< Back Education Freedom and Student Achievement: Is More School Choice Associated with Higher State-Level Performance on the NAEP? Summary A recent brief from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas is being used by voucher advocates to argue that increasing school choice can spur broad test score improvements. Publication Date June 15, 2021 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability Authors Patrick J. Wolf, Jay P. Greene, Matthew Ladner, and James D. Paul; T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia; Joel Malin, Miami University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Uses Weak Data and Methods to Promote School Choice An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Methodological flaws and inattention to the larger research base on school choice lead to the authors' preferred conclusions. EAST LANSING, MI (June 15, 2021) - A recent brief from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas is being used by voucher advocates to argue that increasing school choice can spur broad test score improvements. However, T. Jameson Brewer of the University of North Georgia and Joel Malin of Miami University reviewed Education Freedom and Student Achievement: Is More School Choice Associated with Higher State-Level Performance on the NAEP? , and found significant methodological weaknesses and flaws that render the report useless for guiding policy. The report ranks states based on their expansion of market-oriented school policies such as vouchers, charters, homeschooling, and inter-district choice. It then constructs a regression model using this "education freedom" ranking along with per-pupil spending and student/teacher ratio, and using each state's combined math plus reading NAEP scores as the dependent variable. This creative approach yields an unexpected negative relationship between higher spending and the combined NAEP levels. The student/teacher ratio variable does show the expected inverse relationship to outcomes (the more students per teacher, the lower NAEP scores). Oddly, while the two variables-spending and student/teacher ratio-would be expected to be highly correlated, the study does not explore or address this concern by, for example, exploring alternative modeling choices. The report's main finding is that, after controlling for spending, student/teacher ratio, household income, and percent White students, the model shows a positive correlation between "freedom" and these scores (as well as NAEP score gains since 2003). While repeatedly stating that their data and methods "cannot establish conclusively whether education freedom caused those changes," the authors also repeatedly trumpet the association teased out by their model and urge policymakers to embrace school choice policies. Readers are ultimately informed of the "reality" that "[s]chool choice has its best chance to influence NAEP scores and gains across an entire state by delivering competitive pressure to district-run public schools." Professors Brewer and Malin point out, however, that the report's data and methods can, at best, suggest a relationship that should then be examined using a stronger research design. They also explain that the report, by ignoring relevant peer-reviewed research that has found negative consequences of school choice reforms, does not engage meaningfully with the larger body of research. Indeed, the reviewers identify significant methodological flaws that cast doubt on the report's findings. Major faults include issues related to independent variable construction, the use of an unusually combined dependent variable, and the inclusion of a student group that is untested via the NAEP. Moreover, the methodology fails to scrutinize dubious findings emerging from their models-particularly with regard to spending on education. Instead, the report uses such findings to buttress its concluding claim that a package of school choice reforms is desirable and beneficial. These shortcomings undermine the report's conclusions and render the study, as currently presented, useless for purposes of guiding policymaking. Find the review, by T. Jameson Brewer and Joel Malin, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Education Freedom and Student Achievement: Is More School Choice Associated with Higher State-Level Performance on the NAEP? , written by Patrick J. Wolf, Jay P. Greene, Matthew Ladner, and James D. Paul and published by the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas, at: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/9/544/files/2018/10/education-freedom-and-naep-scores.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 T. Jameson Brewer: (678) 910-2744, Jameson.Brewer@ung.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Parent Power: Grass-Roots Activism and K-12 Education Reform Summary This report reviews a narrow selection of education reform advocacy organizations (ERAOs), which seek to organize parents around market-based school reforms. Publication Date September 6, 2012 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review Authors Michelle Fine, CUNY Stan Karp, Education Law Center Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: AEI's Parent Power Report Unevenly Advocates for a Narrow School Reform Agenda EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 6, 2012)—A highly politicized report from the American Enterprise Institute analyzed the growth of education reform advocacy organizations (ERAOs), which organize parents into larger policy debates. The report, Parent power: Grass-roots activism and K-12 education reform , was authored by Andrew Kelly and Patrick McGuinn. Kelly and McGuinn studied new education reform advocacy groups and focused almost exclusively on school choice and parent mobilization. Michelle Fine and Stan Karp recently reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Both the report and review come at an important time, as there is increased national attention on the role of education reform advocacy groups with the upcoming release of the Hollywood movie Won't Back Down and the growing interest in "parent trigger" to promote school turnarounds. Reviewers Fine and Karp found: "this new report is neither a credible research study nor a primer on parent power. Rather, it offers political strategy for a well-funded education reform campaign that is now seeking to build a mass constituency of parents." Because the report focuses on "a narrow, market-driven set of reform organizations," it ignores the work of groups who advocate for system-wide education reform and equity. Additionally, the reviewers found that the report suffers from several research defects, including: Inadequate and slanted literature review Selective sampling Lack of objectivity Find the review by Fine and Karp on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Parent Power: Grass-Roots Activism and K-12 Education Reform by Andrew Kelly and Patrick McGuinn on the web at: http://www.aei.org/files/2012/07/31/-parent-power-grassroots-activism-and-k12-education-reform_134233335113.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by funding from 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-parent-power --###-- 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: Michelle Fine, (212) 817-8710, mfine@gc.cuny.edu Stan Karp, (973) 624-1815 x28, skarp@edlawcenter.org 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 Teacher Evaluation 2.0 Summary This guide analyzes how to fix teacher evaluations, proposing six design standards that any rigorous and fair evaluation system should meet. It offers states and school districts a blueprint for better evaluations that can help every teacher thrive in the classroom. Publication Date November 16, 2010 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors H. Richard Milner, Vanderbilt University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report relies on truisms, conventional wisdom rather than cutting-edge research East Lansing, MI (November 16, 2010) -- A new review of The New Teacher Project's recent report Teacher Evaluation 2.0 finds that the report's recommendations for teacher evaluation boil down, for the most part, to truisms and conventional wisdom, lacking a supporting presentation of scholarly evidence. The report was reviewed for the 'Think Twice' Think Tank Review Project by Vanderbilt University professor H. Richard Milner. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In his review, Milner notes that the report suffers from several additional problems. Among them: It assumes teacher evaluation reform can be a panacea for resolving far greater educational problems. He finds that the report has a misplaced emphasis on standardized tests and value-added assessment while ignoring more than a decade of evidence detailing the limitations on the use of these measures. He also finds that the report doesn't take into account a variety of resource limitations, especially in under-resourced and understaffed schools, an omission that will likely thwart implementation of at least some of its recommendations. The heart of Teacher Evaluation 2.0 consists of six design standards for evaluation: an annual process; clear, rigorous expectations; multiple measures; multiple ratings; regular feedback; and significance—that is, consequences for the teachers being evaluated. The report argues that current teacher evaluation practices result in evaluations that are too infrequent, too unfocused, and too broad (offering only "pass/fail" or other binary options instead of more nuanced ratings). Further the report asserts that current evaluations are unhelpful to teachers seeking to improve classroom practice and performance and are not backed up by meaningful consequences for poor performance. It advocates for evaluations to have high stakes and be used in decisions about teacher firing, promotion, tenure, and reappointment. The report thus combines commonly accepted ideas with the current push for high-stakes policies, but in neither case is the report adequately buttressed with research findings. The report includes no explicit account of how its proposed standards were derived. Readers will find anecdotal examples to illuminate the proposed standards, but these are offered without any indication of how they were selected, whether they are truly representative of what U.S. schools do, and how they can be generalized. "No evidence is presented in this report to suggest that these examples have proven effective or that they exemplify the desired traits," Milner writes. The result, Milner concludes, is a report that "does not tell us anything that is not already suggested or asserted in the teacher evaluation discourse," but one that then relies for its recommendations "on appeals to common sense rather than actual empirical evidence." Policymakers might find some suggestions in it useful, but if they implement them, they should do so "only with deliberate caution." Find Richard Milner's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Milner_TeachEval2.pdf Find Teacher Evaluation 2.0 by The New Teacher Project on the web at: http://www.tntp.org/files/Teacher-Evaluation-Oct10F.pdf 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-teach-eval-TNTP ### 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: H. Richard Milner, (615) 480-7474; rich.milner@vanderbilt.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effects of High-Performing, High-Turnover Teachers on Long-Run Student Achievement: Evidence From Teach for America Summary A recent paper published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University presents findings from a study examining Teach for America (TFA) teacher turnover and teachers’ contributions to fourth through eighth grade student achievement. Publication Date March 14, 2023 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Authors Virginia S. Lovison; Emilie Mitescu Reagan, Claremont Graduate University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release TFA Analysis Fails to Consider Systemic Costs of Teacher Turnover An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Paper describes relationship between new teacher retention and improved performance, but its broader conclusions about Teach for America overreach. EAST LANSING, MI (March 14, 2023) - A recent paper published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University presents findings from a study examining Teach for America (TFA) teacher turnover and teachers’ contributions to fourth through eighth grade student achievement. A close look finds that the paper’s narrow focus and selective interpretation of the research literature leads to a misrepresentation of TFA’s broader outcomes. Emilie Mitescu Reagan of Claremont Graduate University reviewed The Effects of High-Performing, High-Turnover Teachers on Long-Run Student Achievement: Evidence From Teach for America and found that its data did not support its conclusion that the benefits of hiring TFA teachers outweigh the costs. The study focuses on teachers in New York City public schools between 2012 and 2019. Comparing TFA teachers with similarly experienced non-TFA teachers, the study examines the relationship between teacher retention and teachers’ improved performance in the early years of their careers. The study finds that, after six years of teaching, TFA teachers continue to improve their contributions to students’ standardized test scores at higher rates than their non-TFA colleagues. This finding is well-supported by the data, although only a small number of TFA teachers remain in classrooms. Professor Reagan explains, however, that the paper’s broader conclusions overreach. Specifically, Reagan points to the conclusion that "the performance of the TFA workforce is strong enough to offset turnover," and that the "TFA performance advantage is large enough to offset turnover costs." Unfortunately, the paper fails to define the "costs" of turnover or to account for the broader effects of the instability of the labor market on schools and districts-including negative effects on school climate, financial costs to districts, and the disproportionate placement of inexperienced TFA teachers in under-resourced schools. While the study may contribute to literature related to the importance of supporting and retaining early career teachers, Professor Reagan cautions policymakers about interpreting its broader conclusions about the effects of TFA teachers and alumni. Find the review, by Emilie Mitescu Reagan, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Effects of High-Performing, High-Turnover Teachers on Long-Run Student Achievement: Evidence From Teach for America , written by Virginia S. Lovison and published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University, at: https://doi.org/10.26300/9mhe-1w08 NEPC Reviews ( https://thinktankreview.org/ ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: https://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 Emilie Mitescu Reagan : (909) 621-8075, emilie.reagan@cgu.edu 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 – The Purpose of Education: Truing the Balance Wheel Summary In The Purpose of Education: Truing the Balance Wheel, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses what it would take for Horace Mann’s ideal of education as the “great equalizer of the conditions of men” to become a reality. Mann proclaimed that education was the bedrock of democracy and that it had the potential to serve as a “balance wheel of social machinery.” Mathis recommends that in order to true the balance wheel (as Mann desired), both in-school and out-of-school factors need to be addressed. Publication Date June 2, 2016 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Strong Investments and Supports Needed for Education to Become "Great Equalizer" EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 2, 2016) – The seventh in a series of concise policy briefs addresses how Horace Mann's vision for public schools has been undermined by substantial disparities in educational resources, opportunities, and outcomes. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In The Purpose of Education: Truing the Balance Wheel , William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses what it would take for Mann's ideal of education as the "great equalizer of the conditions of men" to become a reality. Mann proclaimed that education was the bedrock of democracy and that it had the potential to serve as a "balance wheel of social machinery." Moreover, he believed that education needed to be "universal, non-sectarian, free, and that its aims should be social efficiency, civic virtue, and character, rather than mere learning for the advancement of sectarian ends." Dr. Mathis says in this concise brief, "Given the broad scope of inequities in schools and in society writ large, the most sensible approach would be to inventory the full range of social and economic needs, and address the multiple factors—which extend well beyond the traditional boundaries of schools—that contribute to the enduring and increasing opportunity gap that children experience in schools." Mathis recommends that in order to true the balance wheel (as Mann desired), both in-school and out-of-school factors need to be addressed. He suggests that policymakers and the general public: (1) embrace a broad set of goals of education; (2) ensure that all schools have the fundamental educational resources they need to promote student success; (3) expand the scope of schools in high-poverty neighborhoods to provide wrap-around services; and (4) promote a policy context that is supportive of equal opportunity. The concise brief is based on Jennifer King Rice's Investing in Equal Opportunity: What Would it Take to Build the Balance Wheel? , which was also produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure Summary This study examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools has led to improved student achievement. It concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. Publication Date January 15, 2008 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Damian Betebenner, National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORT OVERSTATES CLAIMS FOR FLORIDA’S A+ ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM Reviewer says report presents strong analysis of Florida’s system, but wrongly implies vouchers can be singled out as a cause of school improvement EAST LANSING , Mich. (Jan. 15, 2008) – A new study from the Urban Institute’s CALDER center examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools led to improved student achievement. The report concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. A new review of the study praises its comprehensive analysis of data, but identifies several key instances where the report overstates its case. The CALDER report,“Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure,” was authored by Cecilia E. Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio. The report was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Damian Betebenner of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. In their report, the authors seek to understand the extent to which accountability sanctions and incentives impact school practices and student achievement. Based on statistical analysis of the lowest performing schools, the authors conclude that, in Florida, schools receiving a grade of “F” in the state’s A+ Plan for Education actually did alter their teaching practices, leading to higher test scores. Though Betebenner commends the report for its thorough analysis of the data, he observes that the most prominent shortcoming of the report is its overstatement regarding the relationship between the pressure of accountability sanctions and improvements in school achievement. He notes that the report’s title and some of the statements in the body of the report suggest that vouchers and other accountability measures are the cause of the achievement gains though there is no supporting evidence that such a causal connection exists. Betebenner adds, “Moreover, even if it is true that the Florida policy of vouchers plus other accountability provisions did lead to the changes in policy and practice, nothing in this new research allows a policy maker to single out either vouchers or other accountability provisions (or a combination) as having such an effect.” Betebenner concludes that the Urban Institute report does offer reason to believe that one or more elements of Florida’s accountability systems “may offer … a lever” to improve student achievement. But he continues, “because changes in school policy and practice can occur for many reasons, this research should not be read to show that the accountability system ‘led to’ or ‘caused’ the student achievement increases. Nor does the new report consider whether the accountability levers in Florida are the most effective means of quickly and beneficially transforming the policies and practices of schools in a way that leads to increased student achievement.” Find the complete review by Damian Betebenner as well as a link to the CALDER center at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Damian Betebenner – (603) 516-7913; dbetebenner@nciea.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System Summary The brief, authored by Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, explores this economic burden, asking what level of resources-not just direct money outlays but also time and effort that must be ultimately be paid for in some way-is lost because of racial discrimination. Publication Date June 10, 2021 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release The Price Tag of Racial Inequality in Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New brief examines the effects of racism through an economic perspective to document the burden of inequity in the U.S. K-12 education system. EAST LANSING, MI (June 10, 2021) - Even as the U.S. education system becomes more ethnically and racially diverse, racial disparities persist with regard to school segregation, educational resources, disciplinary treatment, and ultimately educational outcomes. These disparities harm students individually and have significant societal impacts as well, including economic consequences. Educational resources are misallocated, while Black and Hispanic students often leave school with substantially lower levels of human capital and, as a result, have lower lifetime earnings on average. Together, these misallocations and losses in human capital are examined in a new NEPC policy brief, The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System . The brief, authored by Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, explores this economic burden, asking what level of resources-not just direct money outlays but also time and effort that must be ultimately be paid for in some way-is lost because of racial discrimination. Racism within the formal K-12 educational system is best understood as a carryover or symptom of societal racism. By focusing on schools, this brief should not distract from that reality. Just as importantly, focusing on just the economic price tag of racism should not distract from or minimize the human cost of racism - in terms of lost lives and other physical and psychological brutality, as well as economic inequities that may not impact the bottom-line numbers. All of these harms are part of the same systemic whole wrought by racism. And seriously addressing racism in schools and in the society housing those schools will lead to across-the-board benefits, however measured. In approaching his analysis, Professor Belfield notes that some harms cannot be included because resources haven’t been identified and calculated. But he conservatively estimates that, for each cohort of students age 18, the burden from lower human/social capital is between $42 and $92 billion in lost lifetime economic outcomes. For schools and districts, costs of racial disparities are incurred each year from K through 12th grade. Approximately and conservatively, these additional costs annually amount to $0.4 billion on school discipline, $3.8 billion on special education, $3.2 billion grade repetition, and $0.1 billion on direct spending to combat racism. These conservative estimates of the main economic burdens of racial disparities point to the need for more complete and precise data. Professor Belfield concludes with recommendations calling for further investigation to fully understand both the economic burden of racism in U.S. education and how racism in other domains of society affects racial inequalities within schools. Find The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System , by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://www.greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Clive Belfield : (917) 821-9219, clive.belfield@qc.cuny.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? Summary A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called “neovouchers.” The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Publication Date August 24, 2017 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Martin F. Lueken; Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release More balanced and empirically robust assessments needed to estimate costs and benefits of subsidizing private school choice programs, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 24, 2017) — A 2016 report from EdChoice asserted that tax credit scholarship programs through Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs) have saved state treasuries billions of dollars since 1998. The report analyzed savings from tax-credit scholarship programs. However, an academic review of the report questions the calculation method and claims made regarding the estimated financial savings for state governments. The report, The Tax-Credit Scholarship Audit: Do Publicly Funded Private School Choice Programs Save Money? , was reviewed by Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Twenty-one programs in 17 states now distribute scholarships to students via STO tax credit programs sometimes called "neovouchers." The programs allow individuals and corporations to contribute to a nonprofit organization that distributes the money in the form of scholarships. According to the authors of the report, states can save money as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools. Huerta and Koutsavlis in their review note that because states do not collect or publish data on scholarship recipients, no formal accounting exists. As a result, they recommend that policymakers "develop statutory language that will allow researchers to develop better and more accurate answers to thorny policy questions." They add that the findings of the report are too speculative to provide useful guidance for policymakers. In their conclusion, they write: "When weighing the implementation of TCSPs, policymakers must look beyond measures of cost efficiency and seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments that would allow them to make informed decisions about how to proceed with effective and equitable school reform polices." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the EdChoice report at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/tax-credit-scholarship-audit/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 678-4199, lah2013@tc.columbia.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back "Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers Summary Grow Your Own programs must also focus on improving retention of new teachers by considering how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. Publication Date May 19, 2022 Research Areas General Authors Conra D. Gist of the University of Houston Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release "Grow Your Own" Programs Can Build Equity in Local Schools and Communities, Explains New Policy Brief Key Takeaway: Grow Your Own programs must also focus on improving retention of new teachers by considering how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. EAST LANSING, MI (May 19, 2022) - Grow your own (GYO) programs are designed to recruit, prepare, and place community members as teachers in local schools. They do this through partnerships between educator preparation programs, school districts or local educational agencies, and community-based organizations. The nation is currently seeing new and thoughtful uses of the approach. Particularly intriguing are models with an explicit commitment to advancing justice and equity in teacher development, which can be leveraged to open doors to the profession for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) teachers with roots in, and understanding of, the community. These models are examined in a new NEPC policy brief from Conra D. Gist of the University of Houston, titled " Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers . The recent increase of federal, state, and district GYO initiatives to recruit community teachers is timely, signaling a new era of GYO program development in the 21st century. However, Professor Gist cautions, despite the enthusiasm about the potential of GYO programs to advance educational equity for BIPOC students, research on BIPOC educators has generally offered a cautionary note for any teacher development program that focuses too much on recruitment—without equally responsive preparation and strategic retention structures. For programs to improve retention of new teachers, they must consider how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. Even if programs evidence some upticks in teacher retention, a shortsighted approach to teacher development may leave these teachers without the guidance and resources needed to enhance their students’ learning. To help policymakers avoid these pitfalls, Professor Gist considers historical lessons from past community teacher development initiatives as well as emerging research. Professor Gist concludes by sharing recommendations for GYO program designers, policymakers, and researchers. The recommendations will help ensure that new GYO programs are crafted in ways that prepare and sustain BIPOC community teachers. Find " Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers , by Conra D. Gist, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org) . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

< Back Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods Summary When youth engage in collective-impact strategies, they have the potential to strengthen the design, implementation, and outcomes of school decision-making. A recent Urban Institute report takes up this important topic, examining what youth engagement initiatives look like within a broader reform structure. It presents a continuum of youth involvement-focused on issues of support, input, and leadership. Publication Date March 30, 2021 Research Areas Community Schools; Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review Authors Jessica Shakesprere, Mica O'Brien, and Eona Harison; Dana Mitra, Penn State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Offers Only a Clouded Understanding of Youth Engagement An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report draws attention to a range of ways that young people can be included in decision-making process, but its framework is applied in a way that creates confusion. EAST LANSING, MI (March 30, 2021) - When youth engage in collective-impact strategies, they have the potential to strengthen the design, implementation, and outcomes of school decision-making. A recent Urban Institute report takes up this important topic, examining what youth engagement initiatives look like within a broader reform structure. It presents a continuum of youth involvement-focused on issues of support, input, and leadership. Professor Dana Mitra of Penn State University reviewed Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods . She found examples of this continuum and some description of strengths and weaknesses. But ultimately she found that the continuum created more confusion than clarity, because key examples did not fit where they were placed within the framework. The report considers the challenges involved in creating youth empowerment initiatives, providing examples of three of the federal Promise Neighborhood initiative sites. Yet while the report defines youth engagement as "the intentional, meaningful and sustained involvement of young people in actions to create positive social change," the descriptions in the first phase of the continuum-mentoring, case management, service learning-are not examples of youth engaged in actions to create change. Professor Mitra found this mismatch to occur because the examples given in the report were drawn from a convenience sample without an explanation of why they illuminate the framework. Though the strengths and challenges presented do align with previous research regarding the contexts that enable and constrain youth engagement, the report fails to make these connections explicit. Overall, Professor Mitra concludes, though the report champions youth engagement, it misses an opportunity to influence future policy and practice. Find the review, by Dana L. Mitra, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Youth Engagement in Collective Impact Initiatives: Lessons from Promise Neighborhoods , written by Jessica Shakesprere, Mica O’Brien, and Eona Harison and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/103408/youth-engagement-in-collective-impact-initiatives_1.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Dana L. Mitra: (814) 441-2633, dana@psu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Fiscal Effects of School Choice: Analyzing the Costs and Savings of Private School Choice Programs in America Summary A recent report from EdChoice argues for expansion of policies that publicly fund private schools, contending that private schools could provide equal or better outcomes at lesser cost. Publication Date March 15, 2022 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Martin Lueken; Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, Teachers College, Columbia University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Another Report Misleadingly Touts Cost Savings From Voucher Programs An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report lacks the information necessary for policymakers to design equitable school reform policies. EAST LANSING, MI (March 15, 2022) - A recent report from EdChoice argues for expansion of policies that publicly fund private schools, contending that private schools could provide equal or better outcomes at lesser cost. A review released today examines the report’s methodology to determine the soundness of its claims, and it finds the cost-saving estimates to be based on unsubstantiated assumptions. Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis of Teachers College, Columbia University reviewed Fiscal Effects of School Choice: Analyzing the Costs and Savings of Private School Choice Programs in America , and found its accounting procedures to be based on conjecture. The report asserts that voucher and voucher-like (tax credit scholarship and education savings account) programs have saved state and local treasuries some $12.4 to $28.3 billion dollars as student “switchers” use those programs to leave public schools and enter private schools. The report claims that the purported savings result from the lower numbers of students in public schools coupled with lower variable per-student costs. However, Huerta and Koutsavlis point out that the cost-saving estimates of private school choice programs are based on speculative assumptions. In particular, the report guesses in estimating the number of switchers across programs and for determining resulting variable cost fluctuations. With some limited exceptions, states operating these private-school subsidy programs do not track the previous enrollment status of students who use the vouchers to subsidize their enrollment in private schools. Such lax accountability standards mean that the number of switchers and estimated fiscal savings are necessarily based on conjecture. Consequently, the report’s findings do not provide a sound base for policy decisions. Huerta and Koutsavlis provide suggestions for more detailed accounting procedures and more nuanced methodologies for calculating reliable variable student costs. Find the review, by Luis A. Huerta and Steven Koutsavlis, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Fiscal Effects of School Choice: Analyzing the Costs and Savings of Private School Choice Programs in America , written by Martin Lueken and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/The-Fiscal-Effects-of-School-Choice-WEB-reduced.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 Luis Huerta: (212) 678-4199, lah2013@tc.columbia.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More