< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction Summary In The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, addresses why class size matters. According to Mathis, smaller class sizes improve student outcomes, especially for low-income and minority children. Publication Date June 20, 2016 Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Why Class Size Matters EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 21, 2016) — Parents and teachers regularly extol the virtues of smaller class sizes. Despite this, because school budgets are tied to class size, teacher pay, and benefits, class size often becomes a costly and contentious issue for local school districts. The ninth in a series of policy briefs addresses why class size matters. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In The Effectiveness of Class Size Reduction , William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, explains how smaller class sizes improve student outcomes, especially for low-income and minority children. In the brief, Mathis uncovers a clear and positive consensus by an overwhelming majority of peer-reviewed papers that smaller classes are beneficial. Based on his review, Mathis finds: All else being equal, lowering class size will improve student outcomes; The payoff from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children; Money saved by increasing class sizes will likely result in additional costs in the future; and Class sizes between 15 and 18 are recommended, but with variations indicated. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: 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: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Education Savings Accounts: How ESAs Can Promote Educational Freedom for New York Families Summary A recent report from the Manhattan Institute promotes Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) by presenting a scenario whereby taxpayer expense would fall if the program motivated families to move children from public schools funded by the state to private schools funded primarily by families. Publication Date November 8, 2021 Authors Martin F. Lueken; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report About Education Savings Accounts Asserts Small Taxpayer Savings but Sidesteps Larger Policy Questions An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's claims about the price tag of a proposed ESA program avoid larger fiscal and outcome questions. EAST LANSING, MI (November 9, 2021) - A recent report from the Manhattan Institute promotes Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) by presenting a scenario whereby taxpayer expense would fall if the program motivated families to move children from public schools funded by the state to private schools funded primarily by families. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed Education Savings Accounts: How ESAs Can Promote Educational Freedom for New York Families, and found it to provide little useful guidance on the broader question of whether an ESA policy is warranted or would be good policy for New York State's children or taxpayers. ESAs are a form of vouchers, and the report is based on a set of assumptions concerning an ESA policy whereby the voucher would have a face value that is considerably less than the amount of taxpayer spending for a public school student. The report assumes that, even with this lower amount of spending, the ESA subsidy would work to entice families to switch from public to private schools-rather than merely subsidize those already attending private schools-thereby generating the taxpayer savings. Again because the ESAs would be funded at the relatively lower amount, compared to the cost of educating a child in a public school, the report estimates that even a small share of families participating in the program would reduce taxpayer expense by between $159 million and $301 million. However, Professor Baker notes that these purported benefits would amount to estimated short-run net fiscal benefits of between 0.21% and 0.39% of the state's annual public school spending. The report also fails to note a large body of recent, rigorous research demonstrating that similar private school choice, or "voucher," programs have had significant negative effects on student outcomes. In addition, the report overstates short-term reductions that local districts can achieve, neglects increased transition costs in the public schools, and sidesteps potential long-term harm to adequate funding for those public schools. Thus, Professor Baker concludes, while the report provides a reasonable framework and set of assumptions for establishing ESAs, it provides little or no useful guidance on the broader question of whether an ESA policy is warranted at all. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Education Savings Accounts: How ESAs Can Promote Educational Freedom for New York Families, written by Martin F. Lueken and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/MI-Lueken-ESA-fiscal-brief-v2.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 Bruce D. Baker: (848) 932-0698, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: Learning from Florida's Reforms Summary This report contends that Florida's "far-reaching" education policies have caused test scores to increase and the achievement gap to narrow. In particular, the report focuses on fourth-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Publication Date November 29, 2010 Authors Madhabi Chatterji, Teachers College at Columbia University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Heritage Report is latest in series of misleading analyses EAST LANSING, Mi. (November 30, 2010) – Did a collection of Florida education policies—ranging from grade retention to school choice and virtual schools—improve achievement and narrow the test-score gap? A recent Heritage Foundation report is part of a larger campaign to convince us that the answer to that question is "yes"—but a new review finds serious flaws in the Heritage report which render it of little value to policymakers. The Heritage report, Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: Learning from Florida's Reforms , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Madhabi Chatterji, a professor of educational measurement and evaluation at Teachers College at Columbia University who has conducted considerable research of Florida schools. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Heritage report, authored by Matthew Ladner and Lindsey Burke, contends that Florida's "far-reaching" education policies have caused test scores to increase and the achievement gap to narrow. In particular, the report focuses on fourth-grade reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). These research claims are also made by Dr. Ladner, the Vice President of Research at Arizona's free-market Goldwater Institute, in a dozen other reports and articles similar to the Heritage report reviewed by professor Chatterji. The claims, however, do not withstand scrutiny. "The report's key conclusions are unwarranted and insufficiently supported by research," Chatterji states in her review. Most importantly, she points out the very direct effects of the state's grade-retention policy, causing the report's comparisons to be largely meaningless. By analogy, consider growth in height instead of growth in test scores. If two states wanted to measure the average height of their fourth graders, but one state (Florida) first identified the shortest 20% of third graders and held them back to grow an additional year before measurement, the study's results would not be useful. That, in brief, is the key problem that professor Chatterji identifies with the Heritage report. Florida's retention policy, instituted in 2002, focuses on third graders, who are held back when their reading scores are low. The Heritage report focuses on NAEP fourth-grade reading scores. Low scoring readers—mostly black and Hispanic—were screened out of grade 4 tests, which resulted in inflated and erroneous fourth grade scores. The review also points out that NAEP scores at other grade levels and even NAEP scores in fourth-grade math do not show the same jump as NAEP fourth grade reading. That is, the report cherry-picks the best data. Also, even if scores in Florida are in fact increasing, the report's methods are too weak to allow for a causal inference. The report uses only descriptive test score trends to compare states and then make sweeping generalizations. Moreover, many other changes occurred in Florida during the period analyzed, including the phasing in of one of the nation's most ambitious class-size reduction reforms—yet the report never mentions these other possible causes of any improvements. "In sum, the report's analyses are highly biased and of very limited value," Chatterji concludes. "The major elements of Florida's education reform policies are in need of continuing and more careful examination, individually and collectively, before they can be recommended for wider policy adoption." "Notwithstanding the clear problems with Dr. Ladner's analysis, he has done an excellent job in marketing," says Kevin Welner, professor of education at the University of Colorado and director of NEPC, "He has repackaged his analysis for at least seven individual states, showing each state's purported failings relative to Florida. This is how policy gets made—and it isn't pretty." Find Madhabi Chatterji's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Chatterji_Fla.pdf Find Closing the Racial Achievement Gap: Learning from Florida's Reforms by Matthew Ladner and Lindsey Burke on the web at: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2010/09/Closing-the-Racial-Achievement-Gap-Learning-from-Floridas-Reforms The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/learning-from-florida ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Madhabi Chatterji (212) 678-3357; mb1434@columbia.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Child Safety Accounts: Protecting Our Children through Parental Freedom Summary A recent Heartland Institute report argues for Child Safety Account (CSA) programs that would enable parents to access taxpayer dollars by asserting that their child feels unsafe in school. The CSA money could be used by the parents to transfer the child to another school, be it public, private, magnet, charter, or homeschool. Publication Date March 30, 2020 Authors Vicki Alger and Timothy Benson; Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and Gabriella Garriga of Trinity University Research Areas School Climate & Student Support; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Little Research, but Lots of Advocacy in New Report About Child Safety Accounts An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: In its push for a new voucher-like program, report offers little guidance for policymakers. EAST LANSING, MI (March 31, 2020) - A recent Heartland Institute report argues for Child Safety Account (CSA) programs that would enable parents to access taxpayer dollars by asserting that their child feels unsafe in school. The CSA money could be used by the parents to transfer the child to another school, be it public, private, magnet, charter, or homeschool. Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and Gabriella Garriga of Trinity University reviewed Child Safety Accounts: Protecting Our Children through Parental Freedom, and found it to be lacking in research to substantiate its policy recommendations. The proposed CSA program is a version of the education savings account programs that began in Arizona in 2011. The report begins with the well-supported finding that students encounter various forms of abuse throughout their school trajectory, including violent assaults, bullying, and sexual abuse. But it then offers a conclusion that is not well supported: that CSAs are a sound way to alleviate students' suffering from these various forms of abuse in school. The report does not explain how the new policy will be funded, nor does it provide criteria that must be met to access the CSA. Because eligibility appears to rest on a mere claim of safety concerns, the proposed policy could immensely change the landscape of school funding and complicate school politics by removing students from public schools. While the report's discussion about school bullying and other forms of abuse is timely, it fails to provide a clear set of steps to bring about change, opting instead to simply advocate for this form of taxpayer-funded vouchers. It also does not engage with the large body of research about evidence-based ways to address assaults, bullying and other safety issues. Accordingly, it is of little use to policymakers concerned about either school safety or school choice. Find the review, by Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos and Gabriella Garriga, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Child Safety Accounts: Protecting Our Children through Parental Freedom, written by Vicki Alger and Timothy Benson and published by the Heartland Institute, at: https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/CSAccountsPB.pdf NEPC Reviews (http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos : (760) 405-3983, ojimenez@trinity.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of From School Aid to Student Aid: Modernizing K-12 Funding in Michigan Summary In recent years, supporters of school choice have promoted school finance reforms sometimes called "backpack funding," but also called "money follows the child" or "student-based budgeting." Whatever the term used, the idea is facilitate choice by attaching a funded amount to each student, with that payment following the students to their chosen schools. A recent version of this proposal is found in a new report from the Mackinac Center, which provides a six-part recommendation for changes to Michigan's current approach to financing public and charter schools. The report's overarching theme, which is examined in a new review, is to move toward a system where more funding follows the student to either public, charter, or private schools—or to other service providers. Publication Date May 2, 2022 Authors Ben DeGrow; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Promoting a 'Money Follows the Child' Funding System Lacks Rigorous Analysis An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's conclusions based on a selective review of literature and false assumptions. EAST LANSING, MI (May 3, 2022) - In recent years, supporters of school choice have promoted school finance reforms sometimes called "backpack funding," but also called "money follows the child" or "student-based budgeting." Whatever the term used, the idea is facilitate choice by attaching a funded amount to each student, with that payment following the students to their chosen schools. A recent version of this proposal is found in a new report from the Mackinac Center, which provides a six-part recommendation for changes to Michigan's current approach to financing public and charter schools. The report's overarching theme, which is examined in a new review, is to move toward a system where more funding follows the student to either public, charter, or private schools—or to other service providers. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed From School Aid to Student Aid: Modernizing K-12 Funding in Michigan , and found it to provide some useful, albeit insufficiently researched, guidance on shifting categorical funding into core funding and modifying the state's approach to financing programs for children with disabilities. Yet Professor Baker also describes how the report mischaracterizes literature on whether school finance reforms matter for school quality, and on the benefits of school district consolidation. The report also fails to recognize the various factors that affect the costs of providing children equal educational opportunity. Further, it largely ignores the realities and constraints of how schools and school systems work and how annual budget planning and resource allocation work toward efficiently providing high-quality educational services to children, regardless of sector or location. Accordingly, Professor Baker concludes, key elements of the report and its proposals are built on false promises and assumptions and are not helpful for policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find From School Aid to Student Aid: Modernizing K-12 Funding in Michigan , written by Ben DeGrow and published by the Mackinac Center, at: https://www.mackinac.org/S2022-01 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 Bruce D. Baker: (848) 932-0698, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Better Data, Better Decisions: Informing School Choosers to Improve Education Markets and A Crisis We Can Solve: Connecticut’s Failing Schools and Their Impact Summary This report, published by AEI, asserts that choice is seen as a mechanism, and at times a panacea, for better educational quality. The report provides an overview of what families want from schools, where they get information on schools, and how they use information to make decisions. The report concludes that informed choice and the power of the market will produce better educational outcomes. The ConnCAN report makes a case that there is a desperate need to improve school quality in Connecticut’s neediest neighborhoods and promotes charter schools as the best and perhaps only method for increasing the number of high-quality educational seats in Connecticut. Publication Date January 4, 2015 Authors John Valant; Erin McNamara Horvat, Temple University; and David Everington Baugh, Bensalem Township School District, Pennsylvania Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice project reviews two school choice reports AEI report has some value, while ConnCAN provides another advocacy document EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 5, 2015) – Two newly released reports advocated for school choice as a mechanism for improving educational outcomes. A review of both finds a recently released ConnCAN report is more opinion than fact, while a report from AEI provides useful information to help parents make informed decisions. However, the reviewers question whether simply having more information to make better decisions is sufficient to improve our educational system. Erin McNamara Horvat, Temple University, and David Baugh, superintendent of the Bensalem (PA) Township School District, reviewed Better Data, Better Decisions: Informing School Choosers to Improve Education Markets from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), and A Crisis We Can Solve: Connecticut's Failing Schools and Their Impact from ConnCAN. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The ConnCAN report relies mainly on anecdotal evidence for its claims on behalf of school choice as the solution to the problems it identifies in Connecticut's systems. "It is merely a choice advocacy document and is therefore of little value to serious policy reform conversations or academic researchers," Horvat and Baugh write. The reviewers, on the other hand, find that the AEI report has more to offer: "It is grounded in solid scholarship and data from existing choice research as well as research conducted by its author. It makes useful suggestions regarding how choice might be more effectively implemented." They caution, however, that the AEI report "overreaches in its claims regarding the power of choice and of the market to reform schools and produce better educational outcomes." The reviewers also remind us that charter schools perform about the same as traditional public schools and call for a larger, more encompassing conversation about poverty and inequity in our educational system. Horvat and Baugh, in their conclusion, question whether "better decisions will lead to the kind of overall improvement our system requires in order to compete in the global economy and whether it allows us to fulfill the promise of democratic schooling for all." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Better Data, Better Decisions: Informing School Choosers to Improve Education Markets on the web: https://www.aei.org/publication/better-data-better-decisions-informing-school-choosers-improve-education-markets/ Find A Crisis We Can Solve: Connecticut's Failing Schools and Their Impact on the web: http://www.conncan.org/media-room/press-releases/2014-11-connecticut-education-in-crisis-40000-children-trapp 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 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: Erin McNamara Horvat, (215) 519-2190, horvat@temple.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Off Track: An Assessment of Wisconsin's Early Care and Learning System for Young Children Summary The Badger report presents data on trends in Wisconsin's ECE system. It then identifies government regulations-particularly those focused on improving teacher-child interactions--as a problem, concluding that those regulations have limited supply, decreased parental choice in providers, and increased costs. Its recommendations include reducing continuous improvement efforts focused on quality while increasing performance accountability (aka testing burdens), consolidating state agencies, and increasing parental control over use of government childcare subsidies. Publication Date January 30, 2023 Authors Angela Rachidi; W. Steven Barnett, Rutgers University Research Areas Early Childhood; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Wisconsin's Early Care Serves as Little More Than a Missed Opportunity An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Because of the report's failings with respect to methods and literature review, none of its recommendations are valid. EAST LANSING, MI (January 31, 2023) - A recent Badger Institute report reviews the current early care and education (ECE) landscape and offers a profile of the childcare system in Wisconsin. Yet despite drawing valuable attention to the policy issues of ECE, the report ultimately fails to support its recommendations. W. Steven Barnett, Rutgers professor and Senior Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research, reviewed Off Track: An Assessment of Wisconsin's Early Care and Learning System for Young Children and found it to be flawed in its methodology and in its central premise. The Badger report presents data on trends in Wisconsin's ECE system. It then identifies government regulations-particularly those focused on improving teacher-child interactions--as a problem, concluding that those regulations have limited supply, decreased parental choice in providers, and increased costs. Its recommendations include reducing continuous improvement efforts focused on quality while increasing performance accountability (aka testing burdens), consolidating state agencies, and increasing parental control over use of government childcare subsidies. Although a case can be made for reducing regulatory burden, Professor Barnett determined that the report's conclusions and recommendations are not supported by evidence and would in fact increase costs and harm providers, while at the same time placing children and benefits to taxpayers at risk. Though Barnett states that the report should be commended for continuing to spotlight the need for quality childcare and education, he also explains that the report is weakened by significant methodological flaws and omission of important literature. Professor Barnett thus concludes that the report's recommendations should be treated with extreme caution, if not avoided altogether. Find the review, by W. Steven Barnett, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Off Track: An Assessment of Wisconsin's Early Care and Learning System for Young Children , written by Angela Rachidi and published by the Badger Institute, at: https://www.badgerinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/EarlyLearning_091222_FINALforWeb.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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com W. Steven Barnett: (732) 221-8002, sbarnett@nieer.org Ashley Davison: (848) 932-3142, adavison@nieer.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Connecticut's Charter School Law and Race to the Top Summary This report argues for lifting the charter school cap and increasing funding for charter schools in Connecticut. Publication Date March 9, 2010 Authors Robert Bifulco, Syracuse University Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 10, 2010) – A recently released issue brief argues that lifting the charter school cap and increasing funding for charters would raise low-income student achievement in Connecticut. A new Think Twice analysis of brief finds that it is one-sided, ignores relevant research on charter schools and offers no evidence to support its claim. The brief, published by the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN), Connecticut's Charter School Law and Race to the Top , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Syracuse University professor Robert Bifulco. In his review, Bifulco explains that the brief is fundamentally an advocacy piece that is "designed to promote a specific view of charter schools, and does not help policymakers or the public think carefully about what a charter school program should be trying to achieve and how best to achieve it." The ConnCAN issue brief claims that "charter schools have demonstrated sustained success, especially among low-income students" and calls those schools "an essential part of closing Connecticut's achievement gap." The brief advocates lifting the Connecticut charter school cap and creating a funding mechanism that pays charter schools the same per pupil rate as that pupil's home school district. Though Bifulco praises the brief for pointing to funding questions that may deserve attention, he identifies several major shortcomings. The brief fails, for instance, to use any peer-reviewed, empirical research on charter schools, even though such research is ample and relevant. Additionally, Bifulco observes that simply lifting the charter school enrollment cap across the board, as the ConnCAN brief recommends, ignores the fact that charters can already exceed the cap in Connecticut—but only if they demonstrate a record of student achievement. Changing that law to allow expansion for charters that do not have such a record may not, as the ConnCAN brief contends, place the state in a better position to receive Race to the Top dollars. Overall, the brief is described by the reviewer as providing "a rather one-sided and incomplete analysis of the issues at stake." Find Robert Bifulco's review as well as a link to the ConnCan issue brief at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Robert Bifulco – (315) 443-3144; rbifulco@syr.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Some Assembly Required: How a More Flexible Learning Ecosystem Can Better Serve All Kids and Unlock Innovation Summary A report from Bellwether details what its authors call "assembly-based education," a concept described as a hypothetical ecosystem that removes schools as a central education component. A review of the report exposes this concept as unworkable outside of a miraculous private marketplace, and thus a shortsighted attempt to invalidate public schools. Publication Date November 7, 2022 Authors Juliet Squire and Alex Spurrier; Carrie Sampson, Arizona State University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Advocates for "Assembly-Based" School Choice to Address Inequity An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Misleading report argues that schools should no longer be positioned as a central education component. EAST LANSING, MI (November 8, 2022) - A report from Bellwether details what its authors call "assembly-based education," a concept described as a hypothetical ecosystem that removes schools as a central education component. A review of the report exposes this concept as unworkable outside of a miraculous private marketplace, and thus a shortsighted attempt to invalidate public schools. Carrie Sampson of Arizona State University reviewed Some Assembly Required: How a More Flexible Learning Ecosystem Can Better Serve All Kids and Unlock Innovation and found it to be based on a fallacy that flexible learning for all families can succeed in an ecosystem (or market) driven by choice and profits. The report’s plan proposes giving families the ability and funding to choose among varied learning opportunities. The approach is presented as helping to remove some barriers for lower-income families and to facilitate new communities based on shared interests rather than geography. The report also argues that the approach is timely and practical, pointing to the recent growth of school choice and supplemental learning. Dr. Sampson cautions that the report is poorly grounded in research evidence. There is only minimal reference to peer-reviewed research, and that data is presented in misleading, decontextualized, and inconsistent ways. She also points out that this concept undermines societal investment in neighborhood schools and therefore runs counter to research demonstrating that many families, youth, and communities work hard to protect and improve their neighborhood schools, especially in marginalized communities. Although a deeper examination of education from an ecological perspective is warranted, this proposal ignores research reflecting the voices and stories of those who are most marginalized. Thus, Professor Sampson concludes, this concept of an assembly-based education ecosystem fails to genuinely center equity and educational excellence and instead elevates choice as the greatest good in an education system. Find the review, by Carrie Sampson, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Some Assembly Required: How a More Flexible Learning Ecosystem Can Better Serve All Kids and Unlock Innovation , written by Juliet Squire and Alex Spurrier and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SomeAssemblyRequired_BetaByBellwether_August2022_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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center 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 Carrie Sampson: (602) 543-2820, csampso4@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind Summary The report, from a noted conservative think tank, attempts to isolate the effects of NCLB’s threat of sanctions on underperforming schools. The authors infer that federal pressure and punishment are promising policy avenues. Publication Date August 26, 2013 Authors Bruce Fuller, University of California Berkeley Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release AEI Report Beneficial, Offers Little Guidance For Policymakers Relies on faith of government pressure and top-down accountability EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 27, 2013) – In June, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released a report which investigates the effects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on North Carolina achievement scores. The report attempts to isolate the effects of NCLB's threat of sanctions on underperforming schools, while inferring that federal pressure and punishment are promising policy avenues. Yet, little can be determined about whether NCLB or any of the touted reforms caused the very small score increases reported. Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California Berkeley, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report, Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind , by Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor, praises accountability systems (NCLB included) as having beneficial systematic effects on standardized test scores. However, very little evidence was presented regarding how local educators comprehended or responded to these pressures. In his review, Fuller notes that the report feels out of date because, due to congressional inaction – education secretary Arne Duncan's agenda, pursued through waivers, has largely bypassed NCLB. The report does highlight how complicated NCLB once was, but this very complexity makes drawing inferences about what works virtually impossible amidst this policy noise. The authors do note that collateral damage was done by unbalanced high-stakes testing, specifically inattention in non-tested content areas. However, no evidence was provided of the negative effects of high-stakes accountability inside classrooms. Fuller's review further finds that the literature review fails to include the large body of literature that details the downside costs of high-stakes accountability tied to standardized testing. In regards to the methods, Fuller found a "naïve design assumption" which surfaces throughout the report – "that achievement trends can be attributed to a complicated bundle of policy tools implemented simultaneously across the country." He concludes, "Readers of the AEI report will benefit from the information provided, but they will remain uninformed as to how the search for an effective federal role can be informed by scarce evidence on the effects of various elements of NCLB." Find Bruce Fuller's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind, by Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor, on the web at: http://www.aei.org/papers/education/k-12/accountability/were-all-those-standardized-tests-for-nothing-the-lessons-of-no-child-left-behind/ 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 with support from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu -###- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Bruce Fuller, (510) 642-9163, b_fuller@berkeley.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra Summary This report argues that as a misguided national push a subgroup of students enrolled in eighth grade algebra lack the basic mathematical skills they need to succeed. It further argues that this unpreparedness harms those students as well as the highly proficient students in the class. Publication Date October 13, 2008 Authors Carol Corbett Burris Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Reviewer finds Brookings report overreaches for its conclusions EAST LANSING, Mi. (Oct. 14, 2008)—A recent Brookings Institution report concludes that as more students are placed in 8th-grade algebra classes, too many are ill-prepared and are dragging down their higher-achieving peers. A new review of the report, however, finds that its analysis provides little or no support for its headline-making conclusions. The report “The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, who is a researcher and the principal of a New York school with a successful accelerated mathematics program. At the time of its publication, the Brookings report received positive press coverage in multiple media outlets, including USA Today , The Washington Post , The Los Angeles Times , Education Week , and the Associated Press . None of these newspapers probed the report’s weaknesses, as set forth in the new Burris review. Enrollment in 8th-grade algebra is on the rise. Based on analysis of math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Brookings report contends that, as a result of a misguided national push, as many as 28% of such algebra students are low achievers, lacking prerequisite skills in arithmetic. It further contends that well-prepared students learn less due to the presence of low achievers in class. The report recommends that algebra placement be based on student readiness, not grade level. Specifically, the Brookings report finds no relationship between the percentage of students taking algebra in eighth grade and that state’s scores on the NAEP and therefore no pattern of higher scores in states where a higher proportion of students take advanced math in eighth grade. Because no correlation exists, the report reasons that there is no benefit to the policy. Similarly, the report finds that as the proportion of students taking algebra in eighth grade has increased, there has been a slight decrease in the average NAEP scores of students in those advanced math classes. The conclusion drawn from this is that well-prepared students in advanced math classes learn less due to the presence of lower achievers in the class. In her review, Burris faults the report for scanty reference to prior research and the omission of “the key empirical studies that prompted the call for algebra for all students in the 8th grade” as well any reference to the existing, peer-reviewed studies “that indicate that lower achievers in mathematics learn more when they are in challenging classes with higher achieving peers.” Moreover, she writes, the report ignores plausible alternative interpretations of the data. But the biggest flaw, according to Burris, is the report’s methodology. Although the report itself acknowledges that its correlational findings should not be used to argue that causal relationships have been found, it then continues on to do just that. In reality, the data analyses presented in the report simply cannot support its policy conclusions. The correlations tell us almost nothing about the policy questions the report attempts to answer. Burris concludes her review with a short summary of a peer-reviewed, longitudinal study examining the effects of an accelerated middle-school mathematics curriculum enrolling all 8th grade students in algebra in the diverse suburban district where she now serves as a principal. The study, which she helped conduct, found that students of all races and income groups enrolled in the accelerated program demonstrated greater success on a variety of achievement measures. While Burris commends the Brookings report’s call for more research and for doing more to adequately prepare students to learn algebra, she criticizes its final conclusion—that universal 8th grade algebra is ill-advised—as “not substantiated by the data presented.” Declining NAEP math scores that provide the impetus for the Brookings recommendations may have several explanations, including poverty and inexperienced teachers, Burris observes. But, she concludes, “These problems will not be solved, however, by undermining the goal of algebra for 8th graders, but rather by focusing on how to best prepare all students to succeed at that goal. The focus should be on how we improve learning in grades K-7.” Find Carol Burris’s review as well as a link to the Brookings Institution report on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Carol Corbett Burris, (516) 599-0839; (email) burriscarol@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices Summary New America recently published a report, Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices, that champions ways that micro-credentials have been used to allow teachers to move up the career ladder, receive higher pay, or renew their licenses. The report, along with an accompanying implementation guide, offers recommendations for how to implement and integrate micro-credentials into states’ human resources systems. Publication Date April 7, 2021 Authors Melissa Tooley and Joseph Hood; Elena Aydarova, Auburn University Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Overpromises in Its Advocacy for Teacher Micro-Credentials An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New America report lacks validity and reliability in promoting the benefits of micro-credentials in place of traditional professional development. EAST LANSING, MI (April 8, 2021) - New America recently published a report, Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices , that champions ways that micro-credentials have been used to allow teachers to move up the career ladder, receive higher pay, or renew their licenses. Elena Aydarova of Auburn University reviewed the report and found scarce evidence to support its ambitious claims of how micro-credentials could remedy the shortfalls of traditional professional development for teachers. The report, along with an accompanying implementation guide, offers recommendations for how to implement and integrate micro-credentials into states' human resources systems. However, Professor Aydarova explains, without incorporating any of the extensive research-based knowledge on teaching, effective professional development, and teacher effectiveness policies, the report fails to recognize that micro-credential use alone does not improve teaching or student learning. This can create problems rather than provide solutions. Moreover, the report's implementation guide starts with the idealistic assumption that states, districts, and school leaders have the capacity to select and ensure the high quality of micro-credentials before they are offered to teachers. Professor Aydarova also points out that the primary role of micro-credentials is to assess whether teachers have acquired a particular skill, so they require additional resources to provide teachers with opportunities to develop that skill. Since micro-credentials on their own cannot provide opportunities for teacher growth and require the existence of effective professional development systems to work, the report's title and guidelines are misleading. Even if implemented, Professor Aydarova concludes, the report's plan for expanding the use of micro-credentials could not deliver on its promises. Find the review, by Elena Aydarova, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Harnessing Micro-credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices , written by Melissa Tooley and Joseph Hood and published by New America, at: https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/Harnessing_Micro-credentials_for_Teacher_Growth_.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: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Elena Aydarova: (334) 844-7784, eza0029@auburn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More