< Back Teach for America: A Review of the Evidence Summary This policy brief offers a comprehensive review of research on the Teach For America program and its impact on student achievement. The authors argue that the research is decidedly mixed at best. The brief includes recommendations for policymakers and school districts regarding TFA. Publication Date June 8, 2010 Authors Julian Vasquez Heilig, University of Texas at Austin Su Jin Jez, Ph.D., California State University, Sacramento Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., June 9, 2010 -- Teach For America has generated glowing press reports, but the evidence regarding whether this alternative teacher-training program works is very unclear, according to a policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief, Teach For America: A Review of the Evidence , is written by professor Julian Vasquez Heilig of the University of Texas at Austin, and professor Su Jin Jez of California State University, Sacramento. It offers a comprehensive overview of research on the Teach For America (TFA) program, which recruits graduates of elite colleges to teach for two years in hard-to-staff low-income rural and urban schools. Overall, Jez and Heilig argue, the impact of TFA teachers on student achievement is decidedly mixed and dependent upon the experience level of the TFA teachers and the group of teachers with whom they are compared. Studies show that TFA teachers perform fairly well when compared with one segment of the teaching population: other teachers in the same hard-to-staff schools, who are less likely to be certified or traditionally prepared. Compared with that specific group of teachers, TFA teachers "perform comparably in raising reading scores and a bit better in raising math scores," the brief's authors write. Conversely, studies which compare TFA teachers with credentialed non-TFA teachers find that "the students of novice TFA teachers perform significantly less well in reading and mathematics than those of credentialed beginning teachers," Heilig and Jez write. And in a large-scale Houston study, in which the researchers controlled for experience and teachers' certification status, standard certified teachers consistently outperformed uncertified TFA teachers of comparable experience levels in similar settings. The evidence suggests that TFA teachers do get better—if they stay long enough to become fully credentialed. Those experienced, fully credentialed TFA teachers "appear to do about as well as other, similarly experienced, credentialed teachers in teaching reading ... [and] as well as, and sometimes better than, that comparison group in teaching mathematics," Heilig and Jez write. However, more than half of TFA teachers leave after two years, and more than 80 percent after three. So it's impossible to know whether those who remain have improved because of additional training and experience—or simply because of "selection bias:" they were more effective than the four out of five TFA teachers who left. The authors note that this high turnover of TFA teachers also results in significant recurring expenses for recruiting and training replacements. Heilig and Jez urge schools and districts to devote resources to a number of proven remedies for improving achievement, including mentoring programs that pair novice and expert teachers, universal pre-school and reduction in early grade class size. The authors conclude, "Policymakers and stakeholders should consider TFA teachers for what they are – a slightly better alternative when the hiring pool is comprised primarily of uncertified and emergency teachers – and continue to consider a broad range of solutions to reshape our system of education to ensure that all students are completing schools with the education they need to be successful." Find the policy brief, Teach For America: A Review of the Evidence, on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . This policy brief was produced by the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. About The Great Lakes Center 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: Julian Vasquez Heilig (512) 471-7551; jvh@austin.utexas.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era Summary In a new policy brief, Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era, authors Kevin G. Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), Carol C. Burris (Network for Public Education), and Preston C. Green III (University of Connecticut) warn that, without proactive legislative action, this radical transformation of states' charter sectors could be fully imposed within two years. Appendix Publication Date May 27, 2026 Authors Kevin G. Welner, Carol C. Burris, and Preston C. Green III Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: New brief outlines legal risks for states and offers a path for them to preserve charter schools' public accountability and civil rights protections. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 28, 2026) - Forty-two states plus the District of Columbia may soon confront sweeping changes to their charter school systems, as the U.S. Supreme Court appears likely to greenlight religious charter schools and to then shield those religious schools from anti-discrimination and other good-governance laws that apply to public schools. In a new policy brief, Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era , authors Kevin G. Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), Carol C. Burris (Network for Public Education), and Preston C. Green III (University of Connecticut) warn that, without proactive legislative action, this radical transformation of states' charter sectors could be fully imposed within two years. The brief describes an upcoming "one-two punch" from the Supreme Court. First, the Court will hear a case next term that is likely to find a free-exercise right for taxpayer-funded private religious schools to engage in faith-based discrimination. Arguments for faith-based exemptions from accountability and transparency rules will follow. Second, the Court is likely to hear a case in the following term, resulting in a decision that prohibits states from excluding religious charter schools-again grounded in the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. This charter-school trap, however, is set only for states that structure their laws to place private, independent organizations in the charter-governance role. As the brief explains, if governmental entities retain that governance role, the Court's free-exercise reasoning does not apply. Instead, the applicable law is the longstanding Establishment Clause bar on religious public schools. Forty-six states and the District of Columbia permit charter schools. Of these, 42 allow or require independently governed charter schools-the type that the Supreme Court's ruling might drastically transform. However, nine of those 42 states also allow charter schools to be governed by local school districts, and four states-Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Virginia-place all their charters under the governance of publicly elected school boards. This brief argues that these four are already protected from the Supreme Court's likely decisions. "State legislators can head the Court's radical change by strengthening the fundamental publicness of their charter schools," Welner explains. "Legislators can protect the charter-school sectors against the imposed transformation by changing how they are governed." According to Green, the solution is straightforward: "All charter schools should be created, staffed, and governed by public entities such as local school districts, ensuring they remain fully subject to constitutional and civil rights protections." The authors include key provisions for a state statute to guide this shift, offering a clear path for preserving accountability, transparency, and civil rights in an evolving legal landscape. Bringing charter schools into this legal safe harbor will, according to Burris, have other advantages as well: District-governed charters also offer practical advantages, including stronger financial oversight and reduced risk of mismanagement and fraud. Communities, via their elected school boards, will have a voice in whether and how to build charter schools that serve the community's best interests. Find Avoiding the Supreme Court's Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Er a, by Kevin G. Welner, Carol C. Burris, and Preston C. Green III, at: https://greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality Summary A recent report from the Hamilton Project sought to study how public investment in education will further long-term prosperity, economic growth, and individual economic security. The inquiry focused on whether or not a bachelor’s degree or higher education would increase economic prosperity and reduce economic inequality. Publication Date May 17, 2015 Authors Brad Hershbein, Melissa S. Kearney, and Lawrence H. Summers; Marvin Lazerson, Central European University and University of Pennsylvania; and Ryan Pfleger, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Technology & AI; Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Unconstrained faith in education's economic power lacks evidentiary base, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 18, 2015) – A recent report from the Hamilton Project sought to study how public investment in education will further long-term prosperity, economic growth, and individual economic security. The inquiry focused on whether or not a bachelor's degree or higher education would increase economic prosperity and reduce economic inequality. A review of the report released today finds that it oversimplifies the importance of college degrees in boosting the economy, while rejecting the widely held view that education can substantially reduce economic inequality. Marvin Lazerson, professor of higher education policy at Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, and emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Ryan Pfleger, a doctoral student in Educational Foundations, Policy, and Practice at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report examines three possible components of education's economic power: (1) education is the critical factor in creating sustainable economic prosperity; (2) college and advanced degrees increase earnings power for individuals; and (3) a broad base of increased educational attainment will narrow income inequality. In the review, the authors find that the report and its assertions are straightforward and use an empirically-based simulation for future projections. However, the report has several limitations. Specifically, Lazerson and Pfleger find the following insufficiencies: there is little direct evidence in the report to show that increasing educational attainment is the most "efficient and effective," as the report describes, way to improve prosperity; the data are drawn are only from males, with no attention paid to gender, race, field of study, labor-market conditions, or institutional reputation; and no data were analyzed to evaluate other ways to address economic problems. The reviewers note that the findings of the report are illuminating, "because more schooling increases, on average, the income of individuals in comparison to those not receiving advanced schooling." However, the reviewers contend that more direct actions are necessary, and the use of schools as a lever to improve economic conditions is an indirect method. The reviewers conclude, "Claiming that the primary solution to a wide array of economic problems is to improve ‘human capital,' the report perpetuates a problematic myth that undervalues alternative ways to address poverty and economic insecurity." Read his full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality on the web: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/increasing_education_what_it_will_and_will_not_do_for_earnings_inequal/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Marvin Lazerson, +498022662345 (Germany), marvinlazerson@t-online.de Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Fit for Purpose? How Today’s Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education Summary A new policy brief, Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education, by Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder and T. Philip Nichols of Baylor University, reviews research examining key pedagogical, logistical, and ethical implications of ed tech platforms for schools. The brief's analysis of these implications leads to recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on how to govern its use. Publication Date September 24, 2025 Authors Faith Boninger, University of Colorado Boulder; T. Philip Nichols, Baylor University Research Areas Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Educators should reassess the hidden impacts of ed tech ecosystems on teaching, learning, and student data. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (SEPTEMBER 25, 2025) - Digital educational platforms have become ubiquitous in American classrooms. Teachers now rely on Google Workspace for Education, Kahoot!, Khan Academy, MagicSchool, Zearn, and countless others to deliver curriculum, structure lessons and student collaboration, assess and track learning, and communicate with families. Few facets of schooling remain untouched by these tools. A new policy brief, Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education , by Faith Boninger of the University of Colorado Boulder and T. Philip Nichols of Baylor University, reviews research examining key pedagogical, logistical, and ethical implications of ed tech platforms for schools. The brief's analysis of these implications leads to recommendations for teachers, school leaders, and policymakers on how to govern its use. For years, the technology industry marketed its products to schools as efficient solutions for instruction and management. Before the COVID-19 shutdowns, such efforts had only moderate success. But the sudden shift to remote learning accelerated widespread adoption, even among reluctant educators. This emergency shift obscured the fact that digital platforms may not always serve public education's core purposes. Unlike the software of the past, today's ed tech platforms are complex ecosystems, and these ecosystems are fueled through data extraction. They extract user data not only to personalize and improve their own functionality but also to share across interoperable systems. Accordingly, while educators may see these platforms as neutral tools, they are in fact shaped by competing interests and hidden imperatives. Teachers, students, and administrators are only one market. The other market involves data on performance, usage patterns and engagement-data flowing to advertisers, data brokers and investors, often without users' knowledge or consent. An ecological perspective of digital educational platforms reveals three interlocking layers: (a) visible classroom uses; (b) underlying technical architectures of code, algorithms, and hardware; and (c) deeper political-economic structures of ownership and profit. Recognizing these layers enables schools to consider how, for example, business decisions on the part of a platform provider determine how the platform is programmed to extract and use student data, how those programming decisions determine day-to-day experiences of teaching and learning, and how school data might be used for subsequent business purposes far from the school. This moves schools beyond simple questions of how to select a tool or prevent students from misusing it, and toward critical consideration of how platforms operate, whose values they embed, and what resources they demand. To ensure a platform is truly appropriate for their communities, schools must first define their own needs, values and goals. They can then evaluate whether digital tools support or undermine them. This clarity can shield educators from aggressive marketing and empower them to adopt only those systems aligned with their mission. Policymakers must also provide stronger safeguards. With federal policy promoting artificial intelligence as a cure-all for modern education, schools have good reason to pause and weigh the broader consequences before embracing new technologies. Find Fit for Purpose? How Today's Commercial Digital Platforms Subvert Key Goals of Public Education , by Faith Boninger and T. Philip Nichols, at: https://greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Financial Impact of Ohio’s Charter Schools Summary This report claims that charter schools in the “Big Eight” urban school districts in Ohio are producing greater student achievement gains, increasing revenues for traditional public schools, and operating at lower costs. Publication Date July 31, 2006 Authors Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The State of State Standards 2006 Summary The report assigns grades to the academic content standards in each state and claims that higher content standards lead to better student test scores. Publication Date September 10, 2006 Authors Kenneth Howe, University of Colorado Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Linking Learning to the 21st Century: Preparing All Students for College, Career, and Civic Participation Summary A strong " Linked Learning" curriculum is a way to prepare students for both college and careers while rejecting a tracking system that provides academic preparation for some students but only vocational preparation to others. This policy brief highlights the potential of this high school curriculum reform. The first half of the brief explains the key elements of an effective "Linked Learning" curriculum. The second half translates these elements into statutory language, concretely providing the details necessary to move forward with this important reform. This policy brief is an update of the policy brief "Multiple Pathways" which was released in 2008. Publication Date April 6, 2011 Authors Marisa Saunders, UCLA, Institute for Democracy, Education and Access Christopher A. Chrisman, Holland & Hart LLP Research Areas Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review; Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 7, 2011) - The old methods of educating high school students fail to prepare them with the well-rounded education they need to succeed in a rapidly evolving job market, according to a policy brief and draft legislation released today. Students must be taught both strong technical skills and rigorous academic concepts - not just one or the other - if they are to have an opportunity to find well-paying jobs after high school or college, according to Dr. Marisa Saunders, a research associate at UCLA's Institute for Democracy, Education and Access, and Christopher Chrisman, an associate with the Denver office of the law firm Holland & Hart. "Students who gain both academic and career education stand the best chance of accessing the full range of post-secondary options and a solid start toward a personally and socially productive middle-class life," Saunders and Chrisman said in their policy brief, entitled "Linking Learning to the 21st Century: Preparing All Students for College, Career, and Civic Participation." The policy brief is an update of a brief entitled "Multiple Pathways," which was released in late 2008. The updated policy brief reflects a change in terminology from "Multiple Pathways" to "Linked Learning." It was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Traditional high school programs that prepare students for either a job or college - but not both - unfairly limit students by segregating them into two categories: those who might be college-bound and those who might enter the workforce immediately after graduation. Non-college bound tracks offered by traditional vocational programs tend to house a disproportionate number of students who are minorities, are less affluent and whose parents did not attend college. Saunders and Chrisman recommend that states adopt sweeping education reforms that include a strong "Linked Learning" curriculum, which combines rigorous academics with hands-on career and technical training. According to Saunders and Chrisman, this method better prepares students for well-paying 21st century jobs while providing employers with a "skilled and nimble workforce." Linked Learning has been implemented in some school districts with great success. For example, students at San Diego's Stanley E. Foster Construction Tech Academy receive college preparation courses that are integrated with hands-on study of engineering, construction and architecture. The result: 81 percent of that school's 2007 graduating class were accepted to college, while also receiving the skills needed to get a well-paying job. The Construction Tech Academy's successes can be replicated across the nation, Saunders and Chrisman said. To that end, the authors drafted proposed statutory language that state legislatures can use to implement Linked Learning pilot programs in their own states. To read Saunders and Chrisman's full report go to: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/linking-learning --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Marisa Saunders: (310) 866-2262, saunders@gseis.ucla.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Markets vs. Monopolies in Education: A Global Review of the Evidence Summary This report makes the claim that private schools around the world perform better than public schools and that the U.S. should embrace a free and competitive education marketplace. Publication Date September 29, 2008 Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College/City University of New York Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review concludes that Cato’s simple tally of unscreened studies is not a useful way of summarizing research EAST LANSING, Mi. (Sept. 30, 2008)—A new report from the Cato Institute purports to show that private schools around the world perform better than public schools and that the United States should embrace a free and competitive education marketplace. A review of the Cato report, however, finds the report’s analysis to be faulty and the resulting policy conclusion to be unwarranted. The report, Markets vs. Monopolies in Education: A Global Review of the Evidence , was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Clive Belfield of Queens College/City University of New York, who is also co-director of the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Markets vs. Monopolies tallies up the conclusions reached by 55 domestic and international studies. It finds that, by a ratio of 8 to 1, private schools outperform public ones. It then presents the results of a closer look at a subset of studies, representing systems with the greatest market freedom, and finds that private schools again outperform public schools. From these findings, the report draws a series of broad policy recommendations: That the content of schooling does not need to be overseen by the state; that there should be universal access to minimally regulated education markets; and that parents should directly pay at least some of the cost of their children’s education. Belfield’s review strongly criticizes the report’s analysis as well as its findings. “Contrary to the basic assertion in the Cato report, there is little warrant for U.S. policymakers to draw policy conclusions from tallying the results of the body of very uneven international evidence. The large and growing body of U.S. evidence about school choice and marketization is more accessible, applicable and useful than figuring out how international evidence applies to the U.S.” Regarding the report’s simplistic “vote-counting” to analyze the studies’ conclusions, Belfield notes that “not all votes – not all studies – are necessarily equal.” Researchers have developed much more careful ways of analyzing and making sense of multiple studies that explore related phenomena. The danger, Belfield explains, is that many of the studies counted in the Cato study are substantially weaker than others, and their value is highly suspect. The Cato report also omits a number of relevant studies, raising “serious questions about the report’s methodological assumptions and about the usefulness of reviewing international evidence instead of relying on U.S. research,” Belfield writes. Belfield notes that even if the report’s fundamental findings of the experiences of other countries were accurate, it nonetheless cannot support the policy conclusions. The national systems surveyed, including those in Pakistan, India and Ghana are so different from the U.S. as to make comparisons questionable, and the report ignores such questions as the costs vs. benefit of market approaches, both in economic and social terms. “It is possible that private schools are superior to public schools when all the international evidence is counted,” Belfield writes. “We don’t know, and this report does little if anything to help answer that question.” But the best studies in the U.S. and abroad, which include rigorous controls for bias, show the purported private school advantage to range from small to non-existent, he concludes. “As such, expanding market forces is unlikely to yield dramatic improvements in the quality of the U.S. education system.” Find Clive Belfield’s review and a link to the Cato 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 website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Clive Belfield, (718) 997-5448; (email) 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 Teacher Qualifications and Work Environments Across School Types 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 February 29, 2008 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 Choice and Education across the States Summary This report assigns letter grades to states based on how extensive the state’s school choice system is. Publication Date April 28, 2008 Authors Wendy Chi, University of Colorado at Boulder Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Choice Report Card Earns Poor Grades Review concludes think tank’s ranking of states’ choice policies offers little useful information EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 29, 2008)— Choice and Education across the States , a new report from the Heartland Institute, gives letter grades to states based on the extensiveness of their school choice systems. A review of the report for the Think Twice project concludes that it offers little or no useful information for policy makers. Wendy Chi, a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado at Boulder, reviewed the report, which was written by Michael Van Winkle and released on April 17th by Heartland, whose stated mission is to “promote free-market solutions” that include “parental choice in education.” The report, according to Chi, does little more than offer policy makers the argument that states should increase school choice, dressed up with a letter grade for each state. Chi did praise the report for its clearly stated grading system, whereby states with more school choice options and fewer restrictions in choice programs got higher grades. But she criticized the report on several grounds. She noted that the basis for awarding grades was merely the “values and beliefs of the Heartland author.” Chi finds that the report’s grading criteria “make no attempt to determine how states are employing the different types of school choice, nor do they attempt to assess the quality or results of those choice programs.” As a result, “a state with little demand for school choice would be awarded a better grade by the Heartland standard if it adopted poorly functioning, underfunded, ill-received choice programs that resulted in lower student performance.” Finally, Chi criticizes the report’s assertion that an increase in school choice will strengthen accountability and improve student achievement. She explains that the author’s belief is not supported by empirical research. More generally, she notes that the report offers very little in the way of objective data to support its advocacy. Many of its claims are “unsupported assertions, offered without citations,” she writes. In the end, the state legislators who are the intended audience for the Heartland report are likely to learn little of substance from it, other than the extent that the state offers school choice. As a result, she concludes, “it would seem the report is of use only as an advocacy document.” Find the complete review by Wendy Chi as well as a link to the Heartland Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center 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 website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Wendy Chi, (734) 678-5196; wendychi@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Think Again: Do Charter Schools Drain Resources From Traditional Public Schools? Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute considers whether charter schools increase or decrease traditional public school districts’ total revenues, instructional spending per pupil, and efficiency. Publication Date May 17, 2023 Authors David Griffith; Huriya Jabbar, University of Texas at Austin Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Useful But Flawed Analysis of Impact of Charter Schools on Traditional Public Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report fairly assesses existing empirical evidence but ultimately makes claims and recommendations that are not supported by the research. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (May 18, 2023) - A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute considers whether charter schools increase or decrease traditional public school districts’ total revenues, instructional spending per pupil, and efficiency. Though the report has useful starting points in looking at the impact of charters, its policy recommendations are flawed. Huriya Jabbar of the University of Texas at Austin reviewed Think Again: Do Charter Schools Drain Resources From Traditional Public Schools? and found its claims to be largely unsupported by evidence. Based on its review of literature, the report finds that charter schools have mixed impacts on district finances; additionally, it suggests that while short-term effects may be negative, traditional public schools facing charter competition see improved efficiency over time. The report references most of the relevant literature and fairly assesses the evidence. However, it makes claims and policy recommendations that are untested empirically and unwarranted based on the research. For example, it concludes that districts’ higher expenditures in a charter environment are due to policies protecting traditional public schools from revenue fluctuations caused by charter competition. In doing so, it fails to consider other possible explanations, such as charters strategically enrolling relatively few students who are particularly costly to educate. The report also suggests that public school closures resulting from unsupportable enrollment decline are a positive outcome of competition-downplaying how severely closures disrupt and negatively impact marginalized students and communities. Professor Jabbar concludes that while the report may be a good resource for identifying studies related to the important questions it asks, its unsupported claims and recommendations make its advice of little use to policymakers. Find the review, by Huriya Jabbar, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3135&type=think_twice Find Think Again: Do Charter Schools Drain Resources From Traditional Public Schools? , written by David Griffith and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/think-again-do-charter-schools-drain-resources-traditional-public-schools 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 National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu 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 Huriya Jabbar: ( 512) 475-8586, jabbar@austin.utexas.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Science of Reading Movement: The Never-Ending Debate and the Need for a Different Approach to Reading Instruction Summary How students learn to read and how reading is best taught are often the focus of media, public, and political criticism. In a new NEPC policy brief, The Science of Reading Movement: The Never-Ending Debate and the Need for a Different Approach to Reading Instruction, Paul Thomas of Furman University explores the controversial history of the reading reform movement. Publication Date September 12, 2022 Authors Paul Thomas, Furman University Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Closing the Gap Between Research and Practice in the Science of Reading Key Takeaway : Some research claims of the "science of reading" movement are overly simplistic, so policymakers should seek different approaches to legislating reading. EAST LANSING, MI (September 13, 2022) - How students learn to read and how reading is best taught are often the focus of media, public, and political criticism. In a new NEPC policy brief, The Science of Reading Movement: The Never-Ending Debate and the Need for a Different Approach to Reading Instruction , Paul Thomas of Furman University explores the controversial history of the reading reform movement. Throughout the decades, a striking amount of attention has sporadically been focused on how teachers teach reading-typically with a specific concern for phonics instruction. This attention has then spread to standardized test scores (including international comparisons) and a changing list of hypothetical causes for disappointing test scores (including progressivism, whole language, and balanced literacy). Disappointing reading achievement has been sometimes attributed to how reading is taught, sometimes to social influences on students (such as technology and media), and sometimes to both. Widespread and ongoing criticism over the last 80 years has targeted a wide array of culprits: State and federal reading policy; The quality of teacher education and teacher professional development; Theories of learning to read and reading instruction; The role of phonics and other reading skills in teaching reading; and The persistent gaps among classroom practices, reading policy, and the nature or application of science and research. These discussions have not been evidence-free. In fact, scholars and literacy educators have over this time conducted extensive research into these and other issues. But the research has only limited impact on policy and practice. Specifically, in contrast to much of the public debate and policymaking, these researchers have found reading instruction and learning to be complex, complicating the design of effective policy and classroom practice. Overall, this robust research base supports policies and approaches that acknowledge a range of individual student needs and that argue against "one-size-fits-all" prescriptions. Among literacy educators and scholars, then, important reading debates continue but do so without any identified silver-bullet solutions. The current public debate is different. Since 2018, the phrase "science of reading" has been popularized as loosely defined shorthand for the broad and complex research base characterizing how children learn to read and how best to teach reading. Simplifying the issue for the public and for political readers, and failing to acknowledge the full complement of research findings, prominent members of the education media have used the term when framing the contemporary debate-often as pro-phonics versus no phonics. Various types of vendors have also found the shorthand term "science of reading" highly useful in branding and marketing specific phonics-oriented reading and literacy programs. As the "science of reading" movement has grown, scholars have cautioned that advocates and commercial vendors often exaggerate and oversimplify both the problems and solutions around reading achievement and instruction. Yet these advocates have been extremely effective in lobbying for revised and new phonics-heavy reading legislation across most states in the U.S., producing rigid and ultimately harmful policy and practices. Still, in pursuing reform to address identified challenges, the movement does provide an opportunity for policymakers to investigate different approaches to reading instruction and to develop more nuanced policy. Accordingly, Professor Thomas provides recommendations for state and local policymakers to provide teachers the flexibility and support necessary to adapt their teaching strategies to specific students’ needs. Find The Science of Reading Movement: The Never-Ending Debate and the Need for a Different Approach to Reading Instruction, by Paul Thomas, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ . This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Alex Molnar : (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger : (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Paul Thomas : (864) 294-3386, paul.thomas@furman.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More