these shortcomings in his review of The Persistence of Religious Discrimination in Publicly Funded Pre-K Programs . The report's method-keyword searches and online reviews of statutes, regulations, and websites-did not include confirmation that such policies are being enforced. That is a serious flaw since the U.S. Supreme Court only recently changed its interpretation of the First Amendment's religion clauses to hold that denying access to religious education providers may result in discrimination. So, while the report assumes that written policies are still being enforced, a more plausible, benign explanation is that the policies have not yet been updated to reflect the recent Supreme Court decisions. It is common for a law to remain "on the books" even after a judicial decision declares it invalid-an issue that should be addressed but does not necessarily indicate intentional or widespread discrimination. A serious attempt to determine ongoing practices might use surveys of religious pre-K providers or consultations with school officials to ascertain whether these policies are actively enforced. Yet even as the report alleges discrimination against religious pre-K schools, who incidentally educate under one percent of all pre-K schoolchildren, it omits any reflection about the openly discriminatory policies and practices of many religious schools enrolling students all the way through 12th grade, who educate far, far more. As Professor Weishart notes, if the Supreme Court mandates that states accept the creation of religious charter schools later this term, a far deeper discussion on balancing religious freedom and non-discrimination in publicly funded education will be essential. Find the review, by Joshua Weishart, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Persistence of Religious Discrimination in Publicly Funded Pre-K Programs , written by Nicole Stelle Garnett, Tim Rosenberger, and J. Theodore Austin and published by the Manhattan Institute, at https://manhattan.institute/article/persistence-of-religious-discrimination-in-publicly-funded-pre-k-programs NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Joshua Weishart Joshua Weishart Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effects of Test-based Retention on Student Outcomes Over Time: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from Florida Summary As part of its working paper series, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recently released a report examining the outcomes of Florida’s third-grade retention policy. The report concluded, contrary to the conventional wisdom on grade retention, that third-grade retention had positive effects on the following year’s test results, but the effects fade, with no effect on graduation. The report attempted to investigate the impact of a Florida policy, which flags students for retention, to repeat third grade, based on a state-specified cut-score on the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test. The findings indicated that students just below the threshold (one-third of whom were retained) performed better than those just above the threshold (5% of whom were retained) on next year’s tests. Publication Date December 2, 2015 Authors Guido Schwerdt and Martin R. West; Joseph P. Robinson-Cimpian, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release A new review finds validity problems undermine third-grade retention report EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 3, 2015) – As part of its working paper series, the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) recently released a report examining the outcomes of Florida's third-grade retention policy. The report concluded, contrary to the conventional wisdom on grade retention, that third-grade retention had positive effects on the following year's test results, but the effects fade, with no effect on graduation. Despite this, a new academic review finds several shortcomings that severely limit the report's usefulness. The report, The Effects of Test-based Retention on Student Outcomes Over Time: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from Florida , was reviewed by Joseph P. Robinson-Cimpian for the Think Twice think tank review project with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Robinson-Cimpian is an associate professor and College of Education Distinguished Scholar in the Department of Educational Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. His research focuses on the use and development of novel and rigorous methods to study equity and policy. The report attempted to investigate the impact of a Florida policy, which flags students for retention, to repeat third grade, based on a state-specified cut-score on the Florida Comprehensive Achievement Test. The findings indicated that students just below the threshold (one-third of whom were retained) performed better than those just above the threshold (5% of whom were retained) on next year's tests. In his review, Robinson-Cimpian notes that the report relies on what is known as a regression discontinuity design (RDD), a technique used for making causal inferences from non-experimental data when a threshold determines or strongly predicts treatment assignment (comparing students immediately above and below the law's cut-score, lend themselves to making causal claims). However, Robinson-Cimpian finds serious shortcomings. Most notably, because students above the cut-score do not receive the extra supports provided to students below the cut-score, the researchers cannot know if positive outcomes for those below the cut-score were due to the greater likelihood of retention or to the assurance of additional services. Additionally, Robinson-Cimpian finds that the report exacerbates the outcome differences between those below and above the threshold by using an Instrumental Variable approach, which attributes the entire difference to just the one-third of students who are retained, effectively making the outcome difference appear more than three times as large. Importantly, Robinson-Cimpian finds the very use of the Instrumental Variable approach is inappropriate because the method assumes that failing to attain the threshold has no effect on outcomes other than through increasing the likelihood of retention. Overall, Robinson-Cimpian points out, the methods used have extremely limited generalizability, which is restricted to students at or very near the threshold and directly affected by the policy. Even setting aside the problems generated by confounding retention effects with the effects of other interventions and supports, the findings are not easily generalizable to lower- or higher-achieving students, to other grades, or to other states with similar test-based retention policies. Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report by Guido Schwerdt, Martin R. West, and Marcus A. Winters on the web: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/PEPG12-09_West.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu - ## - Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Joseph P. Robinson-Cimpian, (217) 333-8527, jpr@illinois.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 Chartering and Choice as an Achievement Gap-Closing Reform: The success of California charter schools in promoting African American Achievement Summary This report claims that California charter schools are narrowing the Black-White achievement gap and that charter schools are centers of innovation. Publication Date November 9, 2011 Authors David R. Garcia, Arizona State University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release California Charter Schools Don't Narrow Black-White Achievement Gap New review finds claims made in CCSA report are misrepresented, exaggerated EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 10, 2011) – In a recent report, the California Charter School Association claims that the state's charter schools are narrowing the Black-White achievement gap. Not so, explains Arizona State University professor David Garcia, an expert on charter school research, in a new review of the CCSA study. Garcia finds flaws in the report's methods, and he explains that the gap is "largely unaffected by charter enrollment." Further, Garcia pours cold water on the report's claim that innovative practices are at work in charter schools that aren't found in traditional public schools. Garcia reviewed Chartering and Choice as an Achievement Gap-Closing Reform: The success of California charter schools in promoting African American Achievement for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In his review, Garcia notes that the report claims that African American students attending California charter schools scored, on average, 19 points higher than the average for African Americans attending traditional schools on California's Academic Performance Index (API), which is derived from statewide standardized tests under the state's accountability system for public schools. The report also claims that California charter schools are reversing the trend of low academic achievement among African American students and effectively closing the Black-White achievement gap. Garcia observes that the data in the report itself show that "African Americans in California charter schools started out higher and actually lost ground relative to traditional public schools over time," with traditional public schools outgaining charter schools by 6 points. Moreover, he writes, "closing the achievement gap requires that African American students make more gains relative to White students – and by this definition, traditional public schools outperformed charter schools." According to Garcia the most positive spin that can be put on the evidence is that while the gap is still wide it might be growing at a slower pace for charter school students. Even this interpretation, however, is not well-supported by the data or analyses in the new report. This is largely because the main statistical model presented in the report has several prominent weaknesses. It accounts for only 3-6 percent of overall variance, meaning that the observed outcome differences are explained overwhelmingly by factors not included in the authors' model. One cannot make reliable policy decisions based on such a weak model. Moreover, throughout the report, the authors chose to set aside differences in socio-economic status as regards charter elementary and middle schools, not considering the likely effects those differences have on the measured outcomes. The sole exception occurs when the performance numbers appear to favor traditional public high schools, in which case the authors point to socio-economic status differences as the explanation. The report's greatest strength, Garcia writes, is that it again demonstrates what other studies have found: namely, that "charter schools are of variable quality, and there are very few innovations in charter school practices as a whole that are not also present in traditional public schools." In the main, however, he says: "The most useful policy briefs are concise as well as accurate. This report is lacking on both counts." Find David Garcia's review and a link to the CCSA 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. This review is also available on the NEPC website at http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-chartering-and-choice . --###-- 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: David R. Garcia – 480-727-7413; d.garcia@asu.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 Public Education Funding Without Boundaries: How to Get K-12 Dollars to Follow Open Enrollment Students Summary The Reason Foundation, a vigorous advocate for choice policies such as vouchers and charter schools, recently published a report advocating for the increased "portability" of school revenues, allowing for "money to follow the students" and, therefore, the expansion of interdistrict choice programs. Publication Date April 5, 2023 Authors Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell; Dr. Mark Weber, Rutgers University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Interdistrict School Choice Funding Decisions Should Be Grounded in a Full Understanding of Costs An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The funding portability systems touted by a new report do not account for many factors that determine student costs. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 6, 2023) - The Reason Foundation, a vigorous advocate for choice policies such as vouchers and charter schools, recently published a report advocating for the increased "portability" of school revenues, allowing for "money to follow the students" and, therefore, the expansion of interdistrict choice programs. In a review of Public Education Funding Without Boundaries: How to Get K-12 Dollars to Follow Open Enrollment Students , Dr. Mark Weber of Rutgers University finds significant methodological flaws, all stemming from the report's simplistic view of school "costs." The report attempts to show that many current features of state-level school funding formulas inhibit the portability of revenues. While there are sound policy reasons to facilitate greater interdistrict choice, this report's prescriptions are not sound, in large part because they betray a lack of understanding of a core principle of school finance: Different students in different districts have different costs to achieve educational outcomes. The funding portability systems touted by the report do not account for many factors that determine student costs. Professor Weber explains that this results in a mismatch between costs and revenues that advantages some districts while disadvantaging others when students transfer. Professor Weber concludes that policymakers should avoid the facile recommendations in this report and instead carefully consider the many complexities in designing a portability system for interdistrict choice programs. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3132&type=think_twice Find Public Education Funding Without Boundaries: How to Get K-12 Dollars to Follow Open Enrollment Students , written by Aaron Garth Smith, Christian Barnard, and Jordan Campbell and published by the Reason Foundation, at: https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/public-education-funding-without-boundaries.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank-reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, 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 Mark Weber: (908) 358-5828, mark.weber@rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Effective School Expenditures Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research on effective school expenditures. This three-page brief is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Publication Date February 6, 2013 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Discusses Why Money Matters, Effective School Expenditures EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 7, 2013) – The sixth in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing relevant findings in education policy research discusses effective school expenditures. Recent public polls have made it clear Americans are concerned with school funding. However, with shrinking budgets at the state and national level, it is imperative for schools and policymakers to study where money matters, so that our investments have the best pay-off. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, prepared the brief, Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Effective School Expenditures . Previous sections of Research-Based Options have included: teacher evaluations, common core standards, early childhood education, choice funding, and dropout strategies. Mathis’ brief highlights the need for funding and notes that funding and other resources are necessary but not sufficient for providing high-quality educational opportunities. Equally important are effective spending strategies, simply spending money does not by itself create quality educational opportunities. The most commonly used measure of effective expenditures, test scores, are not a valid indicator of the broad range of public education goals, Mathis cautions. "Simple comparisons of spending with test scores will systematically underestimate the effects of proper school funding." Mathis singles out eight areas where increased policy emphasis will likely lead to improved outcomes: community and social factors, early education, community schools, extended day and year, full-day kindergarten, class size, teacher quality, as well as funding for high-needs children and categorical aid. These additional programs or supports will accomplish little unless they are of high quality. "An expensive but ill-considered policy can prove wasteful or even counter-productive." Of all of the factors studied, Mathis stresses the influence of economic and social conditions, "Ameliorating the negative effects of concentrated poverty may do more to improve our schools than most or all school reforms." He reports that this list is not all encompassing, "Nevertheless, there is considerable consensus regarding these areas, and they are therefore offered as a useful starting point for addressing effective school spending." Effective School Expenditures is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. This brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Impact of Milwaukee Charter Schools on Student Achievement Summary This report finds that there are no math achievement gains and small gains in reading in students who attend Milwaukee charter schools when compared to traditional public schools. The report also found that there is no evidence that the presence of charter schools influences that performance in traditional public schools. Publication Date May 4, 2009 Authors Robert Bifulco, Syracuse University Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Milwaukee Charter School Report Generally Sound May 5, 2009 Review of report raises key questions but praises contribution EAST LANSING, MI (May 5, 2009) – A recently released report on Milwaukee charter schools found that charter school students showed no significant gains in reading scores and only small increases in math scores when compared with students in traditional public schools. The report also concluded that there is no evidence that competition from charter schools impacts the performance of traditional public schools. A new review of the report raises validity questions but notes strengths in the methods used. When the results are considered together with the large body of research on charter schools, the conclusion that charter schools should not be expected to have large effects on achievement in urban schools is found by the reviewer to be reasonable. The report “The Impact of Milwaukee Charter Schools on Student Achievement” was published by the Brookings Institution. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Robert Bifulco, Associate Professor of Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Probably the most noteworthy finding from the report is that, even though no significant benefit in reading scores was associated with charter attendance, the report did find a small but statistically significantly higher math test score improvement among charter school students compared with conventional public school students. Yet it also found that those gains were largely limited to earlier years of the charter school program and to students in their first year in a charter school. In his review, Bifulco observes that the statistical methods used in the Brookings report have been used in many other charter school studies and have been endorsed by a panel of experts on school choice research. Despite their “widely recognized strengths,” however, these same methods “have come under sharp criticism,” he notes, and should probably not be used by themselves. For instance, Bifulco points out that the study’s charter school sample excludes students who have attended only charter schools, who may be different in important, unmeasured ways from those (included) students who transferred in or out of charters during their schooling years. A further concern, acknowledged but not fully resolved by the Brookings authors, is that Wisconsin changed its achievement test midway through the study. Given these and other “threats to the validity of the estimates presented in this report, robustness checks and alternative estimates are important.” The study results, Bifulco concludes, “are most informative when considered in the context of the larger body of research on charter schools”—namely, that charters produce “at best modest effects on student performance.” In that light, he says, the authors are wise to point out that charters offer “no silver bullet” in the school-reform arsenal. Find Robert Bifulco’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Robert Bifulco (315) 443-3114; rbifulco@syr.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Assessment High Stakes and Alternative Visions: Appropriate Use of the Right Tools to Leverage Improvement 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 December 31, 1969 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release High-stakes testing undermines school reform, report finds FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT : Teri Battaglieri (248) 444-7071 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Dan Laitsch (778) 782-7589 (e-mail) dlaitsch@sfu.ca EAST LANSING, Mich ., Nov. 27, 2006 – High-stakes tests, which are used to measure student and school achievement, have so many negative consequences that they are actually undermining the goal of improving public education, according to a new policy brief released today by The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. High-stakes testing, the dominant school reform tool of the federal No Child Left Behind law, actually “corrupts the system it intends to improve and is unlikely to produce positive change,” said Daniel A. Laitsch, author of Assessment, high-stakes, and alternative visions: Appropriate use of the right tools to leverage improvement. Laitsch recommends that policymakers: abandon high-stakes accountability systems and instead focus on improving our schools’ capacity to meet student needs; look to education professionals to determine the proper use of testing; and expand assessments to evaluate the diverse goals of education. “There is no silver bullet for school improvement,” he said. “Simplistic accountability mechanisms focused on single outcomes, measures and faulty assumptions....cannot adequately assess the work of teachers, schools and students or provide sufficient information for policy decisions.” In the report, Laitsch, of Simon Fraser University in Canada, highlights the following proven problems associated with high-stakes testing: Narrowing of curriculum and instructional strategies, giving students “an impoverished academic experience.” Cheating and other negative behaviors designed to avoid punishments for poor performance. Shortchanging high- and low-achieving students by diverting resources and services toward those whose scores are closest to the cutoff between passing and failing for a particular test. Testing errors that damage such things as college admissions for students and school success under NCLB. Laitsch points out that there are a variety of other promising models of assessment, some incrementally different from NCLB while others represent a radical departure from the high-stakes assessment model. The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back ESEA Reauthorization: How Can We Build upon No Child Left Behind’s Progress for Students with Disabilities in a Reauthorized ESEA Summary A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) links benchmarks for inclusion in state testing and stringent accountability with improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities. While noting that causal claims could not be made, the report then proceeded to try to convince readers of exactly such claims. The report compared 2000 to 2013 NAEP test scores along with NCES national-level data and found increased test scores, decreased dropout rates, and increased graduation rates for students with disabilities, as well as improved outcomes for Black and Hispanic students with disabilities. Publication Date June 7, 2015 Authors Chelsea Straus; Edward Fierros & Katherine Cosner, Villanova University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds CAP report fails to connect accountability pressures to improved outcomes for students with disabilities EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 8, 2015) – In April, a report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) linked benchmarks for inclusion in state testing and stringent accountability with improved educational outcomes for students with disabilities. While noting that causal claims could not be made, the report then proceeded to try to convince readers of exactly such claims. An academic review out today explains that causal arguments are nowhere near possible given the relatively weak data and analyses used in the report. Edward Fierros, Associate Professor of Education and Chair of the Department of Education and Counseling at Villanova University, along with Katherine Cosner, a graduate student at Villanova University, reviewed ESEA Reauthorization: How We Can Build upon No Child Left Behind's Progress for Students with Disabilities in a Reauthorized ESEA for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report compared 2000 to 2013 NAEP test scores along with NCES national-level data and found increased test scores, decreased dropout rates, and increased graduation rates for students with disabilities, as well as improved outcomes for Black and Hispanic students with disabilities. Despite the report's suggestions that tougher accountability and higher expectations produced these better educational outcomes, the reviewers found little to justify the claims. "While these student outcomes did indeed improve for students with disabilities during this time period," the reviewers note "the report is wrong to assert that improvements were caused by NCLB or NCLB-type reforms." Among the shortcomings identified by the reviewers, the report neglected to examine state outcomes or results by locale, to consider other factors that may have influenced the results over these 13 years, or to review possible differences by subgroups of students with differing disabilities. The reviewers recommend that an analysis that is more focused on state- and local-level outcomes would have helped reveal what the national average scores can hide. Additionally, the review indicates that the report used simple descriptive bar charts in place of more sophisticated and appropriate analytic methods. It also found "there is not a single reference to a peer reviewed or generally accepted research report" in the CAP analysis despite an abundance of available research. In their conclusion, the reviewers state, "In sum, the simplistic presentation of aggregate descriptive data does not provide compelling or useful data for policy purposes." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the CAP report on the web: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/NCLB-StudentsDisability-brief1.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Edward G. Fierros, (610) 519-6969, edward.fierros@villanova.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2017 Summary In the five years since the first NEPC Annual Report on Virtual Education was released in 2013, virtual education continues to be a focal point for policymakers. Proponents argue that virtual education can expand student choices and improve the efficiency of public education. In particular, full-time virtual schools (also sometimes referred to as virtual charter schools, virtual academies, online schools or cyber schools) have attracted a great deal of attention. Many believe that online curriculum can be tailored to individual students more effectively than curriculum in traditional classrooms, giving it the potential to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. Further, the promise of lower costs—primarily for instructional personnel and facilities—makes virtual schools financially appealing to both policymakers and for-profit providers. The 2017 NEPC Annual Report contributes to the existing evidence related to virtual education, and so to debates surrounding it. It provides objective analysis of the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools; available research on virtual school practices and policy; and an overview of recent state efforts to craft new policy. Publication Date April 10, 2017 Authors Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Charisse Gulosino, Christopher Shank, Caryn Davidson, Michael K. Barbour, Luis A. Huerta, Sheryl Rankin Shafer, Jennifer King Rice, and David Nitkin Research Areas Technology & AI 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 A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect Summary A recent Brookings Institution report synthesizes findings from a year-long study of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education, concluding that its potential harms to young people's learning and development currently outweigh its benefits. Publication Date March 11, 2026 Authors Mary Burns, Rebecca Winthrop, Natasha Luther, Emma Venetis, and Rida Karim; William R. Penuel, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MARCH 12, 2026 Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report will help readers wrap their minds around issues concerning generative AI in education, but it provides little help in selecting and evaluating options for ensuring that AI is used to benefit rather than harm young people's well-being. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 12, 2026) - A recent Brookings Institution report synthesizes findings from a year-long study of generative artificial intelligence (AI) in education, concluding that its potential harms to young people's learning and development currently outweigh its benefits. In his review of A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect , University of Colorado Boulder professor William R. Penuel found it to be a useful tool to anticipate potential benefits and harms of AI but found it weaker in offering any clear blueprint for changing the trajectory of AI in education. The report identifies three focus areas for action: promoting AI tools that support evidence-informed pedagogies; developing holistic AI literacy; and advancing trustworthy AI tool design, governance, and guidelines that prioritize safety, privacy, and healthy development. The report's strength lies in its breadth of perspectives and research. It provides decision makers with a wide range of ideas. But it offers little help in selecting and evaluating options for ensuring that AI is used to benefit rather than harm young people's well-being. Also, it does not systematically weigh evidence by quality or type, leaving readers to draw divergent conclusions. More concerning, decision makers are presented with numerous recommendations but minimal guidance on how to evaluate or implement them, including little clarity about which stakeholders should carry out its 12 proposed actions. Ultimately, Professor Penuel concludes, the report serves as a useful overview of the complex issues surrounding generative AI in education, though its impact is constrained by a reluctance to decisively assess whether future benefits can meaningfully outweigh current risks. Find the review, written by William R. Penuel, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A New Direction for Students in an AI World: Prosper, Prepare, Protect , written by Mary Burns, Rebecca Winthrop, Natasha Luther, Emma Venetis, and Rida Karim and published by the Brookings Institution, at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/A-New-Direction-for-Students-in-an-AI-World-FULL-REPORT.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares William R. Penuel Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More