< Back Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era Summary In a new policy brief, Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era, authors Kevin G. Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), Carol C. Burris (Network for Public Education), and Preston C. Green III (University of Connecticut) warn that, without proactive legislative action, this radical transformation of states' charter sectors could be fully imposed within two years. Appendix Publication Date May 27, 2026 Authors Kevin G. Welner, Carol C. Burris, and Preston C. Green III Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: New brief outlines legal risks for states and offers a path for them to preserve charter schools' public accountability and civil rights protections. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 28, 2026) - Forty-two states plus the District of Columbia may soon confront sweeping changes to their charter school systems, as the U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to greenlight religious charter schools and to then shield those religious schools from anti-discrimination and other good-governance laws that apply to public schools. In a new policy brief, Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era , authors Kevin G. Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), Carol C. Burris (Network for Public Education), and Preston C. Green III (University of Connecticut) warn that, without proactive legislative action, this radical transformation of states' charter sectors could be fully imposed within two years. The brief describes an upcoming "one-two punch" from the Supreme Court. First, the Court will hear a case next term that is likely to find a free-exercise right for taxpayer-funded private religious schools to engage in faith-based discrimination. Arguments for faith-based exemptions from accountability and transparency rules will follow. Second, the Court is likely to hear a case in the following term, resulting in a decision that prohibits states from excluding religious charter schools-again grounded in the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. This charter-school trap, however, is set only for states that structure their laws to place private, independent organizations in the charter-governance role. As the brief explains, if governmental entities retain that governance role, the Court's free-exercise reasoning does not apply. Instead, the applicable law is the longstanding Establishment Clause bar on religious public schools. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia permit charter schools. Of these, 42 allow or require independently governed charter schools-the type that the Supreme Court's ruling might drastically transform. However, nine of those 42 states also allow charter schools to be governed by local school districts, and four states-Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Virginia-place all their charters under the governance of publicly elected school boards. This brief argues that these four are already protected from the Supreme Court's likely decisions. "State legislators can head the Court's radical change by strengthening the fundamental publicness of their charter schools," Welner explains. "Legislators can protect the charter-school sectors against the imposed transformation by changing how they are governed." According to Green, the solution is straightforward: "All charter schools should be created, staffed, and governed by public entities such as local school districts, ensuring they remain fully subject to constitutional and civil rights protections." The authors include key provisions for a state statute to guide this shift, offering a clear path for preserving accountability, transparency, and civil rights in an evolving legal landscape. Bringing charter schools into this legal safe harbor will, according to Burris, have other advantages as well: District-governed charters also offer practical advantages, including stronger financial oversight and reduced risk of mismanagement and fraud. Communities, via their elected school boards, will have a voice in whether and how to build charter schools that serve the community's best interests. Find Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Er a, by Kevin G. Welner, Carol C. Burris, and Preston C. Green III, 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 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality Summary A recent report from the Hamilton Project sought to study how public investment in education will further long-term prosperity, economic growth, and individual economic security. The inquiry focused on whether or not a bachelor’s degree or higher education would increase economic prosperity and reduce economic inequality. Publication Date May 17, 2015 Authors Brad Hershbein, Melissa S. Kearney, and Lawrence H. Summers; Marvin Lazerson, Central European University and University of Pennsylvania; and Ryan Pfleger, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Technology & AI; Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Unconstrained faith in education's economic power lacks evidentiary base, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 18, 2015) – A recent report from the Hamilton Project sought to study how public investment in education will further long-term prosperity, economic growth, and individual economic security. The inquiry focused on whether or not a bachelor's degree or higher education would increase economic prosperity and reduce economic inequality. A review of the report released today finds that it oversimplifies the importance of college degrees in boosting the economy, while rejecting the widely held view that education can substantially reduce economic inequality. Marvin Lazerson, professor of higher education policy at Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, and emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Ryan Pfleger, a doctoral student in Educational Foundations, Policy, and Practice at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report examines three possible components of education's economic power: (1) education is the critical factor in creating sustainable economic prosperity; (2) college and advanced degrees increase earnings power for individuals; and (3) a broad base of increased educational attainment will narrow income inequality. In the review, the authors find that the report and its assertions are straightforward and use an empirically-based simulation for future projections. However, the report has several limitations. Specifically, Lazerson and Pfleger find the following insufficiencies: there is little direct evidence in the report to show that increasing educational attainment is the most "efficient and effective," as the report describes, way to improve prosperity; the data are drawn are only from males, with no attention paid to gender, race, field of study, labor-market conditions, or institutional reputation; and no data were analyzed to evaluate other ways to address economic problems. The reviewers note that the findings of the report are illuminating, "because more schooling increases, on average, the income of individuals in comparison to those not receiving advanced schooling." However, the reviewers contend that more direct actions are necessary, and the use of schools as a lever to improve economic conditions is an indirect method. The reviewers conclude, "Claiming that the primary solution to a wide array of economic problems is to improve ‘human capital,' the report perpetuates a problematic myth that undervalues alternative ways to address poverty and economic insecurity." Read his full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality on the web: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/increasing_education_what_it_will_and_will_not_do_for_earnings_inequal/ 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: Marvin Lazerson, +498022662345 (Germany), marvinlazerson@t-online.de 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 Fit for Purpose? How Today’s Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education Summary A new policy brief, Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education, by Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder and T. Philip Nichols of Baylor University, reviews research examining key pedagogical, logistical, and ethical implications of ed tech platforms for schools. The brief's analysis of these implications leads to recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on how to govern its use. Publication Date September 24, 2025 Authors Faith Boninger, University of Colorado Boulder; T. Philip Nichols, Baylor University Research Areas Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Educators should reassess the hidden impacts of ed tech ecosystems on teaching, learning, and student data. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (SEPTEMBER 25, 2025) - Digital educational platforms have become ubiquitous in American classrooms. Teachers now rely on Google Workspace for Education, Kahoot!, Khan Academy, MagicSchool, Zearn, and countless others to deliver curriculum, structure lessons and student collaboration, assess and track learning, and communicate with families. Few facets of schooling remain untouched by these tools. A new policy brief, Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education , by Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder and T. Philip Nichols of Baylor University, reviews research examining key pedagogical, logistical, and ethical implications of ed tech platforms for schools. The brief's analysis of these implications leads to recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on how to govern its use. For years, the technology industry marketed its products to schools as efficient solutions for instruction and management. Before the COVID-19 shutdowns, such efforts had only moderate success. But the sudden shift to remote learning accelerated widespread adoption, even among reluctant educators. This emergency shift obscured the fact that digital platforms may not always serve public education's core purposes. Unlike the software of the past, today's ed tech platforms are complex ecosystems, and these ecosystems are fueled through data extraction. They extract user data not only to personalize and improve their own functionality but also to share across interoperable systems. Accordingly, while educators may see these platforms as neutral tools, they are in fact shaped by competing interests and hidden imperatives. Teachers, students, and administrators are only one market. The other market involves data on performance, usage patterns and engagement-data flowing to advertisers, data brokers and investors, often without users' knowledge or consent. An ecological perspective of digital educational platforms reveals three interlocking layers: (a) visible classroom uses; (b) underlying technical architectures of code, algorithms, and hardware; and (c) deeper political-economic structures of ownership and profit. Recognizing these layers enables schools to consider how, for example, business decisions on the part of a platform provider determine how the platform is programmed to extract and use student data, how those programming decisions determine day-to-day experiences of teaching and learning, and how school data might be used for subsequent business purposes far from the school. This moves schools beyond simple questions of how to select a tool or prevent students from misusing it, and toward critical consideration of how platforms operate, whose values they embed, and what resources they demand. To ensure a platform is truly appropriate for their communities, schools must first define their own needs, values and goals. They can then evaluate whether digital tools support or undermine them. This clarity can shield educators from aggressive marketing and empower them to adopt only those systems aligned with their mission. Policymakers must also provide stronger safeguards. With federal policy promoting artificial intelligence as a cure-all for modern education, schools have good reason to pause and weigh the broader consequences before embracing new technologies. Find Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education , by Faith Boninger and T. Philip Nichols, 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 Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Financial Impact of Ohio’s Charter Schools Summary This report claims that charter schools in the “Big Eight” urban school districts in Ohio are producing greater student achievement gains, increasing revenues for traditional public schools, and operating at lower costs. Publication Date July 31, 2006 Authors Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice 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 Determining Funding for Online Schools Summary How much do online schools cost? A new brief investigates the funding of online education and virtual schools and provides a new, unified conceptual approach to funding online education. As supplemental online education and full-time virtual schools become more prominent in education, policymakers must address the key challenge of determining a fair and effective way to allocate funds for these institutions. Policymakers should develop new funding formulas based on the actual costs of operating virtual schools and link funding to accountability so cost-effectiveness can be determined. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University and Justin Bathon of the University of Kentucky provide tenets of a reformed online school financing system, designed to serve as a practical guide for state and local subsidies. Model legislation, based on their recommendations, is also provided. Publication Date October 14, 2013 Authors Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Justin Bathon, University of Kentucky Research Areas School Funding; Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking Summary The research behind such "hot button" educational issues as Common Core State Standards, teacher evaluations, ability grouping and LGBT safety in schools is examined in a compendium of ten short briefs written by Dr. William Mathis of the University of Colorado Boulder. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship Publication Date June 12, 2013 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education 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 U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective: How Well Does Each State Do at Producing High-Achieving Students Summary This report compares the performance of high-achieving math students domestically and internationally, using data from the 2005 NAEP and PISA. Publication Date January 10, 2011 Authors Jeremy Kilpatrick, University of Georgia Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds study comparing U.S. math achievement with other countries misleading and deceptive Jeremy Kilpatrick Teri Battaglieri EAST LANSING, MI. (Jan. 11, 2011) –While a recent report asserts that U.S. students are far behind students in most other developed countries in mathematics achievement, a new review of the study finds that it makes deceptive comparisons and exaggerates small differences, rendering the study useless in helping educators improve U.S. students' math performance. U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective: How Well Does Each State Do at Producing High-Achieving Students was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Jeremy Kilpatrick, Regents Professor of Mathematics Education at the University of Georgia. Professor Kilpatrick has extensive background and expertise in national and transnational testing of student mathematics achievement. 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. U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective , published by the Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance and by the journal Education Next , compares the performance of high-achieving students domestically and internationally, using data from the 2005 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). The NAEP is administered domestically, to a sample of 8th grade students throughout the U.S.; PISA is administered internationally, to a sample of 15-year-olds in Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) member countries and partner countries. The study compared the percentages of U.S. students in the 50 states and 10 urban districts who performed at an advanced level in mathematics on the 2005 NAEP with estimated percentages of students in other countries who would have reached that same level had they taken the NAEP 2005 mathematics assessment. Samples of U.S. students in the graduating class of 2009 had taken NAEP 2005 when they were eighth graders and the PISA 2006 when they were tenth graders, so a statistical procedure could be used to calculate the PISA mathematics score that was presumed equivalent to scoring at an advanced level on NAEP. It was thus possible to estimate what percentage of students in each of the 57 countries in PISA 2006 would have attained that advanced NAEP level. The report indicates that most of those countries had far greater percentages of high achievers than the United States did. In his review, Kilpatrick finds six areas of concern: NAEP is taken by eighth graders, whereas PISA is taken by 15-year-olds in each country, who are typically not all going to be in the same graduating class. The mathematical proficiency of those students who graduated in the class of 2009 was likely rather different from what it had been in 2005 or 2006. To rank districts and states measured on one scale against countries measured on another gives a misleading picture of how they are performing, especially when the scores come from one tail of a distribution (the very highest achievers) and are estimated using statistical linking. Although a statistical linkage had in the past been possible between NAEP and previous international tests that had been administered to equivalent representative samples of students in mathematics at the same time and in the same grades, no similar basis exists to create a linkage between PISA and NAEP. NAEP mathematics is designed to measure the knowledge, skills, and competencies needed by U.S. students in mathematics at different grades, whereas PISA is not intended to be tied to the school mathematics curriculum, calling instead on the ability to use and apply knowledge and skills in real-world situations; the study thus tries to mesh the results of two different tests that measure different domains of mathematics proficiency. Mathematics was a so-called minor domain in PISA 2006, which means that relatively few questions were asked and there was likely substantial variability within countries, raising unresolved reliability and validity concerns. Kilpatrick doesn't argue with the report's claim that relatively few students in the U.S. score at advanced levels in math. "What is misleading is that the percentages of advanced-level students in countries, states, and districts can be put on the same scale so that they can easily be compared," he writes. Moreover, such misleading comparisons aren't necessary, according to Kilpatrick: "At the website of the National Center for Education Statistics, state and urban district policymakers can obtain ample data on how their students at all levels of proficiency have been performing in NAEP mathematics. Those policymakers do not need, and should avoid, this flawed effort to enter their high-performing graduating seniors of 2009 into a mock international horse race in which they did not participate." Find Jeremy Kilpatrick's review and a link to U.S. Math Performance in Global Perspective at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected 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/review-us-math ### 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 The ABC’s of School Choice Summary This report, released in the form of a booklet, is designed as a resource for persuading people as to the merits of school choice. The report provides updated information on states that have choice policies in place and begins and ends with a “Frequently Asked Questions” section where the attempt is made to interpret the research on school choice issues for the lay reader. Publication Date September 23, 2007 Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds Friedman Foundation Report to be a glossy publication of little value EAST LANSING , Mich. —A new report from the Friedman Foundation claims to offer “a large body of evidence” to help educate people on the merits of school vouchers and other school-choice programs. A review of the report, however, finds it is based on very selective and shoddy evidence and makes misleading and false claims. “The ABC’s of School Choice,” by the Friedman Foundation, was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Christopher Lubienski, Associate Professor and Fellow at the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois. The report “is designed as a resource to provide ammunition for persuading people as to the merits of school choice,” according to Lubienski. “While there may indeed be a number of reasons to argue for school choice, this handbook shoots blanks.” Lubienski writes, “Based on the production values, simplistic assertions and the difficulty of verifying the claims made in the report, it appears that the Friedman Foundation is aiming at a relatively uninformed audience, one that it hopes will spread the gospel of vouchers far, wide and without question.” The review focuses on the merits of each key factual assertion in the report’s “Frequently Asked Questions” section which contains the main claims about research. Lubienski points out that the report tends to rely upon on a very selective sample of studies from other advocacy organizations that are not peer reviewed and are highly biased and of questionable quality. According to Lubienski, “Evidence – particularly on the issue of achievement – is consistently abused in the report, both by misrepresenting individual studies (including those by voucher advocates) and misrepresenting the general body of research on school choice. Lubienski concludes that the report, as a misleading work of advocacy, offers no useful guidance to policymakers. “A policy advocacy publication like this should always be read cautiously; the buyer should beware and should read the fine print,” he writes. “The problem here is that there is no fine print — there is only a glossy, highly attractive misrepresentation of the research literature." Find Christopher Lubienski’s review and a link to the Friedman Foundation’s “ABC’s of School Choice” report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Teri Battaglieri, (248) 444-7071; (email) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Third Way: A Guide to Implementing Innovation Schools Summary The Progressive Policy Institute recently published a "how-to" guide for entities such as charter management companies that seek to develop innovation schools in urban communities. Publication Date January 20, 2021 Authors Tressa Pankovits, David Osbourne; Carrie Sampson, Arizona State University; Sarah Diem, University of Missouri Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers; Technology & AI; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review Finds a Misguided Guide for Implementing Innovation Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Policymakers who consider using this guide risk adopting a model of school governance that not only fails to resolve educational inequities, but may even perpetuate them. EAST LANSING, MI (January 21, 2021) -The Progressive Policy Institute recently published a "how-to" guide for entities such as charter management companies that seek to develop innovation schools in urban communities. Carrie Sampson of Arizona State University and Sarah Diem of the University of Missouri reviewed The Third Way: A Guide to Implementing Innovation Schools and found it to lack research-based evidence to support its recommendations. Unlike charter schools, which often do not have access to district resources (e.g., facilities, transportation), the companies/entities that operate innovation schools are provided with both district resources and the authority to autonomously lead and govern these schools in exchange for improving student performance. The guide argues that equitable educational opportunity is achievable when schools have complete autonomy and strong accountability to increase academic performance and to adopt diverse learning models and expand school choice. Sampson and Diem explain, however, that many of the report's long list of 53 recommendations are improbable and overlook the potential disadvantages of innovation schools. These recommendations, they conclude, are highly complicated, largely unexamined, and likely infeasible, especially if a district's goal is to serve all students and their families equitably. Find the review, by Carrie Sampson and Sarah Diem, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Third Way: A Guide to Implementing Innovation Schools , written by Tressa Pankovits and David Osbourne and published by Progressive Policy Institute, at: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/PPI_ReinventingAmericasSchoolsInnovationGuide.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 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 Two Culminating Reports From The MET Project Summary The Measures of Effective Teaching Project (MET) is an ambitious, multi-year study of thousands of teachers in six school districts. This review is of two of the final research papers dealing with the impact of student assignment on teacher evaluations and how teacher evaluation measures are best combined. Publication Date January 30, 2013 Authors Jesse Rothstein, University of California Berkeley William Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Gates' Foundation's MET Study Fails to Solve Teacher Evaluation Challenge EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 31, 2013) – Amidst much fanfare, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation recently released its third and final set of findings for the Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project. The project generated enormous attention and valuable data while it attempted to provide clarity on how to best evaluate teachers. However, a careful look at the MET research – an ambitious, multi-year study of thousands of teachers in six school districts – finds the study's results were inconclusive and provide little usable guidance about how to design teacher evaluation systems. Jesse Rothstein, an economist at the University of California Berkeley, and William J. Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, completed a thorough review of two of the final MET research papers, examining how the assignment of students affects teacher evaluations and how multiple teacher evaluation measures are best combined. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "The MET research does little to settle longstanding debates over how best to evaluate teachers comprehensively," said Rothstein and Mathis. The study utilized three types of measures (student test scores, classroom observations, and student surveys); the project concluded that the three should be given roughly equal weight in teacher evaluations. Rothstein and Mathis found that the data do not support that conclusion. Instead, the data indicate that each measure reflects a distinct dimension of teaching. "Any evaluation system needs to be founded on a judgment about what constitutes effective teaching, and that judgment will drive the choice of measures," says Rothstein. Based on the review, there is little reason to believe that an evaluation system based on any of the measures considered in the MET project will do a good job of identifying teachers who are effective (or ineffective) at raising students' performance on more conceptually demanding assessments. Mathis adds, "While we commend The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for investing millions of dollars in tackling critical education issues, the conclusions in this case do not jibe with the data." At the center of the MET project was an experiment that randomly assigned students to teachers. This approach was meant to determine irretrievably whether value-added (VA) scores are biased by student assignments. That is, do teachers who are assigned more successful students benefit in terms of their VA scores? Unfortunately, the reviewers found that the group of teachers who participated in the MET experiments was not representative of the teaching force, and many participating schools failed to comply with their experimental assignments. As a result, the experiment did little to resolve the question. Rothstein and Mathis conclude, "While the Gates MET study has brought an unprecedented vigor and intensity to teacher evaluation research, even its masses of data do not settle disagreements about what makes an effective teacher." 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: Bill Mathis (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Jesse Rothstein (510) 643-8561, rothstein@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 State of State Standards 2006 Summary The report assigns grades to the academic content standards in each state and claims that higher content standards lead to better student test scores. Publication Date September 10, 2006 Authors Kenneth Howe, University of Colorado Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice 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 Linking Learning to the 21st Century: Preparing All Students for College, Career, and Civic Participation Summary A strong " Linked Learning" curriculum is a way to prepare students for both college and careers while rejecting a tracking system that provides academic preparation for some students but only vocational preparation to others. This policy brief highlights the potential of this high school curriculum reform. The first half of the brief explains the key elements of an effective "Linked Learning" curriculum. The second half translates these elements into statutory language, concretely providing the details necessary to move forward with this important reform. This policy brief is an update of the policy brief "Multiple Pathways" which was released in 2008. Publication Date April 6, 2011 Authors Marisa Saunders, UCLA, Institute for Democracy, Education and Access Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP Research Areas Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review; Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 7, 2011) - The old methods of educating high school students fail to prepare them with the well-rounded education they need to succeed in a rapidly evolving job market, according to a policy brief and draft legislation released today. Students must be taught both strong technical skills and rigorous academic concepts - not just one or the other - if they are to have an opportunity to find well-paying jobs after high school or college, according to Dr. Marisa Saunders, a research associate at UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access, and Christopher Chrisman, an associate with the Denver office of the law firm Holland & Hart. "Students who gain both academic and career education stand the best chance of accessing the full range of post-secondary options and a solid start toward a personally and socially productive middle-class life," Saunders and Chrisman said in their policy brief, entitled "Linking Learning to the 21st Century: Preparing All Students for College, Career, and Civic Participation." The policy brief is an update of a brief entitled "Multiple Pathways," which was released in late 2008. The updated policy brief reflects a change in terminology from "Multiple Pathways" to "Linked Learning." It 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. Traditional high school programs that prepare students for either a job or college - but not both - unfairly limit students by segregating them into two categories: those who might be college-bound and those who might enter the workforce immediately after graduation. Non-college bound tracks offered by traditional vocational programs tend to house a disproportionate number of students who are minorities, are less affluent and whose parents did not attend college. Saunders and Chrisman recommend that states adopt sweeping education reforms that include a strong "Linked Learning" curriculum, which combines rigorous academics with hands-on career and technical training. According to Saunders and Chrisman, this method better prepares students for well-paying 21st century jobs while providing employers with a "skilled and nimble workforce." Linked Learning has been implemented in some school districts with great success. For example, students at San Diego's Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy receive college preparation courses that are integrated with hands-on study of engineering, construction and architecture. The result: 81 percent of that school's 2007 graduating class were accepted to college, while also receiving the skills needed to get a well-paying job. The Construction Tech Academy's successes can be replicated across the nation, Saunders and Chrisman said. To that end, the authors drafted proposed statutory language that state legislatures can use to implement Linked Learning pilot programs in their own states. To read Saunders and Chrisman's full report go to: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/linking-learning --###-- 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: Marisa Saunders: (310) 866-2262, saunders@gseis.ucla.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More