< Back The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Teacher Differences Summary This report describes serious problems with teacher evaluation systems based on surveys conducted in 12 school districts in four states. The report urges changes to establish more effective evaluation systems that will be able to discern the highest and lowest quality teachers. Publication Date August 5, 2009 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Authors Raymond Pecheone and Ruth Chung Wei, Stanford University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ‘Widget Effect’ Report Draws Praise for Analysis of Teacher Evaluation Systems August 5, 2009 Critique of evaluation systems is strong, but omissions in methodology and failure to report on promising strategies are weaknesses, according to reviewers EAST LANSING, Mi., Aug. 5, 2009 – A recent report from the New Teacher Project describes serious problems with teacher evaluation systems. The report, based on survey results from 12 school districts in four states, urges changes to establish more effective systems that will be able to discern the highest (and lowest) quality teachers. A new review of that report finds it well grounded and praises the report’s policy recommendations as sound and consistent with prior research. The review does, however, note that the report lacks important details about its own methods and fails to consider or to draw upon any promising teacher evaluation strategies in current use. The report, The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Teacher Differences , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Raymond Pecheone, Co-Executive Director of the Stanford University School Redesign Network and Director of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers, and Ruth Chung Wei, Director of Assessment Research and Development at the Stanford University School Redesign Network. Pecheone and Wei credit The Widget Effect with presenting an extensive analysis of teacher evaluation systems in 12 districts across four states. The report is based on surveys of current and former teachers as well as administrators; on an examination of teacher evaluation records in the districts surveyed; and on interviews with school district leaders, school board officials, labor relations and human resources experts, and union leaders. Its extensive reporting of the data collected enables the authors “to build a compelling case for the inadequacy of the current teacher evaluation processes, uses, and policies in the four states,” Pecheone and Wei write. The report falls short, however, in its omission of key details that might help readers to understand the sampling choices. The reviewers write: “it is unclear … how and why particular districts were selected, and whether they represent the range of teacher evaluation practices being implemented in school districts and states across the United States.” Omissions in the report’s description of its methodology (e.g., sampling strategy and survey response rates) and its sample lead to questions about the generalizability of the findings. Pecheone and Wei also point out that the report does not consider important prior research in two areas: (1) why many evaluation systems don’t work well (for example, because they rely on administrators with limited time and pedagogical expertise, tools and processes that have a limited relationship with effective teaching); and (2) how some innovative and effective evaluation systems do work. The latter omission is particularly important, because considering these evaluation systems and research about those systems would have allowed the authors to draw upon current successes in designing their recommendations. Transforming the system rather than tinkering around the edges, Pecheone and Wei conclude, will require broader thinking and a commitment to provide much greater investments and support for innovation to build, test, and audit evaluation systems that can stand up to public scrutiny and be practically feasible. Find the review by Raymond Pecheone and Ruth Chung Wei and a link to The Widget Report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Raymond L. Pecheone (650) 723-4106; pecheone@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Report Provides Weak Justification for Expansion of Newark Charters Summary A recent Manhattan Institute report attempts to estimate the effects of charter school enrollment on student test scores in Newark, NJ – a city whose charter sector has been under intense scrutiny – and finds positive effects on English language and math test scores. The report deems these effects "large" as compared to other types of educational interventions. Publication Date March 17, 2020 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Marcus A. Winters; Dr. Mark Weber, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Provides Weak Justification for Expansion of Newark Charters An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Though it credibly estimates the magnitude of a charter school test score effect, report's failure to address critical policy questions limits its use for policymakers. EAST LANSING, MI (March 17, 2020) - A recent Manhattan Institute report attempts to estimate the effects of charter school enrollment on student test scores in Newark, NJ – a city whose charter sector has been under intense scrutiny – and finds positive effects on English language and math test scores. The report deems these effects "large" as compared to other types of educational interventions. Dr. Mark Weber of the New Jersey Policy Perspective and Rutgers University reviewed Charter Schools in Newark: The Effect on Student Test Scores , which uses a random component of Newark's school enrollment system to isolate the effect of charter schools on test score outcomes. The report's method creates a natural experiment that compares outcomes between students who were offered charter seats and those who were not. This creates strong internal validity for the report's positive test score findings. However, the generalizability of the findings is undermined by the fact that students who apply to charter schools differ significantly from the greater Newark student population. Students who are offered seats in charter schools are, for example, less likely to be English language learners or have special education needs. But the report never addresses this core issue of external validity. The report also fails to address a key issue of scalability and sustainability. Teachers in the studied charter schools are less likely to remain in their jobs more than a few years, resulting in schools employing relatively few experienced teachers. This allows the schools to have lower overall personnel costs, even as they pay their inexperienced teachers more than comparably inexperienced public district school teachers, and even as they provide longer school days. More time in school, in all likelihood, will positively impact test scores. However, can the studied charter schools maintain this financial model as they expand and enroll a different student population? While the report confirms previous work showing a positive charter effect on test scores in Newark, it fails to address these and other critical issues that stakeholders must understand to formulate good charter school policy in New Jersey and elsewhere. Accordingly, even for policymakers who equate test scores with overall learning, Weber concludes that while the report has credible internal validity, it has only limited policy use. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Charter Schools in Newark: The Effect on Student Test Scores , written by Marcus A. Winters and published by Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/charter-schools-newark-effect-on-student-test-scores-MW.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: http://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: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Mark Weber: (908) 358-5828, mark.weber@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn from Research Summary This policy brief outlines authoritative research documenting a wide range of useful criteria that should be used together to form the foundation for high quality assessment of teacher quality and effectiveness. These criteria include: classroom observations and evaluations, portfolios prepared by teachers, peer review and value-added models based on student standardized testing. The brief cautions against relying solely or in large part on student test scores for teacher assessment as they are unreliable and encourages policymakers to adopt assessment systems that rely on multiple sources of information. Publication Date December 7, 2010 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Patricia H. Hinchey, Penn State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New report offers clear guidance for policymakers December 7, 2010 Research supports using multiple measures to evaluate teacher effectiveness FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE EAST LANSING, Mich., (December 7, 2010)—As New York City awaits a court ruling on whether its school system can legally release to the public the value-added performance ratings for New York City teachers, the education field still awaits proof that those test-score numbers are really the best way to evaluate teachers. As shown in a new policy brief released today, teachers' effectiveness and quality can and should be evaluated, but sensible and useful evaluation depends on a balanced system where value-added models using student standardized test scores play only a limited role. The brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to the NEPC research review prepared by Pennsylvania State University professor of education Patricia Hinchey, supporting and sustaining high-quality teaching depends on combining many sources of valuable information. The brief describes several different teacher evaluation methods and explains that no single method of teacher evaluation is sufficient by itself. Each has weaknesses that can be compensated for when combined with others. These methods include: Classroom observations and evaluations by administrators Portfolios prepared by teachers that document a range of teaching behaviors and responsibilities; and Peer review The brief, Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn from Research , notes that most current discussions about improving teacher quality tend to be imbalanced, focusing disproportionately on student test scores. "While there are important questions about what exactly achievement scores can—and cannot—indicate about individual teachers, there is no question that placing extreme emphasis on test scores alone can have unintended and undesirable consequences that undermine the goal of developing an excellent teaching force," says Hinchey. The brief highlights research findings arguing that effective teacher evaluation should ensure that: All participants in an assessment are involved in its design, and have an opportunity to learn and to fully understand the system that is implemented; Assessments are informed by a full spectrum of tools, rather than a single measurement, such as test scores; and The design of the assessment system is based on high-quality research and supported by adequate resources. The brief concludes with a recommendation that policymakers carefully think through the purposes and available methods of teacher assessment before embracing one particular solution to the exclusion of others. As Hinchey observes, "Since any teacher assessment system must address multiple goals, it should rely on multiple sources of information." Find Patricia Hinchey's report, Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn from Research on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Hinchey_TeacherEval.pdf . The report is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/getting-teacher-assessment-right/ . ### 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 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

< Back The Impact of a Universal Class-Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Statewide Mandate Summary This report analyzes statewide achievement data for school districts in Florida and purports to find that Florida's constitutional amendment limiting class size, "had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes." Publication Date July 14, 2010 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability Authors Jeremy D. Finn, The University of Buffalo- SUNY Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Major flaws invalidate study on impact of class-size reduction, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mich. (July 14, 2010) – A new Think Twice review released today finds that a recent report on the effect of Florida's class-size reduction reform on student achievement does not actually study the impact of class-size reduction. The Impact of a Universal Class-Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Statewide Mandate , written by Matthew M. Chingos for the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University's Kennedy School, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Jeremy Finn of the University at Buffalo-SUNY. Finn, a statistics expert, was a lead researcher of Tennessee's Project STAR, a large, randomized experiment in class-size reduction (CSR). In 2002, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment mandating CSR throughout that state's schools. The Chingos study compares student test scores in districts that already had average class sizes smaller than required by the amendment with student scores in districts with average class sizes larger than required by the amendment. Districts that already had smaller class sizes received the same additional funding but could use the money as they saw fit, while those with larger class sizes were required to use the state CSR funds to reduce class sizes. Chingos concludes that "mandated CSR in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes" in the students examined. Finn, however, points out that the study doesn't actually address the effect of CSR on student achievement. Instead the study compares the results of schools that reduced class size with a group of schools that received monies to use as they wished. Both sets of districts in the study had small class sizes. According to Finn, the study's finding would more accurately be stated as "administrative discretion in spending state class-size reduction funds did not affect students' academic performance." Finn's review also points out that there are other flaws in the Chingos study: It uses the broad brush of school and district averages rather than student-level information about class sizes and test scores. Also, the actual class-size differences between the two groups were too small to make an educational difference; both of the groups had small average class sizes. Finn concludes, "Despite its title, this report does not address the issue of class-size reduction. By being presented as an evaluation of Florida's mandated class size limits, it may lead parents, educators, or policy makers to draw faulty conclusions about the impact of the program." Find Jeremy Finn's review on the web and a link to the Program on Education Policy and Governance report at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT_Finn_FloridaClassSize.pdf . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Jeremy Finn (716) 645-1126; finn@buffalo.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 Toward Equitable School Choice Summary A new report from the Hoover Institution’s Education Success Initiative purports to offer evidence-based guidance for policymakers in shaping more equitable outcomes from school choice programs. Publication Date February 4, 2021 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Paul E. Peterson; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Promotes School Choice by Inadequately Presenting the Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's underlying assumption is that all choice is good and desirable as an end in itself, regardless of negative impacts on achievement and even equity. EAST LANSING, MI (February 4, 2021) -A new report from the Hoover Institution's Education Success Initiative purports to offer evidence-based guidance for policymakers in shaping more equitable outcomes from school choice programs. However, Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University reviewed Toward Equitable School Choice and found that although the report is useful as a snapshot of the current status of choice programs in the United States, its use of research is often problematic. The report is apparently a response to two ongoing concerns. The first is the choice movement's ties to past segregationists seeking to avoid post-Brown integration efforts. The second is evidence of a continuing link between choice and inequitable opportunities. These concerns have caused choice advocates to instead highlight the theoretical potential of non-residential-based school choice programs to improve upon residence-based school assignments. Professor Lubienski found some of the research in the report to be misrepresented, with several other claims being made without citations to evidence. Further, some of the recommendations bear no connection to the evidence provided in the report. As such, the report is, as intended, a political guidebook for conservative policymakers that fails to offer evidence-based guidance on making choice more equitable. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Toward Equitable School Choice , written by Paul E. Peterson and published by the Hoover Institution, at: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/peterson_webready.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 Christopher Lubienski: (812) 856-8389, clubiens@iu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Does Class Size Matter? Summary In a new policy brief, professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach points out that class size reduction is an important determinant of student outcomes, one that can be directly determined by policy. Schanzenbach indicates that the evidence suggests that increasing class size will not only harm children’s test scores in the short run, but also their long-run human capital formation. “Money saved today by increasing class sizes will result in more substantial social and educational costs in the future.” Furthermore, Schanzenbach finds that the pay-off from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children. Increases to class-size for those populations will likely be harmful. Publication Date February 18, 2014 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Authors Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, Northwestern University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Policy brief finds strong evidence for the benefits of making classes smaller EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 18, 2014) – The critics are mistaken. Class size matters. A new policy brief out today demonstrates the common-sense notion that children learn more and teachers are more effective in smaller classes and is supported by research. In a new policy brief, professor Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach points out that class size reduction is an important determinant of student outcomes, one that can be directly determined by policy. The brief, Does Class Size Matter? , is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Schanzenbach indicates that the evidence suggests that increasing class size will not only harm children's test scores in the short run, but also their long-run human capital formation. "Money saved today by increasing class sizes will result in more substantial social and educational costs in the future." Furthermore, Schanzenbach finds that the pay-off from class-size reduction is greater for low-income and minority children. Increases to class-size for those populations will likely be harmful. According to Professor Schanzenbach, class-size reduction has been the victim of a popular misconception that the strategy has been largely unsuccessful. "Policymakers should carefully weigh the efficacy of class-size policy against other potential uses of funds," Schanzenbach concludes. "While lower class size has a demonstrable cost, it may prove to be the more cost-effective policy overall." Find Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach's brief, Does Class Size Matter? 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. You can also find the brief on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/does-class-size-matter Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach is Associate Professor of Human Development and Social Policy and Chair of the Institute for Policy Research's Program on Child, Adolescent, and Family Studies at Northwestern University. She studies education policy, child health, and food consumption. Her current work examines the life paths of children who were randomly assigned to kindergarten classrooms in the 1980s as part of the Tennessee Project STAR experiment. 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: Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, (847) 491-3884, dws@northwestern.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 Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion Summary The paper reaches three key findings. First, due to a subsidy provided by Massachusetts law, per-pupil expenditures in the impacted public schools increased as charter schools expanded. Second, these districts appeared to respond to competitive pressures from charter schools by moving funding to inputs directly related to instruction. Third, test scores in math and English language arts in the existing public schools increased very slightly. All three of these impacts, however, disappear after six years of initial charter school expansion. Publication Date October 4, 2018 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Matt Ridley and Camille Terrier; Clive Belfield Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 4, 2018) — A recent report from the School Effectiveness and Inequality Initiative at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology examines the consequences that followed from an expansion in the number of charter school places available for enrollment. The study uses data from Massachusetts, where charter school growth has been carefully managed and where there was significant excess demand for charter school places. In 2011, the state increased the cap on enrollments for charter schools located in school districts with low test scores, resulting in an increase in charter school enrollment in some of these districts. Professor Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, reviewed Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion and found that it provides important, high-quality evidence about the effects of expanding charter schools under a well-regulated set of conditions. The report is part of Think Twice Review, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Belfield's key finding is that the report is a useful and informative study of charter school expansion. The paper presents a high-quality study by MIT which finds that charter expansion, under the unique set of conditions found in Massachusetts, is benign and slightly positive. The paper reaches three key findings. First, due to a subsidy provided by Massachusetts law, per-pupil expenditures in the impacted public schools increased as charter schools expanded. Second, these districts appeared to respond to competitive pressures from charter schools by moving funding to inputs directly related to instruction. Third, test scores in math and English language arts in the existing public schools increased very slightly. All three of these impacts, however, disappear after six years of initial charter school expansion. The paper affirms a two-part consensus from past studies on the economic and academic impacts of charter schooling. First, the flows of public funds to charter and public schools are complex, idiosyncratic, and variable. These features make economic evaluation of charter schooling very difficult. Second, the academic influence of competition between charter schools and public schools is small and, in this case, positive. This second finding suggests that expanding charter schools, at least under the relatively restrictive conditions that existed in Massachusetts, will have a benign effect on the overall education system. However, because of funding complexities identified in the first finding, it is extremely difficult to determine how cost-effective or equitable such expansions might be. Find the Think Twice Review by Belfield on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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. Find Fiscal and Education Spillovers from Charter School Expansion , written by Matt Ridley and Camille Terrier and published by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, at: https://seii.mit.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/SEII-Discussion-Paper-2018.02-Ridley-Terrier.pdf You can also find the review by Clive Belfield at the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-charter-spillover 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