< Back Consumer-Oriented School Rating Systems and Their Implications for Educational Equity Summary Professor Powers describes the growing evidence base about these rating systems, their purpose purportedly being to help families navigate increasingly complex school choice options. One consistent research finding is that schools’ ratings, or the measures that comprise school ratings, are associated with schools’ demographic characteristics, such as students’ race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The association between ratings and demographics is stronger for status metrics (or measures of a school’s performance at a specific moment in time) and weaker but still influential for growth metrics (or measures of a school’s performance trends over time). Status metrics tend to generate lower ratings for racially diverse schools, while growth metrics tend to generate higher ratings for them. School demographics also shape the way parents and other stakeholders respond to surveys or provide descriptive comments about schools. Publication Date April 12, 2023 Authors Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University Research Areas School Funding; Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Can We Trust Privately Run School Rating Systems? Key Takeaway : Because consumer-oriented school rating systems are increasingly viewed as trusted sources of information, policymakers should work to ensure that the information they provide is, in fact, reliable. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 13, 2023) - School ratings are a ubiquitous feature of the U.S. educational system. Following the federal requirements for states to report school performance with a standardized measure of accountability, non-state organizations such as GreatSchools.org and Niche have drawn on states' publicly available information to create their own consumer-oriented rating systems. NEPC today released a policy brief, Consumer-Oriented School Rating Systems and Their Implications for Educational Equity , in which author Jeanne M. Powers of Arizona State University examines these consumer-oriented rating systems, their cultural effects, how they work in practice, and their implications for educational equity. Professor Powers describes the growing evidence base about these rating systems, their purpose purportedly being to help families navigate increasingly complex school choice options. One consistent research finding is that schools' ratings, or the measures that comprise school ratings, are associated with schools' demographic characteristics, such as students' race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status. The association between ratings and demographics is stronger for status metrics (or measures of a school's performance at a specific moment in time) and weaker but still influential for growth metrics (or measures of a school's performance trends over time). Status metrics tend to generate lower ratings for racially diverse schools, while growth metrics tend to generate higher ratings for them. School demographics also shape the way parents and other stakeholders respond to surveys or provide descriptive comments about schools. Not surprisingly, school ratings shape how the general public and parents perceive schools, with negative scores or comments having a particularly strong influence. School ratings can also influence the work of school personnel and the value of houses in the neighborhoods surrounding schools. Parents who consult school ratings often rely on status metrics and thus avoid racially diverse schools. This could change with expanded use of growth metrics, but that shift is unlikely to happen without policy intervention. The format and display of ratings can also influence perceptions. The choices made by those running consumer-oriented ratings systems are driven in large part by their status as private businesses. This is apparent from some of the consumer-oriented ratings system websites that offer gateways into multiple fee-generating services (beyond the free initial searches). Further, by requiring users to provide personal information to use such advanced search features as school comparison tools, the websites enable non-state organizations to collect valuable information about families that can be sold to others. Because parents and others see consumer-oriented rating systems as trusted sources of information, policymakers should understand the implications and outcomes associated with them. To the extent that the information they provide reflects schools' demographics rather than school's contributions to students' academic growth, consumer-oriented ratings systems may also contribute to the acceleration or deepening of residential and school segregation, particularly in the wake of the pandemic and widening test score gaps. To that end, Professor Powers provides recommendations for both policymakers and the organizations that create and maintain the ratings systems. Find Consumer-Oriented School Rating Systems and Their Implications for Educational Equity , by Jeanne M. Powers, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3078&type=policy_brief This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Alex Molnar : (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger : (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Jeanne M. Powers : (480) 965-0841, jeanne.powers@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion Summary The paper reaches three key findings. First, due to a subsidy provided by Massachusetts law, per-pupil expenditures in the impacted public schools increased as charter schools expanded. Second, these districts appeared to respond to competitive pressures from charter schools by moving funding to inputs directly related to instruction. Third, test scores in math and English language arts in the existing public schools increased very slightly. All three of these impacts, however, disappear after six years of initial charter school expansion. Publication Date October 3, 2018 Authors Matt Ridley and Camille Terrier; Clive Belfield Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 4, 2018) — A recent report from the School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examines the consequences that followed from an expansion in the number of charter school places available for enrollment. The study uses data from Massachusetts, where charter school growth has been carefully managed and where there was significant excess demand for charter school places. In 2011, the state increased the cap on enrollments for charter schools located in school districts with low test scores, resulting in an increase in charter school enrollment in some of these districts. Professor Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, reviewed Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion and found that it provides important, high-quality evidence about the effects of expanding charter schools under a well-regulated set of conditions. The report is part of Think Twice Review, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Belfield's key finding is that the report is a useful and informative study of charter school expansion. The paper presents a high-quality study by MIT which finds that charter expansion, under the unique set of conditions found in Massachusetts, is benign and slightly positive. The paper reaches three key findings. First, due to a subsidy provided by Massachusetts law, per-pupil expenditures in the impacted public schools increased as charter schools expanded. Second, these districts appeared to respond to competitive pressures from charter schools by moving funding to inputs directly related to instruction. Third, test scores in math and English language arts in the existing public schools increased very slightly. All three of these impacts, however, disappear after six years of initial charter school expansion. The paper affirms a two-part consensus from past studies on the economic and academic impacts of charter schooling. First, the flows of public funds to charter and public schools are complex, idiosyncratic, and variable. These features make economic evaluation of charter schooling very difficult. Second, the academic influence of competition between charter schools and public schools is small and, in this case, positive. This second finding suggests that expanding charter schools, at least under the relatively restrictive conditions that existed in Massachusetts, will have a benign effect on the overall education system. However, because of funding complexities identified in the first finding, it is extremely difficult to determine how cost-effective or equitable such expansions might be. Find the Think Twice Review by Belfield on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion , written by Matt Ridley and Camille Terrier and published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at: https://seii.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SEII-Discussion-Paper-2018.02-Ridley-Terrier.pdf You can also find the review by Clive Belfield at the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-charter-spillover Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options Summary A recent report from the Bellwether Education Partners, Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options, attempts to examine the availability of low-income rental units in school districts to understand whether districts in the largest 200 metropolitan areas are accessible to families in poverty. The report finds nearly 500 examples of borders between two starkly different types of districts: those that are the most and least "accessible" based on the cost of rental housing. It designates these borders between these districts as barriers. After describing the problem, the report recommends a combination of education policy solutions, including expanding school choice, and affordable housing opportunities. Publication Date February 28, 2022 Authors Alex Spurrier, Sara Hodges, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Erica Frankenberg, Penn State Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report About the Relationship Between Housing and Educational Opportunities Falls Short but Highlights Important Concerns An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Among other limitations, the report fails to fully explore how race and racism relate to housing access and educational opportunity. EAST LANSING, MI (March 1, 2022) - A recent report from the Bellwether Education Partners, Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options , attempts to examine the availability of low-income rental units in school districts to understand whether districts in the largest 200 metropolitan areas are accessible to families in poverty. However, a review by Erica Frankenberg of Penn State finds significant methodological shortcomings that limit the report's usefulness. The report finds nearly 500 examples of borders between two starkly different types of districts: those that are the most and least "accessible" based on the cost of rental housing. It designates these borders between these districts as barriers. After describing the problem, the report recommends a combination of education policy solutions, including expanding school choice, and affordable housing opportunities. Professor Frankenberg notes several limitations and concerns with the study and report. One problem is that the report's approach is disconnected from federal housing policy and research. In addition, the report fails to consider the effects of race, which is central to understanding a racialized lack of affordability. Further, the report's failure to acknowledge prior research, its lack of clarity about its methodology, and its overlooking of boundaries that exist within districts all make it unlikely to have fully identified the barriers to high-quality schools. Thus, though the report is useful in its consideration of the relationship between housing and educational opportunity, Professor Frankenberg concludes that its flaws substantially limit the report's utility for informing social policy. Find the review, by Erica Frankenberg, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Priced Out of Public Schools: District Lines, Housing Access, and Inequitable Educational Options written by Alex Spurrier, Sara Hodges, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_PricedOutofPublicSchools-EDB_1021_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 Erica Frankenberg : (814) 865-5862, euf10@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Pandemic Educational Models Remain Unproven Summary In response to unsafe conditions and school closures, families across the U.S. experimented early in the COVID-19 pandemic with new educational models. Two recent publications from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) describe two related strategies that exemplify such experimentation: microschools and learning pods. However, a review recommends that neither report should be used to guide policy and practice. Publication Date October 17, 2022 Authors Christopher Doss, Elizabeth Steiner, Bryan C. Hassel; Bryan Mann of the University of Kansas Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Pandemic Educational Models Remain Unproven An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Twin reports, discussing microschools and learning pods, provide insufficient evidence to support their claims and recommendations. EAST LANSING, MI (October 18, 2022) - In response to unsafe conditions and school closures, families across the U.S. experimented early in the COVID-19 pandemic with new educational models. Two recent publications from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) describe two related strategies that exemplify such experimentation: microschools and learning pods. However, a review recommends that neither report should be used to guide policy and practice. Professor Bryan Mann of the University of Kansas reviewed (a) Use of Personalized Learning Platforms in One Pandemic-Era Microschool: A Case Study ; and (b) "The Most Professionally Satisfied I've Been." How Could the Best Aspects of Learning Pod Staffing Be Scaled Up? Professor Mann's past research has examined digital schooling and other alternative school models. He found in both reports methodological and analytical shortcomings that limit their utility for policymakers. The first report, on learning platforms, analyzes engagement patterns and success rates of a digital platform used at one microschool in Nevada. Despite calling itself a case study, the report lacks the research and qualitative analysis to be classified as such, according to Professor Mann's review. The second report, on staffing, praises learning pods' staffing features and argues that these approaches might be adopted in traditional schools. Moreover, although the report overstates its conclusions and presents inadequate evidence, the author uses it to promote school models developed by his company. (The report's suggestions are from examples of so-called Opportunity Culture designs and multi-classroom leader models created by the author's company, Public Impact.) Though both reports paint the new strategies in a positive light, Professor Mann found little evidence in support of the strategies' overall benefits. Find the review, by Bryan Mann, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Use of Personalized Learning Platforms in One Pandemic-Era Microschool: A Case Study ,written by Christopher Doss and Elizabeth Steiner and published by CRPE, at: https://crpe.org/wp-content/uploads/final-SNUMA-report.pdf Find "The Most Professionally Satisfied I've Been." How Could the Best Aspects of Learning Pod Staffing Be Scaled Up? ,written by Bryan C. Hassel and published by CRPE, at: https://crpe.org/wp-content/uploads/final-Staffing-learning-pods-working-paper.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), 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: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Bryan Mann: (785) 864-2097, bryanmann@ku.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Ending the Blame Game on Educational Inequity: A Study of High Flying Schools and NCLB 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, 2005 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review 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 How Discriminatory Censorship Laws Imperil Public Education Summary Among the most alarming repercussions has been the adoption of "discriminatory censorship laws" that attempt to discredit and prevent classroom conversations about racism, gender identity, and other targeted topics. In How Discriminatory Censorship Laws Imperil Public Education, Jonathan Feingold (Boston University School of Law) and Joshua Weishart (West Virginia University College of Law) explore the spread and impact of these laws, observing that-although their language, prohibitions, and penalties vary-all further two common aims: to demean inclusionary values and to deny students access to critical thinking, inquiry, and knowledge about racism, gender identity and other targeted topics. Publication Date November 29, 2023 Authors Jonathan Feingold, Boston University School of Law; Joshua Weishart, West Virginia University College of Law Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brief Explores Effects of Discriminatory Censorship Laws on K-12 Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Analysis reveals the need to adopt laws and policies that safeguard public education, protect educators, and promote inclusive, safe learning environments. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 30, 2023) - Summer 2020 witnessed global protests for racial justice. Across the United States, calls to reckon with racism sparked renewed commitments to more inclusive classrooms and curricula. This nationwide turn toward racial justice and inclusion provoked a backlash campaign that has proven even more impactful and resilient. Among the most alarming repercussions has been the adoption of "discriminatory censorship laws" that attempt to discredit and prevent classroom conversations about racism, gender identity, and other targeted topics. In How Discriminatory Censorship Laws Imperil Public Education , Jonathan Feingold (Boston University School of Law) and Joshua Weishart (West Virginia University College of Law) explore the spread and impact of these laws, observing that-although their language, prohibitions, and penalties vary-all further two common aims: to demean inclusionary values and to deny students access to critical thinking, inquiry, and knowledge about racism, gender identity and other targeted topics. As of November 2023, at least 21 states and 145 school districts or other local government entities had enacted at least one discriminatory censorship law governing K-12 schools-a total that covers over 1 million educators and roughly half the nation’s 50 million public schoolchildren. This brief examines existing research on discriminatory censorship laws governing K-12 schools and identifies two pressing threats to public education: the rise of hostile learning environments and the spread of miseducation. Discriminatory censorship laws increase the risk of race- and sex-based harassment and expose educators to formal sanctions and social ostracization. This dynamic fosters a climate of fear and anxiety that effectively coerces teachers to shun critical inquiry related to targeted topics. The result is a curriculum that rejects comprehensive, culturally attentive content and promotes whitewashed and heteronormative narratives of American history and culture. Even as discriminatory censorship laws have spread throughout the country, increasing evidence confirms that they lack broad public support. Still, popular opinion has proven insufficient to protect educators and students from this coordinated campaign of discriminatory censorship. The brief’s analysis reveals the need to adopt laws, policies, and practices that safeguard public education, protect educators from targeted harassment and retaliation, and promote inclusive, safe learning environments that encourage critical thinking and respect the dignity of all school community members. Feingold and Weishart provide recommendations for Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, state legislatures, state and local school officials, and advocacy groups, to constructively counter discriminatory censorship by developing a coordinated and committed response that safeguards the promise of public education and empowers educators and institutions to pursue inclusive classrooms and curricula. Find How Discriminatory Censorship Laws Imperil Public Education , by Jonathan Feingold and Joshua Weishart, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu Jonathan Feingold (617) 353-5793 jfeingol@bu.edu Joshua Weishart (304) 293-6436 joshua.weishart@mail.wvu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus Summary The brief, titled, We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus, explores the question, "How might we acknowledge and work toward the important task of diversifying the educator workforce while maintaining a healthy skepticism about the confluence of actors with their differing motivations who are promoting the diversification of the teaching profession?" The brief's authors – Thomas M. Philip of the University of California, Berkeley and Anthony L. Brown of the University of Texas at Austin – caution in particular against the "no excuses" school model, where teachers of color must try to satisfy irreconcilable demands focused on extreme accountability on one hand and commitments for cultural relevance and justice on the other. Publication Date July 20, 2020 Authors Thomas M. Philip, University of California, Berkeley; Anthony L. Brown, University of Texas at Austin Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Brief warns that care and skepticism should accompany efforts to foster an educational workforce representative of its general population. EAST LANSING, Mich. (July 21, 2020) - For very good reasons, there is a near unanimity among researchers and practitioners about the need to recruit and retain more teachers of color. Diversification of the teaching ranks has clear benefits. But a brief released today argues that the push for diversifying the teaching force should be scrutinized within the context of larger patterns and structures of racial injustice and should be thoughtfully and carefully pursued as part of broader efforts toward equity-oriented school reform. The brief, titled, We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus , explores the question, "How might we acknowledge and work toward the important task of diversifying the educator workforce while maintaining a healthy skepticism about the confluence of actors with their differing motivations who are promoting the diversification of the teaching profession?" The brief's authors – Thomas M. Philip of the University of California, Berkeley and Anthony L. Brown of the University of Texas at Austin – caution in particular against the "no excuses" school model, where teachers of color must try to satisfy irreconcilable demands focused on extreme accountability on one hand and commitments for cultural relevance and justice on the other. As Philip and Brown make clear, research does document how teachers of color serve as cultural translators, are more aware of racial trauma experienced by students, and are more likely to work in schools that disproportionately enroll low-income students of color. They bring concrete benefits for racially matched students concerning higher test scores, more positive disciplinary outcomes, higher expectations, and authentic forms of care. Yet calls to diversify the teaching force must be understood within the current societal context, where diversity has often been embraced in ways that have blunted demands for structural change. Philip and Brown examine research about the diversification of teachers, with particular attention to assumptions about racial/cultural match and the discourse of role models. While the rationales for diversifying the teaching profession are (as noted above) wide-ranging, it is the fusing of racial/cultural match and the role model thesis that has had the greatest mainstream currency in justifying the need for teachers of color. The authors conclude by offering questions that those concerned with the diversification of the teaching force might consider as safeguards to promote a focus on strategic essentialism and the transformation of schools. Find We All Want More Teachers of Color, Right?: Concerns and Considerations about the Emergent Consensus, by Thomas M. Philip and Anthony L. Brown, at: 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: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods Summary When youth engage in collective-impact strategies, they have the potential to strengthen the design, implementation, and outcomes of school decision-making. A recent Urban Institute report takes up this important topic, examining what youth engagement initiatives look like within a broader reform structure. It presents a continuum of youth involvement-focused on issues of support, input, and leadership. Publication Date December 31, 1969 Authors Jessica Shakesprere, Mica O’Brien, and Eona Harison; Dana Mitra, Penn State University Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Offers Only a Clouded Understanding of Youth Engagement An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report draws attention to a range of ways that young people can be included in decision-making process, but its framework is applied in a way that creates confusion. EAST LANSING, MI (March 30, 2021) - When youth engage in collective-impact strategies, they have the potential to strengthen the design, implementation, and outcomes of school decision-making. A recent Urban Institute report takes up this important topic, examining what youth engagement initiatives look like within a broader reform structure. It presents a continuum of youth involvement-focused on issues of support, input, and leadership. Professor Dana Mitra of Penn State University reviewed Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods . She found examples of this continuum and some description of strengths and weaknesses. But ultimately she found that the continuum created more confusion than clarity, because key examples did not fit where they were placed within the framework. The report considers the challenges involved in creating youth empowerment initiatives, providing examples of three of the federal Promise Neighborhood initiative sites. Yet while the report defines youth engagement as "the intentional, meaningful and sustained involvement of young people in actions to create positive social change," the descriptions in the first phase of the continuum-mentoring, case management, service learning-are not examples of youth engaged in actions to create change. Professor Mitra found this mismatch to occur because the examples given in the report were drawn from a convenience sample without an explanation of why they illuminate the framework. Though the strengths and challenges presented do align with previous research regarding the contexts that enable and constrain youth engagement, the report fails to make these connections explicit. Overall, Professor Mitra concludes, though the report champions youth engagement, it misses an opportunity to influence future policy and practice. Find the review, by Dana L. Mitra, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods , written by Jessica Shakesprere, Mica O’Brien, and Eona Harison and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103408/youth-engagement-in-collective-impact-initiatives_1.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 Dana L. Mitra: (814) 441-2633, dana@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Do We Already Have Universal Preschool? Summary A Brookings Institution project called “Evidence Speaks” claims in a recent report that advocates exaggerate unmet need as well as the cost of universal pre-kindergarten. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report released today finds the report vastly underestimates unmet need and costs. The report estimates that 69 percent of all four-year-olds already attend preschool and that universal access tops out at 80 percent enrollment. The report estimated that only $2 to $4 billion per year would be needed. Publication Date November 11, 2015 Authors Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst and Ellie Klein; W. Steven Barnett, National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University Research Areas Early Childhood Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Universal preschool report unhelpful, misleading, a review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 12, 2015) – A new Brookings Institution project called "Evidence Speaks" claims in a recent report that advocates exaggerate unmet need as well as the cost of universal pre-kindergarten. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report released today finds the report vastly underestimates unmet need and costs. According to the review, both estimates are based on serious factual errors and unfounded assumptions. The report, Do We Already Have Universal Preschool? , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. Think Twice is a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report estimates that 69 percent of all four-year-olds already attend preschool and that universal access tops out at 80 percent enrollment. However, in his review, Barnett finds that the report vastly underestimates unmet need as well as the costs (estimated at $2 to $4 billion per year). Additionally, the report also fails to account for issues of quality. According to Barnett, access for four-year-olds to high quality preschool (as opposed to attendance in any preschool classroom, no matter the quality) is actually under 25 percent, not 69 percent. Barnett also points out that high quality universal pre-kindergarten could enroll more than 90 percent, not 80 percent, of children. Regarding the overall usefulness of the report, Barnett determines, "The report's conclusions regarding needs and the costs to meet them are invalid and misleading, and it should not be used as a basis for policymaking." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Do We Already Have Universal Preschool? on the web: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/09/evidence-speaks/evidence-speaks-report-vol1.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: W. Steven Barnett, (848) 932-4350, sbarnett@nieer.org Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 240-2940, 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 Enrollment Decline Windfall Summary Most U.S. states continue to heavily rely on per-pupil funding models. Accordingly, projections of declining school-aged populations through 2030—combined with the rapid expansion of private school voucher policies—have raised serious concerns about the future adequacy of public school funding. A recent EdChoice report downplays these concerns. Publication Date May 7, 2025 Authors Ben Scafidi, EdChoice; David E. DeMatthews and Jinseok Shin of the University of Texas at Austin Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Misleadingly Considers Links Between Declining Enrollment and School Funding An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: EdChoice report's oversimplified methods and faulty assumptions undermine its claims that public school districts benefit when enrollment declines. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 8, 2025) - Most U.S. states continue to heavily rely on per-pupil funding models. Accordingly, projections of declining school-aged populations through 2030-combined with the rapid expansion of private school voucher policies-have raised serious concerns about the future adequacy of public school funding. A recent EdChoice report downplays these concerns. However, in their review of The Enrollment Decline Windfall , David E. DeMatthews and Jinseok Shin of the University of Texas at Austin explain that the report's analysis is fundamentally flawed due to its overly simplistic treatment of a complex issue. The EdChoice report argues that districts with declining enrollment may end up with more resources per remaining student, partly because federal, state, and local funding levels do not always drop proportionately as student enrollment drops. But DeMatthews and Shin identify five major shortcomings that undermine the report's conclusions about enrollment decline: (a) it fails to consider structural cost differences that influence district finances; (b) it oversimplifies the categorization of school district types; (c) it lacks an adequate approach to analyzing longitudinal data; (d) it includes faulty assumptions about how per-student expenditures benefit students; and (e) it fails to consider how more severe declines in student enrollment can trigger reduced services, school closures, and other reductions that would negatively impact students, especially those with the greatest needs. For these reasons, DeMatthews and Shin conclude that EdChoice's report offers little of value to policymakers or state leaders. Its unsophisticated analysis fails to engage with the real complexities of public school funding and enrollment trends. Find the review, by David E. DeMatthews and Jinseok Shin, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Enrollment Decline Windfall, published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/the-enrollment-decline-windfall/ 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 David E. DeMatthews: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape Summary In recent years, at least a dozen states have created private school choice (aka voucher) programs that are universal—placing few or no restrictions on wealth or other factors that might limit which families can participate. A FutureEd report examines the expansion of such programs, and provides a generally useful, up-to-date compilation of basic facts and trends around universal voucher programs in 10 states. Publication Date September 29, 2025 Authors Bella DiMarco; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Provides Useful but Incomplete Portrait of Universal Vouchers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Future Ed report offers sound descriptions of universal voucher programs across 10 states. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (SEPTEMBER 30, 2025) - In recent years, at least a dozen states have created private school choice (aka voucher) programs that are universal-placing few or no restrictions on wealth or other factors that might limit which families can participate. A Future Ed report examines the expansion of such programs, and provides a generally useful, up-to-date compilation of basic facts and trends around universal voucher programs in 10 states. Indiana University professor and Director of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Christopher Lubienski reviewed Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape . While noting the report's disregard for relevant existing research, Professor Lubienski nonetheless found it useful for its clear, up-to-date descriptive data. Lubienski cautions that the report forgoes important questions such as the value of choice in democratic systems, the impact on equity and segregation, or the necessity of requiring taxpayers to fund the religious choices of some families. Instead, it poses questions on several immediate, empirical issues, such as the following: (a) which students and schools participate, (b) students' prior enrollment, (c) retention/satisfaction, (d) student performance, (e) finance, and (f) the impact on public schools. It concludes with the question of how universal programs can navigate academic issues, social goals and taxpayer concerns. At times, the report veers into the realm of implicit policy recommendations, and on rarer occasions it makes recommendations not tied to the evidence, Lubienski notes. Nevertheless, Professor Lubienski finds the report to be a generally valuable resource, compiling recent data on universal choice programs across these states and occasionally posing provocative questions for policymakers. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape, written by Bella DiMarco and published by Future Ed , at: https://www.future-ed.org/directional-signals-a-new-analysis-of-the-evolving-private-school-choice-landscape/ 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 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 Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition Summary Despite the vast majority of research into tracking or ability grouping of students, a recently released report from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) purports that sorting students by ability improves outcomes for low-achieving and high-achieving students alike. Publication Date April 1, 2013 Authors Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, South Side High School Katherine Allison, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Tracking Students Continues To Be An Unproven Strategy EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 2, 2013) – The vast majority of research into so-called tracking or ability grouping of students has reached a definite conclusion: it's harmful. Students placed in low-track classes fall further behind. However, a recently released working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that sorting students by ability improves outcomes for low-achieving and high-achieving students alike. A new review finds that several important methodical issues limit the usefulness of the paper. Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, principal of South Side High School in the Rockville Centre School District in New York, and Katherine Allison, a doctoral student in research and methodology at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the report, Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Burris is the co-author of two books on tracking and equity as well as numerous articles regarding these issues in peer-reviewed and popular journals. The review was prepared for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to Burris and Allison, the paper is limited in several important ways. First, the paper assumes that schools in the study tracked students between classes – and this assumption is highly questionable. Second, the reviewers find that there was no criteria by which high- or low-achievers were classified. Finally, while it purports to be based on a measure of learning growth, it's not. The measure is only of relative standing of students on two proficiency tests given in different years. The reviewers further find "The authors go beyond their data and analyses when they conclude that schools should sort students as a cost-free method to improve student achievement." In the end, the reviewers find that this working paper should not be used to inform policy regarding tracking or grouping practices. "Evidence-based policy should always be grounded in the complete research base and should focus on high-quality data and analyses." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition by Courtney A. Collins and Li Gan on the web: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18848 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-does-sorting-students --###-- 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: Carol Burris, (516) 599-0839, burriscarol@gmail.com Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More