< 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

< Back Why Indiana Parents Choose: A Cross-sector Survey of Parents’ views in a Robust School Choice Environment Summary A recent report published by EdChoice attempted to examine parents’ experiences with school choice in Indiana through a survey. Hanover Research compiled the survey results with the report authored by staff at EdChoice, an advocacy organization that favors school choice. Based on the survey, the report claimed that parents were highly satisfied with voucher and tax credit scholarship programs. Moreover, the report suggested that the findings support the expansion of school choice programs. Publication Date November 21, 2017 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Andrew D. Catt and Evan Rhinesmith; Jeanne M. Powers, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Survey does not add to our knowledge about school choice in Indiana, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 21, 2017) — A recent report published by EdChoice attempted to examine parents' experiences with school choice in Indiana through a survey. Hanover Research compiled the survey results with the report authored by staff at EdChoice, an advocacy organization that favors school choice. An academic review of the report finds problematic data and weak statistical analyses that limit the usefulness of the report for policymaking. Jeanne Powers , Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University, reviewed the report, Why Indiana Parents Choose: A Cross-sector Survey of Parents' Views in a Robust School Choice Environment , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Based on the survey, the report claimed that parents were highly satisfied with voucher and tax credit scholarship programs. Moreover, the report suggested that the findings support the expansion of school choice programs. Powers writes that the findings from the report should be cautiously interpreted, because parent-satisfaction survey data almost always yield strongly positive findings. She also notes that a large sector of the population in Indiana do not participate in school choice. In a review of the report, Powers finds that the report falls short in several ways, including: The survey utilized three incompatible data collection methods; The statistical analyses are too week to draw clear conclusions; The report seems designed to advance an agenda rather than provide substantive answers to important policy questions; and It provides little new information about parents' experiences with their children's schools. In her conclusion, Powers writes: "While organized using the format of a research study, the report's failure to ground its analyses in the broader research literature, employ conventional sampling techniques, and provide relevant statistical details renders the report of little value for advancing educational policy and practice." Find the review by Jeanne Powers on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the EdChoice report on the web at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Why-Indiana-Parents-Choose-2.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible 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: Jeanne M. Powers, (480) 965–0841, jeanne.powers@asu.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 Educational Innovation and Diversification in School Choice Plans Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date March 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Costs of Online Learning Summary This report analyzes the cost drivers of virtual and blended-learning schools compared to traditional brick-and-mortar schools and determines that it's far cheaper for students to be education online. Publication Date March 6, 2012 Research Areas School Funding; Technology & AI Authors Jennifer King Rice, University of Maryland Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Report lacks evidence to claim virtual schools cheaper than brick-and-mortar schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 6, 2012) – A recent Thomas B. Fordham Institute report analyzing the cost drivers of virtual and blended-learning schools compared to traditional brick-and-mortar schools uses no empirical evidence to support its conclusion that it's significantly cheaper for students to be educated online, according to an academic review released today. The Fordham report, The Costs of Online Learning, determined that virtual schools cost $6,400 per student on average, compared to $10,000 per student spent in brick-and-mortar schools. The report also claimed blended-learning schools cost $8,900 per student. Jennifer King Rice, a professor at the University of Maryland, 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. "It is surprising that this report cites no empirical evidence on the costs or effectiveness of the various approaches to online learning," Rice wrote in her review. According to Rice, the approaches used in the report are too general and not evidenced-based. The report also does not review economies of scale that would influence the per-pupil costs of online learning. "Given the growing use of technology in K-12 education as a way to improve student outcomes and decrease costs, policymakers need evidence on how best to invest limited resources. However, the report's lack of clarity surrounding the models being studied and methodological shortcomings limit its utility," Rice concluded. Find Jennifer King Rice's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Costs of Online Learning by Tamara Butler Battaglino, Matt Halderman, and Eleanor Laurens at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-costs-of-online-learning.html 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 support provided by 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 --###-- 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 . Contact: Jennifer King Rice: (301) 405-5580, jkr@umd.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

< Back The Impact of Milwaukee Charter Schools on Student Achievement Summary This report finds that there are no math achievement gains and small gains in reading in students who attend Milwaukee charter schools when compared to traditional public schools. The report also found that there is no evidence that the presence of charter schools influences that performance in traditional public schools. Publication Date May 5, 2009 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Robert Bifulco, Syracuse University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Milwaukee Charter School Report Generally Sound May 5, 2009 Review of report raises key questions but praises contribution EAST LANSING, MI (May 5, 2009) – A recently released report on Milwaukee charter schools found that charter school students showed no significant gains in reading scores and only small increases in math scores when compared with students in traditional public schools. The report also concluded that there is no evidence that competition from charter schools impacts the performance of traditional public schools. A new review of the report raises validity questions but notes strengths in the methods used. When the results are considered together with the large body of research on charter schools, the conclusion that charter schools should not be expected to have large effects on achievement in urban schools is found by the reviewer to be reasonable. The report “The Impact of Milwaukee Charter Schools on Student Achievement” was published by the Brookings Institution. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Robert Bifulco, Associate Professor of Public Administration at the Maxwell School of Syracuse University. Probably the most noteworthy finding from the report is that, even though no significant benefit in reading scores was associated with charter attendance, the report did find a small but statistically significantly higher math test score improvement among charter school students compared with conventional public school students. Yet it also found that those gains were largely limited to earlier years of the charter school program and to students in their first year in a charter school. In his review, Bifulco observes that the statistical methods used in the Brookings report have been used in many other charter school studies and have been endorsed by a panel of experts on school choice research. Despite their “widely recognized strengths,” however, these same methods “have come under sharp criticism,” he notes, and should probably not be used by themselves. For instance, Bifulco points out that the study’s charter school sample excludes students who have attended only charter schools, who may be different in important, unmeasured ways from those (included) students who transferred in or out of charters during their schooling years. A further concern, acknowledged but not fully resolved by the Brookings authors, is that Wisconsin changed its achievement test midway through the study. Given these and other “threats to the validity of the estimates presented in this report, robustness checks and alternative estimates are important.” The study results, Bifulco concludes, “are most informative when considered in the context of the larger body of research on charter schools”—namely, that charters produce “at best modest effects on student performance.” In that light, he says, the authors are wise to point out that charters offer “no silver bullet” in the school-reform arsenal. Find Robert Bifulco’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Robert Bifulco (315) 443-3114; rbifulco@syr.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2017 Summary In the five years since the first NEPC Annual Report on Virtual Education was released in 2013, virtual education continues to be a focal point for policymakers. Proponents argue that virtual education can expand student choices and improve the efficiency of public education. In particular, full-time virtual schools (also sometimes referred to as virtual charter schools, virtual academies, online schools or cyber schools) have attracted a great deal of attention. Many believe that online curriculum can be tailored to individual students more effectively than curriculum in traditional classrooms, giving it the potential to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. Further, the promise of lower costs—primarily for instructional personnel and facilities—makes virtual schools financially appealing to both policymakers and for-profit providers. The 2017 NEPC Annual Report contributes to the existing evidence related to virtual education, and so to debates surrounding it. It provides objective analysis of the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools; available research on virtual school practices and policy; and an overview of recent state efforts to craft new policy. Publication Date April 11, 2017 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Charisse Gulosino, Christopher Shank, Caryn Davidson, Michael K. Barbour, Luis A. Huerta, Sheryl Rankin Shafer, Jennifer King Rice, and David Nitkin 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