< Back Student Mobility: Causes, Consequences, Solutions Summary This brief explores the causes and consequences of student mobility, a widespread, and often-unheralded, problem facing American schools. According to the brief, written by Russell W. Rumberger, professor of education in the Gervirtz Graduate School of Education at the University of California Santa Barbara, student mobility can negatively impact student achievement on test scores, high school graduation prospects, and even student behavior. Multiple moves and those accompanied by family disruptions produce more severe impacts. To reduce the negative impacts of student mobility, Rumberger recommends: (1) School officials should strive to reduce mobility by raising overall school quality; (2) School officials should give students and parents sufficient and timely information to make informed school transfer decisions; (3) Personnel in schools receiving transfers can prepare materials and activities before students arrive; and (4) State officials should collect and report school and district mobility rates. Publication Date May 31, 2015 Authors Russell W. Rumberger, UC Santa Barbara Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Explores Causes and Consequences of Student Mobility EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 1, 2015) – A new brief out today explores the causes and consequences of student mobility, a widespread, and often-unheralded, problem facing American schools. According to the brief, student mobility can negatively impact student achievement on test scores, high school graduation prospects, and even student behavior. Multiple moves and those accompanied by family disruptions produce more severe impacts. The brief, written by Russell Rumberger , professor of education in the Gervirtz Graduate School of Education at the University of California Santa Barbara , is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Families initiate most student mobility due to changing residences, but according to the brief, schools initiate transfers due to expulsion or school closings. A review of extant research suggests that changing schools harms normal child and adolescent development by disrupting relationships with peers and teachers, and by interrupting a student's educational program. Rumberger's brief is accompanied with a series of recommendations. However, he cautions that mediating the effects of student mobility requires solutions that are adaptable and applicable to students and schools. To reduce the negative impacts of student mobility, Rumberger recommends: School officials should strive to reduce mobility by raising overall school quality; School officials should give students and parents sufficient and timely information to make informed school transfer decisions; Personnel in schools receiving transfers can prepare materials and activities before students arrive; and State officials should collect and report school and district mobility rates. Rumberger highlights a need for expanded research efforts to study the impact of student mobility. Additionally, he suggests, "Further research is also needed to document the impact of mobility on schools and on the achievement of non-mobile students." Find the brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Russell W. Rumberger is Professor of Education in the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education at UC Santa Barbara. A faculty member at UCSB since 1987, Professor Rumberger has published widely in several areas of education: education and work; the schooling of disadvantaged students, particularly school dropouts and linguistic minority students; school effectiveness; and education policy. He directs the California Dropout Research Center ( http://cdrp.ucsb.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: Russell W. Rumberger, (805) 893-2250, russ@education.ucsb.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The System-Level Effects of Denver's Portfolio District Strategy: Technical Report Summary A recent report from the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver claimed that portfolio reforms in the Denver Public Schools led to substantial academic gains for students. As the report’s lead author told the Denver Post, "This study makes clear that the reforms helped students and strengthened the district." A review of the report concludes, however, that claims attributing those gains specifically to the portfolio reforms are not valid. The report analyzes changes in academic performance as measured by test scores and graduation rates versus comparable schools in Colorado over 11 years of the district’s experimenting with the “portfolio” approach to school district management. The portfolio approach includes central-office oversight of different school types (such as charter schools, innovation schools, and district-run schools), with widespread parental choice under a single enrollment system. The model looks to choice, competition, and accountability to drive gains in student performance. Publication Date February 6, 2023 Authors Parker Baxter, Anna Nicotera, Erik Fuller, Jakob Panzer, Todd Ely, and Paul Teske; Robert Shand, American University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Oversold Report Attributes Denver's Strong Gains to Portfolio Reforms An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report draws deserved attention to impressive academic gains over the past decade, but is less useful in ascribing causation or as a guide for other districts to replicate that success. EAST LANSING, MI (February 7, 2023) - A recent report from the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver claimed that portfolio reforms in the Denver Public Schools led to substantial academic gains for students. As the report's lead author told the Denver Post , "This study makes clear that the reforms helped students and strengthened the district." A review of the report concludes, however, that claims attributing those gains specifically to the portfolio reforms are not valid. Robert Shand, a professor at American University, reviewed The System-Level Effects of Denver's Portfolio District Strategy: Technical Report and determined that any specific policy prescriptions from the report are premature. The report analyzes changes in academic performance as measured by test scores and graduation rates versus comparable schools in Colorado over 11 years of the district's experimenting with the "portfolio" approach to school district management. The portfolio approach includes central-office oversight of different school types (such as charter schools, innovation schools, and district-run schools), with widespread parental choice under a single enrollment system. The model looks to choice, competition, and accountability to drive gains in student performance. The report's lead author, who " worked as director of charter schools for DPS during part of the period studied," has been joined by other reform backers in insisting in newspaper articles that the study provides firm support for the district to recommit itself to the full slate of portfolio policies. While the reported gains in math and ELA scores, as well as graduation rates, are indeed dramatic, Professor Shand points out that they were not experienced equally and may have widened achievement gaps. Further, claims attributing the gains specifically to the portfolio reforms are premature for at least three reasons. First, many other changes, beyond the portfolio reforms, were occurring in the district at the same time. These included changes to funding, curriculum, leadership, teacher policies, and student demographics. Second, some gains, particularly among marginalized groups of students, predated the reforms. Third, the "portfolio" reforms themselves are diffuse and difficult to parse. For these reasons, Professor Shand explains, though the report succeeds in documenting and drawing attention to real academic gains in Denver over the past decade, it is less useful in ascribing causation or as a guide to how other districts could replicate that success. Find the review, by Robert Shand, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The System-Level Effects of Denver's Portfolio District Strategy: Technical Report , written by Parker Baxter, Anna Nicotera, Erik Fuller, Jakob Panzer, Todd Ely, and Paul Teske and published by the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver, at: https://publicaffairs.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider36/research-projects-documents/center-for-education-policy-analysis/denver-report---technical-emarboed.pdf?sfvrsn=6a9745bb_2 NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Robert Shand : ( 202) 885-6917 , rshand@american.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Policy Makers Guide to The 65% Solution Proposals 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 December 31, 2005 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review 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 Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: 2009 Update Summary This report examines issues concerning the funding formula used for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program and finds that it generates a net savings to taxpayers in Wisconsin but imposes a large fiscal burden on taxpayers in Milwaukee. Publication Date April 26, 2009 Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Voucher Cost Report Provides Useful Starting Point April 29, 2009 While report on Milwaukee program sheds light on vouchers' fiscal impact, it omits discussion of important factors EAST LANSING, MI (April 29, 2009)—A recent report finds that the Milwaukee voucher program offers a net savings to taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin but places a disproportionate financial burden on taxpayers in the city of Milwaukee. A new review concludes that the report offers valuable insights on the fiscal impact of voucher programs. However, it also questions the fiscal benefits and notes that the report omits some important factors essential to a more complete analysis. The report, The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program , was written by Robert Costrell for the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Dr. Clive Belfield of Queens College/City University of New York. Dr. Belfield is also co-director of the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Costrell’s report is an update of earlier work examining the funding formula of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), which provides vouchers to low-income families in the Milwaukee Public School system to attend private schools. Since its inception in 1990, MPCP has grown into the largest district voucher program in the U.S., enrolling upwards of 20,000 students in private secular and religious schools in the current academic year, at a cost to taxpayers of $6,607 per student in 2009. By comparing that cost to the projected cost of teaching those students in public schools—$9,462 for 2009—the report estimates a net public-sector savings of $37 million a year from the program. But, as Belfield notes, “the report also concludes that this net fiscal benefit is not allocated evenly.” Milwaukee taxpayers lose $45 million a year, while other property taxpayers save $52 million and state taxpayers save $30 million. So, while the end result is calculated as a $37 million gain, there are big winners and losers. Recent attempts to rectify the disparity by refining the state’s formulas for aid to the city school district have failed, the report concludes. The new report “is a useful guide to the financing of the MPCP,” Belfield writes in his review. “It makes clear how the funding systems in Milwaukee and Wisconsin operate and how they interact to yield a net resource transfer from the city to the state.” Despite this strength, Belfield writes in his review, the report falls short in some key areas. Its calculation of net taxpayer savings from vouchers assumes, based on only minimal evidence, that 90 percent of voucher students would have attended public schools without the voucher. Change that to 80 percent, however, and the savings fall, and if only 70 percent of voucher students switch from public schools—an assumption that isn’t unreasonable, Belfield notes—there are no net savings whatsoever. Thus, the report offers the precise number of $37 million in savings, but the true figure could be very different. Furthermore, Belfield writes, the Arkansas report does not take into account two other factors: 1) school districts costs incurred in the service of voucher students, such as transportation and administrative expenses, which would further reduce any voucher savings; and 2) the question of whether the education of voucher students costs less on average than that of the public school students who stay behind -- because, for example, the students who apply for vouchers are less likely to require special education services. “It is to the credit of this report that it makes clear the importance of analyzing the funding formula for vouchers in Milwaukee,” Belfield concludes. “However, it does not consider many of the possible policy ramifications for efficient and equitable implementation of voucher programs.” Find Clive Belfield’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: Clive Belfield (718) 997-5448; Belfield@qc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Improving Trauma-Informed Education: Responding to Student Adversity With Equity-Centered, Systemic Support Summary Talking about education in the United States without talking about trauma has become increasingly difficult. Today’s youth suffer through challenges on multiple fronts, going far beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and its related social and educational fallout. Children experience trauma because of social conditions such as poverty, homelessness, family separation related to immigration, and increasingly frequent school shootings and community violence. Publication Date November 14, 2022 Authors Stacy Gherardi, New Mexico State University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release How Trauma-Informed Education Needs to Change Key Takeaway : Trauma-informed policy in education cannot ignore the social conditions creating trauma. EAST LANSING, MI (November 15, 2022) - Talking about education in the United States without talking about trauma has become increasingly difficult. Today’s youth suffer through challenges on multiple fronts, going far beyond the COVID-19 pandemic and its related social and educational fallout. Children experience trauma because of social conditions such as poverty, homelessness, family separation related to immigration, and increasingly frequent school shootings and community violence. Schools, unsurprisingly, have been asked to heal these traumatic wounds. But the approaches currently used may be missing key elements. NEPC today released a policy brief, Improving Trauma-Informed Education: Responding to Student Adversity With Equity-Centered, Systemic Support , in which author Stacy Gherardi of New Mexico State University explores the promise and the challenges of trauma-informed education. Many schools have responded to students’ trauma-related needs, offering counseling and emotional supports as well as educational practices that increase individual students’ awareness of and responsiveness to the impact of trauma on their lives. In doing so, however, they tend to simply accept the social causes—the structural dimensions of trauma as it occurs both inside and outside of schools. As a result, educators are expected to respond to trauma, but their training never prepares them to understand or engage with those causes. Their resulting decontextualized understanding of trauma can lead educators to implement deficit-oriented responses arising from their never acknowledging the role of schools and social policy in perpetuating the trauma—or the reasonable responses to the trauma by the children and youth. In addition, trauma-informed practices are often treated as an intervention for affected students, isolated from other efforts to improve the school environment or provide holistic student support. In the brief, Dr. Gherardi suggests that trauma-informed education may be best designed as a systemwide commitment, rather than an intervention, and that the concept of equity-centered trauma-informed education may offer a productive path to addressing the conceptual and implementation challenges critics have noted. Specifically, equity-centered trauma-informed education is rooted in social justice concerns, highlighting the systemic roots of trauma as well as the need for equitable, systemic solutions. To support effective integration of such an approach and address identified weaknesses of trauma-informed education to date, the brief offers specific recommendations for district and school leaders. And, in the interest of not only responding to trauma but of working to prevent it, also included are recommendations for state and local policymakers to promote broader social and education policy changes through specific funding strategies. Find Improving Trauma-Informed Education: Responding to Student Adversity With Equity-Centered, Systemic Support , by Stacy Gherardi, at: https://greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar : (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger : (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Stacy Gherardi : (575) 646-0306, sgherard@nmsu.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 Outmatched: Special Education Can't Solve Problems Rooted in the Education Delivery System Summary While special education in the United States has advanced civil rights and educational equity, persistent concerns about inequity, labeling, and segregation remain. A recent Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) report proposes a dramatic restructuring of special education, arguing that rising identification rates and persistent achievement gaps stem from a general education system built for uniformity rather than diversity. Publication Date January 21, 2026 Authors Ashley Jochim and Alexander Kurz; Federico Waitoller, University of Illinois Chicago Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Seeking to Reform Special Education Leaves Key Questions Unanswered JANUARY 22, 2026 Report Seeking to Reform Special Education Leaves Key Questions Unanswered An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: CRPE's proposed systemwide reforms rest on limited evidence and offer little concrete guidance for protecting students with disabilities. GRAND RAPIDS, MI JANUARY 22, 2026) - While special education in the United States has advanced civil rights and educational equity, persistent concerns about inequity, labeling, and segregation remain. A recent Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE) report proposes a dramatic restructuring of special education, arguing that rising identification rates and persistent achievement gaps stem from a general education system built for uniformity rather than diversity. However, in his review of Outmatched: Special Education Can't Solve Problems Rooted in the Education Delivery System , University of Illinois Chicago professor Federico Waitoller warns that the report moves prematurely toward solutions without establishing a sufficiently evidence-based understanding of the underlying problems-or those proposed solutions. The report argues that because general education is insufficiently responsive to diverse student needs, special education has become a default solution for unmet instructional challenges. It therefore calls for replacing the dual general–special education structure with a unified, needs-based system. The analysis, however, has significant weaknesses. Its claims rest on broad assertions about systemic design flaws, supported by only limited descriptive data and selective use of research. Although the report identifies real and well-documented problems, such as reliance on psychological evaluations and inequitable access to services, it provides no empirical evidence linking these features to rising identification rates or widening achievement gaps. The report also overlooks decades of scholarship on disability identification, disproportionality, and system design, and it does not engage with counterarguments that defend special education as a necessary specialized system. While the recommendations are ambitious, they are not empirically grounded. Key questions about legal protections, expertise, accountability, and instructional quality for students with disabilities remain unanswered. As such, Prof. Waitoller concludes, policymakers are left with little direct guidance for reforms that would reliably safeguard the rights and learning needs of students with disabilities. Find the review, written by Federico R. Waitoller, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Outmatched: Special Education Can't Solve Problems Rooted in the Education Delivery System , authored by Ashley Jochim and Alexander Kurz and published by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, at: https://crpe.org/outmatched-special-education-cant-solve-problems-rooted-in-the-education-delivery-system/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Federico R. Waitoller 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 - Addressing School Environment and Safety for LGBT Students Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research. Citing well-settled legal mandates, the brief makes it clear that school district employees must provide a safe and supporting learning environment for all students. The brief highlights a previous legislative brief authored by Stuart Biegel and Sheila James Kuehl, a collaboration between the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, with financial support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Publication Date May 22, 2013 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas School Climate & Student Support Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Safety Remains A Concern for LGBT Students Research-based options for policymakers available to take corrective action through school policies and legislation EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 23, 2013) – All students in the United States have the right to be free of abuse, harassment, or attack at school – yet many students still face school safety issues because of their sexual orientation and gender identity. Therefore, it is imperative that schools create healthy, welcoming environments, conducive to learning for all students. A new brief summarizes recent education policy research and offers suggestions to policymakers for addressing school environment and safety issues for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered (LGBT) youth. The ninth in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing relevant findings in education policy research provides recommendations about school climate, curriculum, and legislation. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), prepared the brief Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Addressing School Environment and Safety for LGBT Students . According to the brief, the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network (GLSEN) found widespread harassment of LGBT youth in 2011. The survey found 81.9% of LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, 38.3% reported being physically harassed, and 18.3% reported being physically assaulted. These are significant and troubling numbers but the good news is that the harassment and discrimination numbers are on the decline. Nevertheless, "Scholarship focusing on gay and gender-non-conforming youth consistently finds that large percentages of LGBT students in K-12 public schools are continuing to experience ongoing challenges above and beyond those of the typical adolescent, such as negative self-image." The majority of the harassed students did not report their abuse to school officials, believing they would take no action or it would make the situation worse. Citing well-settled legal mandates, the brief makes it clear that school district employees must provide a safe and supporting learning environment for all students. The brief highlights a previous legislative brief authored by Stuart Biegel and Sheila James Kuehl, a collaboration between the National Education Policy Center and the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, with financial support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Citing research by Biegel and Kuehl, Mathis spells out a series of affirmative steps in guiding principles and policy recommendations to ensure schools are welcoming and safe for LGBT students. Addressing school environment and safety requires advances in three key areas of school policy: school climate, curriculum and pedagogy, and school sports. Specific policy recommendations include: Ending discriminatory disciplinary practices and the inappropriate referral of LGBT students to special education. Developing and implementing LGBT-related professional development, locally determined and agreed upon by faculty and staff, for all school-site personnel. Encouraging student-athletes to participate in targeted programs such as initiatives addressing bullying and hate violence, as well as gay-straight alliances, safe zones, and wellness programs. Find this brief on the Great Lakes Center website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options.php Addressing School Environment and Safety for LGBT Students is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced this brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options 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: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The 2010 State School Report Card: A state-by-state analysis of learning, efficiency, and standards Summary This report ranks states on four indices of school performance: learning, education expenditure, quality of state standards, and an overall achievement grade based on the average of the first three indices. The authors use the data to advocate for Parent Trigger legislation and school choice policies. Publication Date December 13, 2010 Authors Edward Fierros and Bridget Ann Rooney, Villanova University Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release State School Performance Report Card Gets an 'F' December 14, 2010 Reviewers find Heartland analysis flawed, biased and of little value Edward G. Fierros, Villanova University (610) 519-6969; Edward.fierros@villanova.edu Teri Battaglieri, Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (517) 203-2940; greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org EAST LANSING, Mi. (December 14, 2010) –The Heartland Institute's 2010 State School Report Card: A state-by-state analysis of learning, efficiency, and standards, purports to rank states on student achievement, education expenditures and adherence to learning standards. In a review of that report released today, Edward Fierros and Bridget Ann Rooney of Villanova University find that it cites limited, partisan research, provides no rationale to support its methods and fails to control for underlying variations from state to state in demographics and other characteristics. The review, part of the Think Twice think tank review project, was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Heartland report ranks the 50 states and the District of Columbia according to four indices: (1) gains or losses in National Assessment of Education Progress math and reading test scores from 2005 to 2009; (2) an "index of outcomes" that calculates costs per graduate, per student, per "learning gain over time" and "per unit of learning between grades," and the ratio of teachers to staff – all in the name of measuring "efficiency"; (3) "standards" – which combines a ranking concerning states' inflation of proficiency claims and rankings (grades) assigned to each state by the Fordham Institute on the "rigor and content" of math, reading and science standards; and (4) a composite score derived from each state's first three indices. Fierros and Rooney explain that all three of the core indices are flawed – two of them seriously so. They note, for instance, that the report's system of assigning letter grades based on the rankings is problematic because it forces roughly the same number of states into each letter grade category. This approach "guarantees that there will be failing states even though the numerical differences between the states are often not very large." While many states have nearly identical scores, the methods used to calculate their final rank exaggerates their differences. The Heartland report calls for expanded school choice options and the adoption of "Parent Trigger laws" whereby parents whose children attend a "failing" school can force a charter school or other conversion. According to Fierros and Rooney, these recommendations aren't based on the report card calculations, "but rather on several brief and uncritical references to past think tank reports." At the same time they note the report ignores research literature that finds little or no benefit from such policy prescriptions. While a study using national data to examine states' education performance has the potential for sparking "a deep and careful examination" of what might account for differences in school performance among states, the Heartland Report Card is not that study, Fierros and Rooney conclude. Its methods skew state-level education outcomes, its analyses are simplistic and it lacks evidence to support its advocacy for school choice policies as a remedy. "For these reasons," Fierros and Rooney conclude, "the report is not useful in guiding policy or practice." Find Edward Fierros's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Fierros_SchoolPerformance.pdf Find 2010 State School Report Card: A state-by-state analysis of learning, efficiency, and standards , by Herbert J. Walberg and Marc Oestreich, on the web at: http://www.heartland.org/article/28630/2010_State_School_Report_Card.html . 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-2010-state-school-report ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis Center on Reinventing Public Education Summary The report finds that differences in charter and district school special education enrollment rates are far smaller than is claimed in recent federal reports and other literature. It finds disparities between elementary and secondary enrollment patterns, and variation among charter authorizers. The report argues against one-size-fits-all 'enrollment targets.' Publication Date December 5, 2012 Authors Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Special Education Under-enrollment Study Fails Test EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 6, 2012) – A recent report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), at the University of Washington, compares special education enrollment patterns in charter schools and district-run schools in New York State. The report suggests that charter schools may be doing better at enrolling students with special needs than previously reported. The report, New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis , was written by Robin Lake, Bethany Gross, and Patrick Denice and commissioned by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Bruce Baker, Rutgers University, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report implies that charter schools perform well in serving special needs students. The authors of the study suggest that factors other than discrimination explain disparities in enrollment of students with special needs in charter schools. In his review, Bruce Baker says, "When not spun and when properly understood, the report's findings are relatively simple, straightforward and unsurprising." However, Baker finds that the study's main contention, that differences in enrollment rates among special education students are smaller than claimed on federal reports and other literature, is unsupported. His review also finds that the study relies very little on existing research regarding special education enrollments in New York State or New York City. Baker does agree with the report that state average comparisons between charter and non-charter schools without regard to location or age ranges of children served may not be accurate or sufficiently nuanced. Baker says "the report's main findings properly read, are consistent with earlier research: this set of charter schools – the vast majority in the sample observed – tend to systematically under-serve children with disabilities." "The report's objective appears to be to provide the appearance of an empirical basis for an advocacy goal – convincing policymakers across states that it would be unnecessary or wrongheaded to adopt 'enrolment target' policies to address a special education under-enrollment problem that may not exist." Find Bruce Baker's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis , by Robin Lake, Betheny Gross, and Patrick Denice on the web: http://www.crpe.org/publications/new-york-state-special-education-enrollment-analysis Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496 ext. 8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Squeezing the Public School Districts: The Fiscal Effects of Eliminating the Louisiana Scholarship Program / Two recent papers from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas predicted the budgetary consequences of ending the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The two closely allied papers concluded that terminating the LSP would not relieve pressure on public spending in Louisiana. The first paper uses an economic model to conclude that terminating the LSP would increase costs. While, the second paper confirms the findings from the first paper and advances that the findings would apply to almost all school districts in Louisiana. Summary Two recent papers from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas predicted the budgetary consequences of ending the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The two closely allied papers concluded that terminating the LSP would not relieve pressure on public spending in Louisiana. A new review of the papers says that the findings are reasonable, but they fail to make a convincing case. Publication Date September 28, 2016 Authors Corey A. DeAngelis & Julie R. Trivitt; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release A new Think Twice review of two papers on the Louisiana Scholarship Program EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 29, 2016) — Two recent papers from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas predicted the budgetary consequences of ending the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The two closely allied papers concluded that terminating the LSP would not relieve pressure on public spending in Louisiana. A new review of the papers says that the findings are reasonable, but they fail to make a convincing case. Clive Belfield, Queens College, CUNY, reviewed Squeezing the Public School Districts: The Fiscal Effects of Eliminating the Louisiana Scholarship Program and The Fiscal Effect of Eliminating the Louisiana Scholarship Program on State Education for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The first paper uses an economic model to conclude that terminating the LSP would increase costs. While, the second paper confirms the findings from the first paper and advances that the findings would apply to almost all school districts in Louisiana. In his review Belfield says, "These papers are useful in that they apply an economic model to understanding the consequences of voucher systems." However, he says that the papers do not make a fully convincing case. Additionally, Belfield questions the omission of contradictory evidence provided by the state's Legislative Fiscal Office. Belfield concludes, "There may be savings or additional expenditures, depending on several key parameters which have not been precisely estimated." Regardless of the economic consequences, Belfield adds, "the poor performance of LSP might in itself be justification for termination." Find the review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the papers on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/category/department-of-education-reform/scdp/lsp/ 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of A 21st Century School System in the Mile-High City Summary A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute advocated for expanded use of the “portfolio model” of school governance. The report drew on contemporary reforms adopted by the Denver Public Schools. It claimed that reforms enacted by the Denver Public Schools (viz., portfolio model, school closings, and charter expansion) positively impacted student test scores. The goal was to highlight Denver as a success story that should be copied elsewhere. Publication Date July 25, 2016 Authors David Osborne; Terrenda White, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report praising Denver school reforms not supported with evidence, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jul. 26, 2016) — A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute advocated for expanded use of the "portfolio model" of school governance. The report drew on contemporary reforms adopted by the Denver Public Schools, which include aggressively closing public schools and expanding charter schools and charter networks. An academic review released today finds that the report oversteps its claims in an attempt to positively portray Denver's reforms. The report , A 21st Century School System in the Mile-High City , was reviewed by Terrenda White, University of Colorado Boulder, for the Think Twice think thank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report, funded by the Walton Family Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, claimed that reforms enacted by the Denver Public Schools (viz., portfolio model, school closings, and charter expansion) positively impacted student test scores. The goal was to highlight Denver as a success story that should be copied elsewhere. However, White's review raises serious concerns about the claims made. Most notably, White finds that the only data presented were simple charts that lacked any conventional statistical analysis. Regarding the report's use of research literature, White finds that the report drew primarily from advocacy publications from partisan foundations. In her conclusion, White says: "Ironically, the report celebrates Denver's portfolio strategy and its expansion of charter schools as a model of 21st century reform at a time when other cities have discovered that charters are not panaceas." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A 21st Century School System on the web: http://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/education/21st-century-school-system-mile-high-city/ 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: Terrenda White, (404) 661-2439, terrenda.white@colorado.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 How School Choice Can Create Jobs for South Carolina Summary This report argues that school choice, in the form of vouchers to attend private schools, would create significant job opportunities in five poor, rural counties in South Carolina. Publication Date January 13, 2010 Authors Joydeep Roy, Georgetown University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Research uses bad methodology, weak data and incorporates mistakes of earlier work, reviewer finds EAST LANSING, Mich., (January 14, 2010) – A recent report contends that providing private school vouchers would create job opportunities in five poor, rural South Carolina counties. A new review of that report, however, finds that it is built on seriously flawed assumptions and thus offers little insight into the effects of school vouchers. The report, How School Choice Can Create Jobs for South Carolina , was published by the South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation. It was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Joydeep Roy of Georgetown University and the Economic Policy Institute in Washington, D.C. How School Choice Can Create Jobs for South Carolina adopts the assumptions and analyses set forth in an earlier study. Both studies assert that communities where school vouchers are offered display higher rates of entrepreneurship and self-employment. The argument is apparently that vouchers are linked to individual freedom for those involved – in contrast to the non-freedom associated with government-run schools – and that the decrease in government involvement and increase in competition for students is supposed to spur competition and innovation, which is linked to self-employment and entrepreneurship. Extrapolating data from the earlier study, the new report purports to precisely calculate the number of firms and jobs that would be created with a voucher program in place in the five South Carolina counties. Yet as Roy points out in his review, the original study suffers from a series of methodological flaws. Most importantly, the study is based on weak data that simply cannot confirm any kind of causal relationship between vouchers and entrepreneurial status. Roy also notes that the entire argument in the earlier study was based on voucher programs in place by 1990, but the study never identifies the programs. In fact, the only programs that appear to have existed at that time were in Milwaukee voucher program (begun in 1990) and in Vermont and Maine, which had long had quirky tuition programs allowing remote, rural students to attend private, non-religious schools. "Lessons drawn from these unique programs and circumstances may have limited applicability to other areas and programs," Roy observes. The new report uncritically applies the results of that earlier, flawed research, Roy writes. The report then adds another unproven set of assumptions. Most importantly, it assumes without justification that there exists a significant "multiplier effect" in jobs created that are spun off of entrepreneurial activities. That is, it "assumes that small businesses would expand by 25 percent due to voucher programs, and that these will employ people at the same rate as existing small businesses of the same size," Roy explains. But, "new small businesses are unlikely to generate the same employment prospects as existing, older ones, since the latter have—by definition—been in the business for a while." So the report comes up with an essentially speculative number representing increased self-employment, decides that this is the equivalent of entrepreneurship and that these new entrepreneurs are starting small businesses that mirror existing South Carolina small businesses in terms of their size and employment. The upshot, says Roy, is a report that relies more on rhetoric and less on authentic research. "The rhetoric of the report and the approaches used suggest a clear goal of championing a positive effect of voucher programs, with little or no concern for providing a careful analysis of the question at hand," Roy concludes. With inadequate methodology and "significant biases and omissions" undermining any potential for valid findings, it offers "little, if any, help in guiding policymakers, educators or the public." Find Joydeep Roy's review of the report, How School Choice Can Create Jobs for South Carolina, as well as a link to the report on the web at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Joydeep Roy, (202) 331-5526; jroy@epi.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More