< Back Expanding Choice in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education Summary This report calls for a federally led, universal expansion of school choice programs and makes the argument that increased choice is what the majority of parents want in federal education reform. Publication Date March 3, 2010 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Janelle Scott, University of California at Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Advocating School Choice for All Lacks Evidence March 3, 2010 EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 3, 2010) – A new review of a recently released Brookings report finds that it fails to provide the necessary evidence to support its call for a federally led, universal expansion of school choice. The Brookings report, Expanding Choice in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Janelle Scott of the University of California at Berkeley. In her review, Scott identifies three major shortcomings of the report: it relies too heavily on research in progress and research produced by advocacy organizations; it neglects prior research concerning the nature of parental choice; and it fails to acknowledge that unconstrained school choice has segregative effects. Scott points out that much of the research used to support the authors' central arguments for expanding school choice is generated by advocacy organizations and, to some degree, reflects research in progress. Accordingly, the report's enthusiasm for school choice's ability to generate desirable education policy is oblivious to empirical research that overwhelmingly points to complications in school choice formation, implementation, and evaluation. Scott also highlights the research showing that parents tend to choose schools largely based on racial and social class demographics as opposed to indicators of school quality. Because the Brookings report fails to acknowledge this, its recommendations do not include elements that would prevent those choice patterns from undermining the report's stated equity goals. "An expansion of school choice without provisions that incentivize and support the creation of diverse schools would likely inhibit the open enrollment choice terrain the authors imagine," Scott writes. Further, while Scott credits the authors for setting the goal of expanding quality educational choices, and acknowledges that many parents generally want better schooling options for their children, she concludes that the report "never supports its underlying assumption that this particular expansion of school choice is what parents want in federal educational reform." By contrast, national polls find that for parents, the No. 1 priority is the lack of resources for schools. "Accordingly, if policy makers wish to attend to parental preferences, the best approach would seem to be more attention to resource shortages in schools and across schooling systems," Scott writes. Find Janelle Scott's review as well as a link to the Brookings report 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: Janelle Scott (510) 642-4740; jtscott@berkeley.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment Summary Critiques of public education have intensified in recent years. While public schools do indeed have real areas in need of growth and improvement, many of today’s attacks are generated and amplified by organizations seeking to manufacture crises. These narratives often ignore counterevidence, and they use deceptive language to portray the system as broadly failing, even hopeless. To examine these destructive critiques, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California authored a policy brief, The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment, released today by NEPC. The brief identifies five core narratives used to portray a failing education system: claims of underachievement, inefficiency, inequality, lack of school choice, and indoctrination. Publication Date March 3, 2026 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Huriya Jabbar, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California; Daniel Espinoza, University of Southern California Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: New policy brief identifies five core narratives fueling disinvestment and privatization of America’s public schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MARCH 3, 2026) - Critiques of public education have intensified in recent years. While public schools do indeed have real areas in need of growth and improvement, many of today’s attacks are generated and amplified by organizations seeking to manufacture crises. These narratives often ignore counterevidence, and they use deceptive language to portray the system as broadly failing, even hopeless. To examine these destructive critiques, Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza of the University of Southern California authored a policy brief, The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment , released today by NEPC. The brief identifies five core narratives used to portray a failing education system: claims of underachievement, inefficiency, inequality, lack of school choice, and indoctrination. The brief warns that overstated crisis narratives fuel a cycle of disinvestment: Eroding public confidence leads to reduced funding and enrollment, which strains schools and invites further criticism. This cycle weakens the public system while advancing privatization of what has long been considered a public good. Each of the five core narratives is poorly grounded, according to Jabbar and Espinoza. The "achievement" attack rests on disappointing test scores while downplaying the powerful influence of poverty and inequality on student performance. Polling consistently shows that parents rate their own public schools highly, even as they accept the broader myth that public schools nationwide are failing, revealing a gap between lived experience and manufactured narrative. Charges of inefficiency similarly rely on narrow test score measures and attacks on unions, despite evidence that increased funding improves student achievement, especially for low-income students. Claims that public schools exacerbate inequality ignore research showing that inequitable funding and broader social conditions drive disparities, and that public education remains essential to addressing them. Advocates of vouchers and expanded school choice argue that families lack options, yet recent research finds large-scale voucher programs tend to lower student outcomes and increase segregation. Allegations of indoctrination depend on sensationalized examples that ignore the largely uncontroversial, inclusive nature of most classroom instruction. Amid COVID-19 disruptions, culture wars, rapid voucher expansion, immigration enforcement in schools, and federal policy and funding threats, the danger to public education is acute. Without correction, manufactured crises will continue to justify underinvestment, deepen inequality, and roll back hard-won gains in equity and student outcomes. Jabbar and Espinoza call on policymakers to counter manufactured narratives with evidence and to work toward reversing prior disinvestment by promoting equitable funding of instruction and facilities. Find The Cycle of Disinvestment in Public Schools: How Public School Criticism Drives Policy and Disinvestment , by Huriya Jabbar and Daniel Espinoza, at: https://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, 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 The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Huriya Jabbar Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Does Money Matter? Summary In Does Money Matter?, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses why money matters in education. He concludes that despite claims to the contrary, adequate and equitable funding is necessary for schools to improve their performance – especially schools serving children living in poverty. Publication Date June 16, 2016 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 16, 2016) — For the past 10 years, the PDK/Gallup poll has consistently reported that the public feels lack of financial support is the biggest problem facing American schools. Despite this, some believe that more money would not improve the quality of public schools. A new concise brief out today explains why adequate and equitable funding is necessary for schools to improve their performance — especially in schools serving children living in poverty. The eighth in a series of policy briefs addresses how underinvestment, the result of political decision-making, threatens our schools. 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 Does Money Matter? , William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, considers the evidence used to support the claim that no correlation exists between spending and school quality. Mathis finds the evidence to be clear that money does, in fact, matter. He says that adequate and equitable distribution of school financial resources are a "necessary underlying condition for maintaining democracy, improving overall school quality and outcomes." Mathis does caution that results vary from place to place, but that funding matters most for economically deprived children. His recommendations for sound investments include: High-quality preschool; Small class sizes — particularly in lower grades and for economically deprived children; Teacher pay; and Additional learning time - which has a positive effect on academic motivation and low-performing students. 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The MPCP Longitudinal Educational Growth Study Second Year Report Summary This report on the second year of a five-year evaluation of the Milwaukee school voucher program finds no achievement growth differences between voucher schools and the Milwaukee Public Schools over a one-year period. Publication Date May 28, 2009 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Casey Cobb Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Milwaukee Voucher Report Sound But Of Limited Value May 28, 2009 Future reports examining voucher program should be improved and clarified EAST LANSING, MI (May 28, 2009)—A recent report on the second year of a five-year evaluation of the Milwaukee school voucher program finds no achievement growth differences between voucher schools and the Milwaukee Public Schools over a one-year period. A new review of the report finds its design and methods sound, but its usefulness is limited by several factors, including a lack of clarity about the representativeness of the voucher schools included in the study. The MPCP Longitudinal Educational Growth Study Second Year Report was written for the University of Arkansas School Choice Demonstration Project as part of a five-year evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP). The report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Casey Cobb of the University of Connecticut, an expert in policy analysis and social science research methods. The Second Year Report ’s primary finding was that there were no overall statistically significant differences in achievement growth between a group of students in the voucher schools included in the study and a matched group of students in Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS). The most substantial concern Cobb raises in his review involves the sample of schools used for this evaluation – and likely for future evaluations. An act of the Wisconsin legislature requires schools accepting vouchered students to administer a standardized test in reading, math and science in grades 4, 8, and 10. It is these test scores that are analyzed in the new report. Because the law doesn’t require any particular exam, different schools administer different tests. The sample of voucher schools included in the report reflects only those using one particular test, the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination (WKCE). As a result, Cobb points out in his review, the results “are only generalizable to MPCP schools that administer the WKCE.” The key question, and one that a reader of the report cannot answer, is whether this sample differs in any meaningful way from those schools that use a different exam. For instance, might a given subgroup of schools, such as those run by the Milwaukee Catholic Archdiocese, be excluded from the study because they use a different test? Cobb compliments the report’s authors for being “careful not to overstate the findings of a single-year study on achievement effects.” He also notes that the methodology used “adheres to rigorous principles of social science.” However, he concludes that this second-year report is unlikely to be very useful to policymakers. Find Casey Cobb’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . This is the third Think Twice review in recent weeks to examine the School Choice Demonstration Project’s Milwaukee reports. Previously, a review by Dr. Clive Belfield found that a report about the Milwaukee voucher program’s fiscal impact offers valuable insights but also questioned the report’s findings regarding fiscal benefits and noted that the report omits some important factors essential to a more complete analysis. And a review by Dr. Gregory Camilli of a report about the Milwaukee voucher program’s competitive effects raised a number of questions about the report’s statistical methods, ultimately concluding that any positive effect of competition is very small, if it exists at all. Clive Belfield’s review can be found at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Belfield_MPCP.pdf Gregory Camilli’s review can be found at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Camilli_MilwVoucher.pdf 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: Casey Cobb (860) 486-0253; casey.cobb@uconn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Testing Theories of Why: Four Keys to Interpreting US Student Achievement Trends Summary A recent American Enterprise Institute report does a good job of identifying and describing long-term trends in student performance using national and international assessment data. However, a review finds that the report then falls short in its attempts to analyze and understand the factors driving these trends. Publication Date April 24, 2025 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; School Funding Authors Nat Malkus; Chris Domaleski, National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Highlights Student Achievement Trends But Lacks Meaningful Interpretation An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Recent AEI report successfully identifies patterns in student performance but falls short in explaining the causes behind them. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (APRIL 24, 2025) - A recent American Enterprise Institute report does a good job of identifying and describing long-term trends in student performance using national and international assessment data. However, a review finds that the report then falls short in its attempts to analyze and understand the factors driving these trends. In his review of Testing Theories of Why: Four Keys to Interpreting US Student Achievement Trends ,Chris Domaleski of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment explains that the report identifies four major trends: (1) student performance peaked in the early 2010s before declining, (2) lower-performing students have seen the sharpest declines, (3) achievement gaps in the U.S. are widening more than in other countries, and (4) similar declines appear in adult literacy and numeracy scores. The report also attempts to challenge implicit theories, such as the idea that recent declines are solely due to the pandemic or that all students are affected uniformly. While Dr. Domaleski praises the report for effectively highlighting these key trends, he points to problems with the report’s analysis. He notes, for example, that the report overlooks important data sources that could provide a more comprehensive picture. It also fails to account for uncertainty or offer guidance on identifying meaningful differences. Finally, its effort to "pressure test" possible explanations is underdeveloped-its theories lack depth and fail to engage with established research on causal inference. Though the report serves as a useful starting point for discussions on U.S. student achievement, Dr. Domaleski concludes that it falls short of providing a framework for understanding why these trends exist. Find the review, by Chris Domaleski, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Testing Theories of Why: Four Keys to Interpreting US Student Achievement Trends , written by Nat Malkus and published by American Enterprise Institute, at: https://www.aei.org/research-products/report/testing-theories-of-why-four-keys-to-interpreting-us-student-achievement-trends/ 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 Chris Domaleski (603) 516-7900 cdomaleski@nciea.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Assessment High Stakes and Alternative Visions: Appropriate Use of the Right Tools to Leverage Improvement Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date January 1, 1970 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release High-stakes testing undermines school reform, report finds FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE CONTACT : Teri Battaglieri (248) 444-7071 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Dan Laitsch (778) 782-7589 (e-mail) dlaitsch@sfu.ca EAST LANSING, Mich ., Nov. 27, 2006 – High-stakes tests, which are used to measure student and school achievement, have so many negative consequences that they are actually undermining the goal of improving public education, according to a new policy brief released today by The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. High-stakes testing, the dominant school reform tool of the federal No Child Left Behind law, actually “corrupts the system it intends to improve and is unlikely to produce positive change,” said Daniel A. Laitsch, author of Assessment, high-stakes, and alternative visions: Appropriate use of the right tools to leverage improvement. Laitsch recommends that policymakers: abandon high-stakes accountability systems and instead focus on improving our schools’ capacity to meet student needs; look to education professionals to determine the proper use of testing; and expand assessments to evaluate the diverse goals of education. “There is no silver bullet for school improvement,” he said. “Simplistic accountability mechanisms focused on single outcomes, measures and faulty assumptions....cannot adequately assess the work of teachers, schools and students or provide sufficient information for policy decisions.” In the report, Laitsch, of Simon Fraser University in Canada, highlights the following proven problems associated with high-stakes testing: Narrowing of curriculum and instructional strategies, giving students “an impoverished academic experience.” Cheating and other negative behaviors designed to avoid punishments for poor performance. Shortchanging high- and low-achieving students by diverting resources and services toward those whose scores are closest to the cutoff between passing and failing for a particular test. Testing errors that damage such things as college admissions for students and school success under NCLB. Laitsch points out that there are a variety of other promising models of assessment, some incrementally different from NCLB while others represent a radical departure from the high-stakes assessment model. The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education Summary A recent report from the Manhattan Institute presents results of a survey of U.S. adults aged 18-20 to determine the extent to which eight concepts the report equates with what it calls "critical social justice" (CSJ) theory-which the report frowns upon-are taught in schools. The first of the eight concepts, for instance, is, "America is a systemically racist society." Publication Date May 2, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann; Christine Sleeter, California State University Monterey Bay; David Garcia, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Warning About the Teaching of "Critical Social Justice" Wanders Far Beyond Its Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's methodological structure is insufficient to measure causality between the teaching of "CSJ theory" and the political indoctrination of students. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (May 2, 2023) - A recent report from the Manhattan Institute presents results of a survey of U.S. adults aged 18-20 to determine the extent to which eight concepts the report equates with what it calls "critical social justice" (CSJ) theory-which the report frowns upon-are taught in schools. The first of the eight concepts, for instance, is, "America is a systemically racist society." The report finds the concepts to be pervasive. Faulty assumptions and methodology cast doubt on the report's conclusions, however, according to Christine Sleeter of California State University Monterey Bay and David Garcia of Arizona State University, who reviewed School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education . The report finds that the eight concepts are widely taught, even in private schools and homeschooling. Because these CSJ concepts are being taught beyond public schools, the report argues that school choice is an ineffective option for shielding children from this presumed peril. Further, Sleeter and Garcia note, the report puts forward several conclusions that do not find support from the survey: (a) teachers rather than others outside the classroom are the primary source of exposure, (b) CSJ concepts are being indoctrinated as "truth," and (c) policy attitudes and political party affiliation are influenced by exposure to CSJ concepts. Given that the methods do not adequately isolate exposure in school from the many other sources in which young people encounter these eight concepts, and given that no causal relationships are established, Sleeter and Garcia conclude that there is no support for the report's highly intrusive policy recommendations – even setting aside the underlying ideological assumptions. Find the review, by Christine Sleeter and David R. Garcia, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3134&type=think_twice Find School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education , written by Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://manhattan.institute/article/school-choice-is-not-enough-the-impact-of-critical-social-justice-ideology-in-american-education NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The 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 Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Christine Sleeter: (831) 915-3876, csleeter@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back How Legislation and Litigation Shape School Choice 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 March 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA Summary Brief presents a framework for federal policymakers to ground the law in an evidence-based, equitable, and ecological approach centered on sustained educational equality of opportunity. Publication Date October 11, 2022 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Authors Elizabeth DeBray, University of Georgia; Kara S. Finnigan, University of Michigan; Janel George, Georgetown University Law Center; and Janelle Scott, University of California-Berkeley. Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release What Might a Civil Rights-Focused ESEA Reauthorization Look Like? Key Takeaway : Brief presents a framework for federal policymakers to ground the law in an evidence-based, equitable, and ecological approach centered on sustained educational equality of opportunity. EAST LANSING, MI (October 11, 2022) - The last several years have been trying for students, communities, and schools. States and local educational agencies have been working to meet the significant health and educational needs of students and to address the vast racial and socioeconomic inequities that have been heightened by the pandemic. Success in the efforts depends on a responsive, strong, and effective federal role in education. The federal government’s significant, albeit limited, role in education remains vital nearly 60 years after the initial passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation’s fundamental legislation concerning K-12 schooling. This is particularly true as the U.S. grapples with a global pandemic, enduring racial and socioeconomic inequality, entrenched educational disparities, and attacks on democracy. The ESEA was most recently reauthorized in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which itself was due for reauthorization after the 2020-21 school year. Congress may not act any time soon on that reauthorization, but when it does it can improve the law in key ways. Over the past several years, vibrant, intersectional social movements have taken up and expanded the policy demands for equitable, excellent, and just schooling. Because ESEA remains the government’s most consequential mechanism to promote equity in public education, its reauthorization presents an opportunity to re-envision this federal role in promoting access to quality educational opportunities by fostering racial and socioeconomic equity in alignment with the original intent of ESEA. To that end, NEPC today released a policy brief, A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA , authored by Elizabeth DeBray of the University of Georgia, Kara S. Finnigan of the University of Michigan, Janel George of Georgetown University Law Center, and Janelle Scott of the University of California-Berkeley. The authors have developed a civil rights framework to guide the redesign of ESSA. This equitable, evidence-based, and ecological framework places students, staff, school systems, and cross-sector collaboration at the center of ESEA and considers the complexity of racial, socioeconomic, and other inequities along with the strengths nested within communities. Their approach centers the health and the socioemotional well-being of students, families, and staff and accounts for the historical, structural, and environmental factors that have made educational inequity seemingly intractable. The brief offers recommendations that build upon ESSA’s core purpose and its critical history as being, first and foremost, a civil rights law. As such, the recommendations are designed to ensure it is responsive to racial and social inequities across systems that affect students’ educational experiences and outcomes. Find A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA , by Elizabeth DeBray, Kara S. Finnigan, Janel George, and Janelle Scott, 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 . 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 Elizabeth DeBray : (706) 542-2214, edebray@uga.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Urban School Decentralization and the Growth of "Portfolio Districts:" Summary This policy brief focuses on the portfolio approach to school reform being used in an increasing number of large urban districts including New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. This approach has been promoted by education reform theorists and some in the Obama administration as a vital and necessary solution to the problems, especially, of urban districts despite the fact that it has unclear advantages, no proof of past success and known high costs. Publication Date June 2, 2010 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Authors Kenneth J. Saltman, DePaul University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (June 2, 2010) –A new reform approach, whereby school district leaders compile and run a "portfolio" of independently operated schools, is being used in New York, Chicago, New Orleans, and Washington D.C., and it is being considered by other districts. Yet little or no evidence supports the expansion of such radical experimentation, a new Policy Brief reports. The brief, written by professor Kenneth Saltman of DePaul University in Chicago was funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The portfolio approach has unclear advantages, no proof of past success, and known high costs, according to Saltman. Yet it's been promoted by some education reform theorists as a vital and necessary solution to the problems especially of urban public education, and the Obama administration has signaled its support. Explaining the concept, Saltman writes: "The district superintendent is imagined as a stock investor who has a portfolio of investments (schools)." These schools are run by different contractors, generally as charter schools. The superintendent "holds the investments that 'perform' (in terms of student achievement) and ends the contracts for (sells) those investments that 'don't perform.'" Accordingly, Saltman continues, "the portfolio concept puts into place what has been increasingly discussed in educational policy literature as market-based 'creative destruction' or ‘churn.'" It's an idea that appeals to those who see market principles as useful to adopt within public schools. But Saltman's brief contends that the reform's advocates employ a double standard: they insist that test-based accountability measures show city schools have "failed," and yet they want the portfolio approach to move forward without being subjected to comparable scrutiny. "No expectation exists for the development of analytic tools capable of measuring the portfolio approach's effect on achievement, its central promise. This situation presents administrators and legislators with the difficult task of justifying ‘reform' with no supporting achievement evidence and no foreseeable possibility of such evidence." And indeed, Saltman writes, there simply is no evidence to support the idea. Moreover, elements of the model, such as charter schools, have been found to be ineffective in raising achievement. In sum, the portfolio district approach looks like a recipe for high risk and no clear reward. To date, there is little evidence to either support or reject it. Instead, Saltman recommends that policymakers considering the reform not do so without closely questioning its rationale, costs, potential unintended consequences, and likely resulting social conflicts. Find Kenneth Saltman's report, Urban School Decentralization and the Growth of "Portfolio Districts" 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 Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know Summary As part of a series of reports chronicling teacher education, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) attempted to investigate the textbooks used in teacher prep coursework. The report contended that textbooks assigned in methods coursework fail to provide teacher candidates with proper preparation. The NCTQ report is based on six strategies adapted from a practice guide provided by the What Works Clearinghouse, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The report offers recommendations for textbook publishers, teacher education programs, and state departments of education. Publication Date March 24, 2016 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Teacher Workforce Authors Laura Pomerance, Julie Greenberg and Kate Walsh; P.L. Thomas, Furman University; and Christian Z. Goering, University of Arkansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NCTQ report makes broad claims, but fails to provide acceptable evidence, academic review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 24, 2016) – As part of a series of reports chronicling teacher education, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) attempted to investigate the textbooks used in teacher prep coursework. The report contended that textbooks assigned in methods coursework fail to provide teacher candidates with proper preparation. However, an academic review finds that the report is of little value in improving teacher preparation, selecting textbooks, or for guiding educational policy. P.L. Thomas, Furman University, and Christian Z. Goering, University of Arkansas reviewed the report , Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know , for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The NCTQ report is based on six strategies adapted from a practice guide provided by the What Works Clearinghouse , which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The report offers recommendations for textbook publishers, teacher education programs, and state departments of education. However, Thomas and Goering find, in their review, that the report is not grounded in a comprehensive examination of the literature on teaching methods. Moreover, the report relies on a single source, which itself was based on a narrow set of research studies. The reviewers note that, despite posing an interesting question, NCTQ's report falls short because it uses a narrow set of criteria and applies it in a misleading and superficial way. Thomas and Goering, both respected teacher educators, agree with the report's authors that teacher education programs, textbooks used in methods courses, and candidate preparedness are all important topics for further analysis. Nevertheless, they conclude: "this report in no way justifies taking the conclusions or recommendations seriously when determining policy or practice." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know on the web: http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Learning_About_Learning_Report 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: P.L. Thomas , (864) 294-3386, paul.thomas@furman.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 The Education Choice and Competition Index: Background and Results 2012 Summary This report from the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution attempts to make a connection between parental satisfaction for schools and the purported collective benefits arising from market-based education polices. It includes an index which grades school districts using 13 categories, including the percentage of students enrolled in alternative schools other than traditional public schools. A review found weaknesses in the index’s subjective scoring system, as well as a lack of research behind the report’s recommendations, making the Brookings’ product fall short of being an effective policy tool. Publication Date January 29, 2013 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors David Garcia, Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brookings School Choice Report Fails To Enlighten Policy Debate, Review Finds Education Choice and Competition Index also receives an ‘F' grade EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 29, 2013) – A recent report out of Brookings and its self-developed choice index fail to advance education policy decisions and only rehash old arguments for unregulated school choice, according to a new academic review. David Garcia, associate professor at Arizona State University, reviewed the December report, published by the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution, " The Education Choice and Competition Index: Background and Results 2012 ," and found it makes no substantiated connection between parental satisfaction and the purported collective benefits arising from market-based education policies. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Garcia also criticized the Education Choice and Competition Index , noting the only large school district to receive an "A" rating, the New Orleans Recovery School District, was graded a "D" by the Louisiana Department of Education and 83 percent of its schools were labeled "D" of "F". The index uses 13 categories, including the percentage of students enrolled in alternative schools other than traditional public schools and whether the district closed more than 3 percent of its schools in the past five years. Garcia noted some elements of the index hold districts accountable for factors beyond their control, such as the presence of affordable private schools. "Most recently, under the No Child Left Behind Act, parents in low-performing schools were given the option to transfer schools at district expense. Yet, less than 1 percent of eligible parents availed themselves of the opportunity," Garcia wrote. "The foundational logic of this report is based on how one would expect consumers to behave in the private sector. Parental responses under previous coerced choice plans, however, do not match consumer behaviors." The Brookings' report does not address existing research on what compels parents to choose a school, Garcia added. "The recommendations place ultimate faith on parents choosing schools based on test scores. Yet, it is well established that parents choose schools based on many other factors, such as safety, academic missions and student demographics," Garcia wrote. "Formal sources of information, such as standardized test scores and state-derived labels like those promoted by the authors, are one of the last sources that parents consider when making decisions." Garcia concluded the weakness of the index's subjective scoring system, as well as the lack of research behind the report's recommendations, make the Brookings' product fall short of being an effective policy tool. Find The Education Choice and Competition Index: Background and Results 2012 by Grover J. "Russ" Whitehurst and Sarah Whitfield on the web: http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/2012-ecci Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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 is also available on the National Education Policy Center 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: David Garcia: (480) 727-7413, david.garcia@asu.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