< Back Review of Addressing Teacher Shortages: Practical Ideas for the Pandemic and Beyond Summary In response to Covid-related teacher shortages, the TNTP think tank (formerly “The New Teacher Project”) released a report with recommendations for district leaders in crafting short- and long-term teacher staffing plans. Publication Date May 24, 2022 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Teacher Workforce Authors Ben DeGrow; Ed Fuller, Penn State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Teacher Staffing Report Pairs Some Potentially Useful Recommendations With a Dearth of Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's absence of research evidence to support its claims calls into question the reliability of some otherwise helpful recommendations. EAST LANSING, MI (May 24, 2022) - In response to Covid-related teacher shortages, the TNTP think tank (formerly “The New Teacher Project”) released a report with recommendations for district leaders in crafting short- and long-term teacher staffing plans. A new review of that report finds that it includes some positive elements but suffers from several research-related weaknesses. Ed Fuller of Penn State University reviewed Addressing Teacher Shortages: Practical Ideas for the Pandemic and Beyond , and found it to contain clearly articulated employment goals and some potentially useful recommendations. However, the review finds several weaknesses. First, Professor Fuller details, the report fails to provide peer-reviewed research to substantiate claims, so that it's unclear which, if any, recommendations are evidence-based. Second, the report assumes districts are large and metropolitan, with ample discretionary funds. Many recommendations will not be useful to smaller districts-especially rural districts-or to districts with limited funds. Third, the report ignores at least three key research-based issues: the importance of teacher-student relationships to effective teaching and learning, the importance of leaders of color in recruiting and retaining teachers of color, and the importance of principal stability in creating a stable cadre of well-qualified teachers. Accordingly, while school and district leaders may find in this report some useful ideas to consider, they should read additional research to independently determine whether recommendations of interest are evidence-based and how local context might affect implementation. Find the review, by Ed Fuller, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Addressing Teacher Shortages: Practical Ideas for the Pandemic and Beyond , written by Ben DeGrow and published by TNTP, at: https://tntp.org/assets/covid-19-toolkit-resources/TNTP-Addressing-Teacher-Shortages-2022.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 Ed Fuller : (814) 865-2233, ejf20@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 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 12, 2015 Research Areas Early Childhood Authors Grover J. (Russ) Whitehurst and Ellie Klein; W. Steven Barnett, National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University 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 The ABC’s of School Choice Summary This report, released in the form of a booklet, is designed as a resource for persuading people as to the merits of school choice. The report provides updated information on states that have choice policies in place and begins and ends with a “Frequently Asked Questions” section where the attempt is made to interpret the research on school choice issues for the lay reader. Publication Date September 24, 2007 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds Friedman Foundation Report to be a glossy publication of little value EAST LANSING , Mich. —A new report from the Friedman Foundation claims to offer “a large body of evidence” to help educate people on the merits of school vouchers and other school-choice programs. A review of the report, however, finds it is based on very selective and shoddy evidence and makes misleading and false claims. “The ABC’s of School Choice,” by the Friedman Foundation, was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Christopher Lubienski, Associate Professor and Fellow at the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois. The report “is designed as a resource to provide ammunition for persuading people as to the merits of school choice,” according to Lubienski. “While there may indeed be a number of reasons to argue for school choice, this handbook shoots blanks.” Lubienski writes, “Based on the production values, simplistic assertions and the difficulty of verifying the claims made in the report, it appears that the Friedman Foundation is aiming at a relatively uninformed audience, one that it hopes will spread the gospel of vouchers far, wide and without question.” The review focuses on the merits of each key factual assertion in the report’s “Frequently Asked Questions” section which contains the main claims about research. Lubienski points out that the report tends to rely upon on a very selective sample of studies from other advocacy organizations that are not peer reviewed and are highly biased and of questionable quality. According to Lubienski, “Evidence – particularly on the issue of achievement – is consistently abused in the report, both by misrepresenting individual studies (including those by voucher advocates) and misrepresenting the general body of research on school choice. Lubienski concludes that the report, as a misleading work of advocacy, offers no useful guidance to policymakers. “A policy advocacy publication like this should always be read cautiously; the buyer should beware and should read the fine print,” he writes. “The problem here is that there is no fine print — there is only a glossy, highly attractive misrepresentation of the research literature." Find Christopher Lubienski’s review and a link to the Friedman Foundation’s “ABC’s of School Choice” report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Teri Battaglieri, (248) 444-7071; (email) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Report About Charters Being a "Rising Tide" Sinks Under Weight of Flawed Data Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines whether average achievement in a school district increases as the "market share" of charter schools rises. The report argues that there is a positive competition effect. Publication Date November 14, 2019 Research Areas Charter Schools; General / Needs Review; Assessment & Accountability Authors David Griffith; Yongmei Ni, University of Utah Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report About Charters Being a “Rising Tide” Sinks Under Weight of Flawed Data An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Due to data and methods limitations, report fails to prove its claim that higher charter market share is associated with achievement gains for all students. EAST LANSING, MI (November 14, 2019) - A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute examines whether average achievement in a school district increases as the “market share” of charter schools rises. The report argues that there is a positive competition effect. Yongmei Ni of the University of Utah reviewed Rising Tide: Charter School Market Share and Student Achievement , and determined that its findings have limited use in guiding policy and practice, because of the flawed data and methods it employs. Using a national data set of school districts with longitudinal records (allowing an analysis of each school district’s changes over time), the report found that overall, higher charter market share is associated with statistically significant increases in average reading achievement (but not math achievement). Further, the report finds some positive relationships for specific racial subgroups in districts of certain sizes and geographic locations. The report concludes that charter schools are “a rising tide” that “lifts all education boats.” Professor Ni explains that these findings and conclusions should be interpreted with extreme caution because of major weaknesses surrounding the data and methods, including the measure of charter market share, the sample selection criteria, and the overreliance on results based on a small number of districts, especially those districts with over 95th percentile of charter market share. Overall, she concludes, the findings have little use to policymakers because of these issues with data and methods and because the report does not probe beneath the surface. For example, it does not examine possible policy factors that might be associated with charter market share in a given area having a positive or negative association with public school systems. Similarly, it does not consider which practices might benefit charter schools and/or public school systems as a whole. Find the review, by Yongmei Ni, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Rising Tide: Charter School Market Share and Student Achievement, written by David Griffith and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/rising-tide-charter-market-share 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 The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Yongmei Ni: (801) 587-9298, yongmei.ni@utah.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications 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 September 10, 2008 Research Areas Early Childhood Authors W. Steven Barnett, Ph.D., National Institute for Early Education Research Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (Sept. 10, 2008)—Amid a contentious debate over the value of preschool programs, a new policy brief, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications examines what researchers currently know about the short- and long-term effects of preschool. The brief concludes that preschool can strongly benefit children’s learning and development. But it also finds that the quality of programs varies dramatically and that increased public investment in preschool education should be focused on program designs that have been demonstrated to be highly effective. The policy brief is written by W. Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University in New Jersey. It was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Preschool programs have become increasingly common over the last several decades. Recommendations for or against various forms of universal, publicly funded preschool have emerged in the current presidential campaign. For example, Senator Barack Obama is proposing grants to encourage states to institute universal, voluntary preschool programs, while John McCain’s campaign has called for a more limited federal role, providing information and databases to help parents choose a preschool education program. Barnett’s brief offers a solid research foundation upon which this policy debate can proceed. In his brief, Barnett explains that well-designed preschool programs have been shown to produce long-term improvements in school success—raising students’ achievement test scores, reducing the rates of students being retained in grade, reducing the assignment of students to special education programs, and raising student educational attainment. He also finds that these well-designed programs are extraordinarily cost effective, with their long-term payoffs far exceeding their costs. The strongest evidence suggests that children from all socioeconomic backgrounds reap long-term benefits from preschool, Barnett says. And he notes that the strongest benefits are received by economically disadvantaged children. However, Barnett also warns that current public policies for child care, Head Start, and state pre-Kindergarten programs offer no assurance that American children will attend such highly effective preschool programs. Some attend no preschool and others attend educationally weak programs. Although there are exceptions, highly effective preschool programs are generally characterized by small class sizes and the use of well-educated, adequately paid teachers, and Barnett recommends that policymakers stick with those approaches. Preschool teachers should undergo intensive supervision and coaching and “should be involved in a continuous improvement process for teaching and learning.” Preschool programs also should regularly monitor children’s learning and development. Because preschool programs vary so much in quality, Barnett counsels against simply raising child care subsidies. Instead, he recommends greater public investment in effective preschool education programs, with a focus on state and local pre-K programs with high standards, which have been found to be the most effective. Such programs “need not be provided by public schools,” he notes; public, private and Head Start programs all “have produced similar results when operating with the same resources and standards as part of the same state pre-K program.” Finally, Barnett recommends that policies expanding preschool access to children under four give priority to disadvantaged children because an earlier start and longer duration appear to produce better results. Find Steve Barnett’s report, Preschool Education and Its Lasting Effects: Research and Policy Implications on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: W. Steven Barnett – (732) 932-4350; wbarnet@rci.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effects of School Vouchers on College Enrollment: Experimental Evidence from New York City Summary Jointly released with the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, this report examines college enrollment rates of students participating in an experimental voucher program in New York City. Publication Date September 13, 2012 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Sara Goldrick-Rab, The University of Wisconsin-Madison Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Serious Problems and Errors Mar Two Voucher Reports, Academic Review Finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 30, 2016) — Two recent reports claimed to offer empirical support of the effectiveness of school vouchers. The reports focused on randomized studies of the effects of school vouchers on educational outcomes, concluding that school vouchers have positive effects. However, an academic review released today finds the reports have serious problems and errors. The reviewed reports include: (1) A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice; and (2) The Participant Effects of Private School Vouchers across the Globe: A Meta-Analytic and Systematic Review from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas. Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, reviewed both reports for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Friedman report reviews studies purporting to show positive impacts from voucher programs in the U.S. According to Lubienski, the report is a rudimentary "vote counting" analysis of an extremely narrow set of studies, which used a biased counting system. The authors of the Arkansas report conducted a limited meta-analysis of U.S. and international voucher programs. Lubienski finds that the Arkansas report fails to offer a "global look" at vouchers - utilizing only three international studies. Additionally, the authors of the Arkansas report used only 19 studies, out of more than 9,000 available, with almost half of which conducted by the authors themselves or their associates. Ultimately, Lubienski concludes: "Both reports are marred by a number of serious problems and errors, including misrepresentations of the research literature, a failure to acknowledge the limitations of their approaches, not addressing the shortcomings of the theoretical underpinnings of vouchers, and the use of methods that bias the selections of the studies they utilize." He says, "Together, their manifold serious flaws undercut the trustworthiness and usefulness of these reports." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A Win-Win Solution on the web: http://www.edchoice.org/research/win-win-solution/ Find The Participant Effects of Private School Vouchers across the Globe on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/working-papers/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools Summary Over the past decade, pro-charter organizations have published a series of reports claiming that funding disparities put charter schools at a disadvantage compared to public schools run by school districts. However, those conclusions are invariably incorrect due to flawed research methods. In a policy memo released today by NEPC, Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools, Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective uses the latest "charter school funding inequity" report to illustrate these fundamental research flaws, thus providing a guide for stakeholders to evaluate the accuracy and transparency of related research. Publication Date September 12, 2023 Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Funding Authors Mark Weber, Rutgers University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Disregard Those Repeated Claims of Purported Funding Disparities Harming Charters Key Takeaway : Research quality is key when investigating the differences between charter and district public school finances, explains new policy memo. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 12, 2023) - Over the past decade, pro-charter organizations have published a series of reports claiming that funding disparities put charter schools at a disadvantage compared to public schools run by school districts. However, those conclusions are invariably incorrect due to flawed research methods. In a policy memo released today by NEPC, Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools , Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective uses the latest "charter school funding inequity" report to illustrate these fundamental research flaws, thus providing a guide for stakeholders to evaluate the accuracy and transparency of related research. Although the faulty methods used to support the "underfunded charter schools" claims have been repeatedly pointed out by third-party reviewers, there appears to be little willingness among the charter advocacy organizations to deviate from those methods. These problems include inadequate documentation of data, misunderstanding of financial transfers, invalid conflation of individual schools and school districts as units of analysis, invalid comparisons of student populations, invalid comparisons of the functions of charter and district public schools, unaccounted-for charter revenues, and neglect of the literature on charter school finances. The latest of the advocacy reports, Charter School Funding Disparities: Los Angeles, California , from the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, asserts that traditional public schools in Los Angeles (LAUSD) "have consistently received more funding per pupil than charter schools in LAUSD-anywhere from 22 to 40 percent more." Weber uses an examination of this report and these claims to illustrate the problems with these analyses and to stress the importance of sound policymaking that serves all students equitably. Due to charter schools' substantial expansion in recent years, Weber also points out the importance of understanding and flagging such deceptive policy research. Redirecting additional funding to charters based on advocacy reports using unreliable data and flawed methods may have adverse effects on other schools and state budgets. Find Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools , by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy memo was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, 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 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 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 Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure Summary This study examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools has led to improved student achievement. It concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. Publication Date January 15, 2008 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Damian Betebenner, National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORT OVERSTATES CLAIMS FOR FLORIDA’S A+ ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM Reviewer says report presents strong analysis of Florida’s system, but wrongly implies vouchers can be singled out as a cause of school improvement EAST LANSING , Mich. (Jan. 15, 2008) – A new study from the Urban Institute’s CALDER center examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools led to improved student achievement. The report concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. A new review of the study praises its comprehensive analysis of data, but identifies several key instances where the report overstates its case. The CALDER report,“Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure,” was authored by Cecilia E. Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio. The report was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Damian Betebenner of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. In their report, the authors seek to understand the extent to which accountability sanctions and incentives impact school practices and student achievement. Based on statistical analysis of the lowest performing schools, the authors conclude that, in Florida, schools receiving a grade of “F” in the state’s A+ Plan for Education actually did alter their teaching practices, leading to higher test scores. Though Betebenner commends the report for its thorough analysis of the data, he observes that the most prominent shortcoming of the report is its overstatement regarding the relationship between the pressure of accountability sanctions and improvements in school achievement. He notes that the report’s title and some of the statements in the body of the report suggest that vouchers and other accountability measures are the cause of the achievement gains though there is no supporting evidence that such a causal connection exists. Betebenner adds, “Moreover, even if it is true that the Florida policy of vouchers plus other accountability provisions did lead to the changes in policy and practice, nothing in this new research allows a policy maker to single out either vouchers or other accountability provisions (or a combination) as having such an effect.” Betebenner concludes that the Urban Institute report does offer reason to believe that one or more elements of Florida’s accountability systems “may offer … a lever” to improve student achievement. But he continues, “because changes in school policy and practice can occur for many reasons, this research should not be read to show that the accountability system ‘led to’ or ‘caused’ the student achievement increases. Nor does the new report consider whether the accountability levers in Florida are the most effective means of quickly and beneficially transforming the policies and practices of schools in a way that leads to increased student achievement.” Find the complete review by Damian Betebenner as well as a link to the CALDER center at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Damian Betebenner – (603) 516-7913; dbetebenner@nciea.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System Summary The brief, authored by Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, explores this economic burden, asking what level of resources-not just direct money outlays but also time and effort that must be ultimately be paid for in some way-is lost because of racial discrimination. Publication Date June 10, 2021 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release The Price Tag of Racial Inequality in Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New brief examines the effects of racism through an economic perspective to document the burden of inequity in the U.S. K-12 education system. EAST LANSING, MI (June 10, 2021) - Even as the U.S. education system becomes more ethnically and racially diverse, racial disparities persist with regard to school segregation, educational resources, disciplinary treatment, and ultimately educational outcomes. These disparities harm students individually and have significant societal impacts as well, including economic consequences. Educational resources are misallocated, while Black and Hispanic students often leave school with substantially lower levels of human capital and, as a result, have lower lifetime earnings on average. Together, these misallocations and losses in human capital are examined in a new NEPC policy brief, The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System . The brief, authored by Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, explores this economic burden, asking what level of resources-not just direct money outlays but also time and effort that must be ultimately be paid for in some way-is lost because of racial discrimination. Racism within the formal K-12 educational system is best understood as a carryover or symptom of societal racism. By focusing on schools, this brief should not distract from that reality. Just as importantly, focusing on just the economic price tag of racism should not distract from or minimize the human cost of racism - in terms of lost lives and other physical and psychological brutality, as well as economic inequities that may not impact the bottom-line numbers. All of these harms are part of the same systemic whole wrought by racism. And seriously addressing racism in schools and in the society housing those schools will lead to across-the-board benefits, however measured. In approaching his analysis, Professor Belfield notes that some harms cannot be included because resources haven’t been identified and calculated. But he conservatively estimates that, for each cohort of students age 18, the burden from lower human/social capital is between $42 and $92 billion in lost lifetime economic outcomes. For schools and districts, costs of racial disparities are incurred each year from K through 12th grade. Approximately and conservatively, these additional costs annually amount to $0.4 billion on school discipline, $3.8 billion on special education, $3.2 billion grade repetition, and $0.1 billion on direct spending to combat racism. These conservative estimates of the main economic burdens of racial disparities point to the need for more complete and precise data. Professor Belfield concludes with recommendations calling for further investigation to fully understand both the economic burden of racism in U.S. education and how racism in other domains of society affects racial inequalities within schools. Find The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System , by Clive Belfield, 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://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 Clive Belfield : (917) 821-9219, clive.belfield@qc.cuny.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? Summary A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called “neovouchers.” The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Publication Date August 24, 2017 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Martin F. Lueken; Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release More balanced and empirically robust assessments needed to estimate costs and benefits of subsidizing private school choice programs, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 24, 2017) — A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. The report analyzed savings from tax-credit scholarship programs. However, an academic review of the report questions the calculation method and claims made regarding the estimated financial savings for state governments. The report, The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? , was reviewed by Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called "neovouchers." The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Huerta and Koutsavlis in their review note that because states do not collect or publish data on scholarship recipients, no formal accounting exists. As a result, they recommend that policymakers "develop statutory language that will allow researchers to develop better and more accurate answers to thorny policy questions." They add that the findings of the report are too speculative to provide useful guidance for policymakers. In their conclusion, they write: "When weighing the implementation of TCSPs, policymakers must look beyond measures of cost efficiency and seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments that would allow them to make informed decisions about how to proceed with effective and equitable school reform polices." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the EdChoice report at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/tax-credit-scholarship-audit/ 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: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 678-4199, lah2013@tc.columbia.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 "Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers Summary Grow Your Own programs must also focus on improving retention of new teachers by considering how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. Publication Date May 19, 2022 Research Areas General Authors Conra D. Gist of the University of Houston Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release "Grow Your Own" Programs Can Build Equity in Local Schools and Communities, Explains New Policy Brief Key Takeaway: Grow Your Own programs must also focus on improving retention of new teachers by considering how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. EAST LANSING, MI (May 19, 2022) - Grow your own (GYO) programs are designed to recruit, prepare, and place community members as teachers in local schools. They do this through partnerships between educator preparation programs, school districts or local educational agencies, and community-based organizations. The nation is currently seeing new and thoughtful uses of the approach. Particularly intriguing are models with an explicit commitment to advancing justice and equity in teacher development, which can be leveraged to open doors to the profession for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) teachers with roots in, and understanding of, the community. These models are examined in a new NEPC policy brief from Conra D. Gist of the University of Houston, titled " Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers . The recent increase of federal, state, and district GYO initiatives to recruit community teachers is timely, signaling a new era of GYO program development in the 21st century. However, Professor Gist cautions, despite the enthusiasm about the potential of GYO programs to advance educational equity for BIPOC students, research on BIPOC educators has generally offered a cautionary note for any teacher development program that focuses too much on recruitment—without equally responsive preparation and strategic retention structures. For programs to improve retention of new teachers, they must consider how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. Even if programs evidence some upticks in teacher retention, a shortsighted approach to teacher development may leave these teachers without the guidance and resources needed to enhance their students’ learning. To help policymakers avoid these pitfalls, Professor Gist considers historical lessons from past community teacher development initiatives as well as emerging research. Professor Gist concludes by sharing recommendations for GYO program designers, policymakers, and researchers. The recommendations will help ensure that new GYO programs are crafted in ways that prepare and sustain BIPOC community teachers. Find " Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers , by Conra D. Gist, 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 ( 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 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of K-12 School Choice Calculator Summary A new calculator from two voucher-advocacy organizations is offered as a tool to assist state policymakers and choice advocates in providing more accurate estimates of the expenses of adopting publicly financed private-school choice (i.e., voucher) programs. But several factors suggest it should be used with caution and caveats. Publication Date March 19, 2024 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Bruce Baker, University of Miami Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Flawed School Choice Calculator Has Limited Utility, if Used Judiciously An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: A tool offered as a way to estimate the cost of adopting voucher programs is a step forward but still needs work. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (March 19, 2024) - A new calculator from two voucher-advocacy organizations is offered as a tool to assist state policymakers and choice advocates in providing more accurate estimates of the expenses of adopting publicly financed private-school choice (i.e., voucher) programs. But several factors suggest it should be used with caution and caveats. Bruce Baker, professor and chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami, describes these factors in his review of the K-12 School Choice Calculator , which is provided online by the Reason Foundation and EdChoice's Fiscal Research and Education Center. Baker explains that there is one overarching problem that state policymakers have long faced in trying to make sense of competing claims about the fiscal bottom line for vouchers: How are they to estimate which percentage of voucher users will be students leaving public versus staying in private schools? The new calculator does not, and cannot, answer that question. However, using the calculator can reveal to policymakers the high additional state expenditures triggered when-as recent evidence shows to be the case, particularly with expanded or “universal” voucher programs-disproportionate numbers of students already enrolled in private schools accept proffered public subsidies through voucher, education savings account, or tuition tax credit programs. Baker's review finds that many of the assumptions included with the new calculator are reasonable, but it also has faults that should be addressed. The calculator overstates the spending reductions that result when a current public-school student switches to a private school-first, by overestimating student-level variable spending and second, by assuming that local revenues as well as state aid would be reduced. It also ignores overhead expenses of operating such a program. The calculator, then, will provide skewed results even if the user's assumptions prove accurate about the percentages of voucher users who are leaving public versus those staying in private schools. Even those skewed results, however, can be more useful than mere guesswork. Dr. Baker therefore acknowledges the potential for the calculator to assist policymakers in refining their projections of program expenditures if used judiciously, bringing their estimates closer to the unfolding reality. Find the review, by Bruce Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find K-12 School Choice Calculator , published by the Reason Foundation and EdChoice, at https://www.schoolchoicecalculator.com/ . 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 Bruce Baker: (848) 932-0698, bdb119@miami.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More