< Back School Choice and Segregation by Race Class and Achievement 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 Report Advocating for More Charter School Facilities Funding Offers Scarce Rationale for Doing So Summary A recent report from Bellwether Education Partners contends that more funding should be given for charter school facilities. Focusing on a series of Idaho case studies, the report argues that charter schools are unfairly denied funding for the construction and renovation of their school buildings. These arguments, while focused on Idaho in this particular report, have been made with regard to charter school policies across the U.S. Publication Date March 11, 2019 Authors Mark Weber, Rutgers Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Advocating for More Charter School Facilities Funding Offers Scarce Rationale for Doing So Key Takeaway: Report's flaws in comparison and reasoning hamper its usefulness in guiding Idaho charter school policy. EAST LANSING, MI (March 12, 2019) – A recent report from Bellwether Education Partners contends that more funding should be given for charter school facilities. Focusing on a series of Idaho case studies, the report argues that charter schools are unfairly denied funding for the construction and renovation of their school buildings. These arguments, while focused on Idaho in this particular report, have been made with regard to charter school policies across the U.S. Mark Weber of Rutgers and New Jersey Policy Perspective reviewed Fairness in Facilities: Why Idaho Public Charter Schools Need More Facilities Funding . He found several flaws that undermine its usefulness for policymakers looking to provide an adequate and equitable education. The report makes comparisons of charter and public school facilities spending. But the examples it relies on are not "apples-to-apples" comparisons. It avoids discussing differences in student characteristics between the charter and public school district sectors, and it does not examine the issue of school governance and facilities ownership. This renders any statewide generalizations suspect, and it results in problematic recommendations. The report bemoans the fact that charter school facilities are not part of local school districts' bonds and tax levies, yet it does not acknowledge that charter facilities are often owned by private entities. Mandating that local taxpayers support charter facilities would, therefore, force them to pay for buildings they would not own. Further, the report's calculation of "costs-per-seat" ignores the reality that different students have different needs. For example, public district schools enroll proportionally more students with disabilities and English language learners, with one consequence being that they tend to have more support staff per pupil than charter schools. These additional staff require additional space to do their work, which may result in greater facilities expenses per pupil in public school districts than in charter schools. Given these limitations, Dr. Weber concludes that the report provides little guidance for policymakers and other stakeholders at a time when Idaho is working to overhaul its school funding system. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Weber-Charter-Funding.pdf Find Fairness in Facilities: Why Idaho Public Charter Schools Need More Facilities Funding , written by Kelly Robson, Juliet Squire, and Lynne Graziano, and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_BFP-Idaho_CharterFacilitiesReport_Final.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), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://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 http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ 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

Thank you, Donor Name We are so grateful for your generous donation of $0. Your donation number is #1000. You’ll receive a confirmation email soon.

< Back The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018 Summary A recent report from Mackinac Center for Public Policy seeks to measure and publicize high school performance by ranking schools according to their test scores after attempting controlling for students’ “economic status.” Publication Date April 17, 2019 Authors Ben DeGrow and Ronald Klinger; John T. Yun of Michigan State University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Multiple Shortcomings Mar Report Ranking Michigan High Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report does a disservice by introducing questionable information not substantiated by any credible analysis. EAST LANSING, MI (April 18, 2019) - A recent report from Mackinac Center for Public Policy seeks to measure and publicize high school performance by ranking schools according to their test scores after attempting controlling for students’ “economic status.” Associate Professor John T. Yun of Michigan State University reviewed The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018 . He concluded that while the stated goal of the report is laudable, the reality falls far short due to several shortcomings. The report touts its decision to take free-lunch status into account as its major contribution, in comparison to past school rankings (although this type of calculation has been done previously in many contexts). Beyond this choice, however, the study lacks both justification and explanation of its methodological decisions. The validity and reliability of combining disparate tests across different years without proper equating invalidates the findings – particularly for the high-stakes applications presented in the report. Additionally, the free-lunch percentage measures used in the study have a great deal of measurement error, which argues against this sort of ordinal ranking. And the use of a single predictor with unacceptably low correlations for this type of usage grossly oversimplifies and biases the estimates. Given these shortcomings, the rankings presented in this report should be given no weight in any discussions of policy or practice. In fact, this report does a disservice by introducing questionable information in an easily readable form that is not substantiated by any credible analysis. Find the review, by John T. Yun, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Yun-Rankings.pdf Find The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018 , written by Ben DeGrow and Ronald Klinger and published by Mackinac Center for Public Policy, at: https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2019/s2019-01.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), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://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 http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net John T. Yun: (517) 884-7822, jyun@msu.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 Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement Summary A recent report from the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver attempts to assess the effect of a "portfolio district strategy" on student performance in the Denver Public Schools. As was the case with its 2022 predecessor (reviewed here), advocates for portfolio reforms have trumpeted the new study as showing that this "portfolio" package of reforms has a positive and large impact on student outcomes. The review, however, concludes that the study lacks the ability to so definitively link Denver's improved outcomes to these particular reforms. Publication Date November 6, 2024 Authors Parker Baxter, Anna Nicotera, David Stuit, Margot Plotz, Todd Ely, and Paul Teske; Robert Shand, American University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Denver's Portfolio Reform Strategy Again Oversold An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report asserts that there is strong evidence linking student learning gains in Denver to portfolio reform. But the follow-up study, while better, does not allow for the causal inferences asserted by policy advocates. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 7, 2024) - A recent report from the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver attempts to assess the effect of a "portfolio district strategy" on student performance in the Denver Public Schools. As was the case with its 2022 predecessor (reviewed here ), advocates for portfolio reforms have trumpeted the new study as showing that this "portfolio" package of reforms has a positive and large impact on student outcomes. The review, however, concludes that the study lacks the ability to so definitively link Denver's improved outcomes to these particular reforms. In his review , Robert Shand of American University finds that the assertions in this year's report, titled Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement , are exaggerated in both magnitude and certainty. The current report seriously addresses Professor Shand's previous criticism that the 2022 study had potentially misattributed academic gains to the portfolio reform by inadequately addressing the alternative explanation that student demographics that had changed during the reform period. The new report convincingly demonstrates that the gains are not primarily due to changing demographics. But the 2024 report fails to address Professor Shand's other critiques of the prior study, including (1) that the mechanisms whereby the portfolio model might improve outcomes (and not include possibly harmful elements) are undertheorized; and (2) that things besides what would be typically understood as included within the portfolio reform (or student demographics) were changing concurrently with the reform. As the review points out: The report dismisses factors such as additional funding, reduced class sizes, and changes in leadership or curriculum concomitant with the reform. As just one example, DPS received a large infusion of external resources during the time period under study, including over $15 million raised in 2014-15, the last year of the study period. This equates to about $175 per student from just one source. In sum, while these researchers and others have indeed observed significant academic improvements in Denver, the report's exuberant conclusion that Denver's reform is "among the most effective" in U.S. history cannot be supported by the study. In fact, the study-while it effectively ruled out demographic change-cannot identify the causes of the improved outcomes. Find the review by Robert Shand at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement , written by Parker Baxter, Anna Nicotera, David Stuit, Margot Plotz, Todd Ely, and Paul Teske and published by Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver, at: https://publicaffairs.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider36/default-document-library/denver_systemwide_and_intervention-effects-technical-report-september-2024.pdf 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 Robert Shand (202) 885-6917 rshand@american.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Cost-Effectiveness of Wisconsin's Private School Choice Programs Summary A recent report from School Choice Wisconsin claims that Wisconsin's voucher programs are highly "productive," achieving better academic outcomes at lower costs than public schools. A closer examination, however, calls into question the validity of these assertions. Publication Date December 11, 2023 Authors Stephen Kotok, St. John’s University; Stephen Kotok, St. John's University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's Claims of Voucher Success Undermined by Flawed Methodology and Limited Research Basis An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Wisconsin families and policymakers deserve a more accurate, less biased assessment of the state voucher program. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (December 12, 2023) - A recent report from School Choice Wisconsin claims that Wisconsin's voucher programs are highly "productive," achieving better academic outcomes at lower costs than public schools. A closer examination, however, calls into question the validity of these assertions. Stephen Kotok of St. John's University reviewed The Cost-Effectiveness of Wisconsin's Private School Choice Programs , and identified substantial methodological shortcomings that undermine its conclusions, including reliance on biased comparisons and limited financial accounting. While comparing the cost and academic performance of voucher recipients in Wisconsin to public school students, the report overlooks important considerations regarding true school funding costs, and fails to assess the voucher program against an appropriate comparison group of students. The funding calculation fails to account for special needs students, additional school fees, and state oversight expenses. The report also ignores recent studies examining the effectiveness of voucher programs in other states and showing starkly negative outcomes for the voucher recipients. Professor Kotok explains that the Wisconsin-specific claims are undermined by the reality that students are not randomly assigned to vouchers or admitted through a lottery, so it is very problematic to compare students and their academic results without controlling for other variables. He agrees that while voucher costs and their impact are important policy questions, this report does not contribute to answering those questions. Find the review, by Stephen Kotok, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Cost-Effectiveness of Wisconsin's Private School Choice Programs , published by School Choice Wisconsin, at: https://schoolchoicewi.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/The-Cost-Effectiveness-of-Wisconsins-Private-School-Choice-Programs.pdf 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 Stephen Kotok (718) 990-2654 kotoks@stjohns.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Choice: Evidence and Recommendations (Introduction) 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 19, 2008 Authors Gary Miron, Kevin G. Welner, Patricia H. Hinchey and Alex Molnar (Editors) Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers 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 How New York City's Charter Schools Affect Achievement Summary This report estimates the effects on student achievement of attending a New York City charter school rather than a traditional public school. A key finding compares the cumulative effect of attending a New York City charter school for 9 years to the magnitude of average test score differences between students in Harlem and the wealthy New York community of Scarsdale. Publication Date November 11, 2009 Authors Sean Reardon, Stanford University Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Reviewer finds serious statistical flaws, bias in research on NYC charter schools EAST LANSING, Mi., (November 12, 2009) – A recent report on New York City charter schools which found achievement results at the charters to be better than traditional public schools relies on a flawed statistical analysis, according to a new review. The report, How New York City Charter Schools Affect Achievement , was written by Caroline Hoxby, Sonali Murarka, and Jenny Kang. When it was released, it was enthusiastically and uncritically embraced by charter advocates as well as a number of major media outlets across the country as being the definitive word on charter school effectiveness. Because of the proclaimed importance of the new report, Sean Reardon, an expert on research methodology, was asked to review the report's strengths and weaknesses for the Think Twice think tank review project. Reardon, like the report's lead author Hoxby, is a professor at Stanford University. The Hoxby report estimates the effects on student achievement of attending a New York City charter school rather than a traditional public school. A key finding, repeated in press reports throughout the U.S., compares the cumulative effect of attending a New York City charter school for nine years (from kindergarten through eighth grade) to the magnitude of average test score differences between students in Harlem and the wealthy New York community of Scarsdale. The report estimates this cumulative effect at roughly 66% of the "Scarsdale-Harlem gap" in English and roughly 86% of the gap in math. In his review , Reardon observes that the report "has the potential to add usefully to the growing body of evidence regarding the effectiveness of charter schools." New York charter schools' use of randomized lotteries to admit students to charter schools offers the possibility that the study of those schools can roughly approximate laboratory conditions. But Reardon points out that the report's key findings are grounded in an unsound analysis--an inappropriate set of statistical models--and that the report's authors never provide crucial information that would allow readers to more thoroughly evaluate "its methods, results, or generalizability." Reardon's review notes these shortcomings in the report: In measuring the effects of charter schooling on students in grades 4 through 12, the study relies on statistical models that include test scores from the previous year, measured after the admission lotteries take place. Yet because of that timing, those scores could be affected by whether students attend a charter school. As a consequence, the statistical models "destroy the benefits of the randomization" that is a strength of the study's design. (The use of a different model makes the results for students in grades K-3 more credible, he notes.) The report's claims regarding the cumulative effects of attending a New York City charter school from kindergarten through eighth grade are based on an inappropriate extrapolation. It uses a weaker criterion for statistical significance than is conventionally used in social science research (0.05), referring to p-values of roughly 0.15 as "marginally statistically significant." The report describes the variation in charter school effects across schools in a way that may distort the true distribution of effects by omitting many ineffective charter schools from the distribution. Reardon explains that, as a result of the flaws in the report's statistical analysis, the report "likely overstates the effects of New York City charter schools on students' cumulative achievement, though it is not possible -- given the information missing from the report -- to precisely quantify the extent of overestimation" This, as well as the lack of detailed information in the report to assess the extent of that bias, make it impossible for readers to know whether the report's estimated charter school effects are in fact valid. "Policymakers, educators, and parents should therefore not rely on these estimates until the bias issues have been fully investigated and the analysis has undergone rigorous peer review." Find Sean Reardon's review as well as a link to the NYC report by Hoxby and her colleagues 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: Sean Reardon, (650) 736-8517 (office); (617) 251-4782 (cell); sean.reardon@stanford.edu Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.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 How to Regulate Critical Race Theory in Schools: A Primer and Model Legislation Summary The Manhattan Institute recently released a report that manufactures a case against Critical Race Theory (CRT), building on a foundation of right-wing talking points. The report offers model legislation as a tool for countering schools’ purported CRT-inspired indoctrination. It contends that CRT is the foundation of a widespread effort by public schools to forcibly indoctrinate students and teaching staff to support an anti-conservative, anti-civil rights, anti-White, and anti-American agenda. However, as Professor Brown explains, the report’s errant conclusions were derived from misleading anecdotal evidence and a misrepresentation of important literature. Publication Date December 13, 2021 Authors James Copland; Kevin D. Brown, Indiana University Maurer School of Law Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release False and Misleading Information About CRT Prevents Report From Being a Serious Guide to Lawmaking An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's partisan misrepresentation of Critical Race Theory would, if heeded, prevent schools from teaching accurately about the history of slavery and racism. EAST LANSING, MI (December 14, 2021) - The Manhattan Institute recently released a report that manufactures a case against Critical Race Theory (CRT), building on a foundation of right-wing talking points. Professor Kevin D. Brown, the Richard S. Melvin Professor of Indiana University Maurer School of Law reviewed How to Regulate Critical Race Theory in Schools: A Primer and Model Legislation , examining several of the ways that the report mischaracterizes CRT. The report offers model legislation as a tool for countering schools' purported CRT-inspired indoctrination. It contends that CRT is the foundation of a widespread effort by public schools to forcibly indoctrinate students and teaching staff to support an anti-conservative, anti-civil rights, anti-White, and anti-American agenda. However, as Professor Brown explains, the report's errant conclusions were derived from misleading anecdotal evidence and a misrepresentation of important literature. He details how the report is less about sound policy than it is about creating partisan talking points and unproductive controversy. He also cautions that the model legislation might, if adopted, lead to contentious anti-discrimination litigation. For these reasons, Professor Brown concludes, the Manhattan report does not provide serious guidance to lawmakers interested in understanding or legislating about issues related to race in schools. Find the review, by Kevin D. Brown, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find How to Regulate Critical Race Theory in Schools: A Primer and Model Legislation , written by James Copland and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/copland-crt-legislation.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 Kevin D. Brown: (812) 855-6145, brownkd@indiana.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools: Will the Past be Prologue? Summary Whitehurst and Whitfield attempt to use aggregate findings to make the case that expansion of school choice and school competition in NYC schools is a major factor in increased graduation rates and enhanced performance on state tests of academic achievement. The authors’ recommendations also include calls for more general improvements in instruction, teacher quality, and accountability systems. Publication Date November 18, 2013 Authors Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst and Sarah Whitfield; Patricia Burch, University of Southern California Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brookings NYC Choice Study Reviewed The report offers little in the way of useful guidance for policymakers EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 19, 2013) – The New York City public schools demonstrate a valuable source of information to study the impact of recent school reforms and choice policies. A recent study from the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings claims that school choice and competition contributed to improved student outcomes on test scores and graduation rates in New York City since 2004. An academic review released today finds that the paper lacks the research evidence to support the claims made. School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools: Will the Past be Prologue , authored by Grover J. Whitehurst and Sarah Whitfield, uses findings from several recent studies to make a case for expansion of school choice and competition in NYC schools. Dr. Patricia Burch of the University of Southern California reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Because of the explosion of charter schools, the closing of schools due to low performance, and other related policy changes that increase competition, NYC's choice and competition initiative is of national significance. New York City saw the number of charter schools increase from 22 in 2003-4 to 159 in 2012-13. Burch finds that the paper is more of an advocacy piece to support school choice rather than research. The review also notes that the original report states that causality cannot be established by existing studies – yet the report's causal inferences make up much of rationale for the expansion of current choice policies. The conclusions of the report are based in part on a pro-choice rating scale also authored by Whitehurst and Whitfield. The report ignores relevant research and selectively presents the data, which has the effect of creating an overly positive picture of the reports referenced. The review notes that discussing the rationale for selecting certain studies over others could strengthen the report. Burch says "The report does not present or evaluate the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the research used to support their arguments, and therefore the report's readers cannot understand the credibility of the evidence without doing further research." The review also finds that many of the report's recommendations are not linked in any way to the analyses presented in the paper. Burch concludes, "The usefulness of this report for both policy and practical purposes is limited by the lack of support provided for the recommendations." The report offers little in the way of useful guidance for policymakers. Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools: Will the Past be Prologue ? http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/10/08-school-choice-and-performance-new-york-city-whitehurst 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 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: Patricia Burch, (213) 740-5946, pburch@usc.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 Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admission Standards in Teacher Prep Summary A recently issued report from the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) advocated raising the bar for entry into teacher preparation programs as a means to improve teacher quality across the country. The report reviewed the academic requirements at 221 institutions in 25 states, and argued for boosting entry requirements. Publication Date March 22, 2017 Authors Kate Walsh, Nithya Joseph and Autumn Lewis; Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Boston College; Megina Baker, Project Zero, Harvard University; Wen-Chia Chang, Boston College; M. Beatriz Fernández, Alberto Hurtado University, Chile; and Elizabeth Stringer Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Multiple unsupported, unfounded claims limit report on raising the bar for teacher admissions EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 23, 2017) — In a recently issued report, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) advocated raising the bar for entry into teacher preparation programs as a means to improve teacher quality across the country. The report, Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admission Standards in Teacher Prep , reviewed the academic requirements at 221 institutions in 25 states, and argued for boosting entry requirements. An academic review of the report released today finds the report to be problematic and lacking research to support its claims. A team of reviewers, led by Boston College's Marilyn Cochran-Smith, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Also contributing to the review were Megina Baker, Wen-Chia Chang, M. Beatriz Fernández, and Elizabeth Stringer Keefe. The reviewers are part of Project TEER (Teacher Education and Education Reform) , which is a collaborative research group interested in the intersection of teacher education policy and practice, on one hand, and neoliberal education reform, on the other. According to the reviewers, the report suggests that raising the bar through higher admission standards for teacher education programs will improve teacher quality. Unfortunately, the report does not provide sufficient supports for its assertions or recommendations. Additionally, the review find the report fails to adequately address claims regarding: The impact on teacher diversity of raising admissions requirements for teacher candidates; The public perceptions of teaching and teacher education; or Attracting more academically able teacher candidates. The review team concludes that the report ignores a large body of research and offers little guidance for policymakers or institutions seeking to use the information. Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Within Our Grasp: Achieving Higher Admissions Standards in Teacher Prep at: http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Admissions_Yearbook_Report 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 Dr. Cochran-Smith is the Cawthorne Professor of Teacher Education for Urban Schools and Director of the Doctoral Program in Curriculum and Instruction at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College. 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: Marilyn Cochran-Smith , (617) 552-4591, cochrans@bc.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 Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know Summary As part of a series of reports chronicling teacher education, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) attempted to investigate the textbooks used in teacher prep coursework. The report contended that textbooks assigned in methods coursework fail to provide teacher candidates with proper preparation. The NCTQ report is based on six strategies adapted from a practice guide provided by the What Works Clearinghouse, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The report offers recommendations for textbook publishers, teacher education programs, and state departments of education. Publication Date March 23, 2016 Authors Laura Pomerance, Julie Greenberg and Kate Walsh; P.L. Thomas, Furman University; and Christian Z. Goering, University of Arkansas Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NCTQ report makes broad claims, but fails to provide acceptable evidence, academic review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 24, 2016) – As part of a series of reports chronicling teacher education, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) attempted to investigate the textbooks used in teacher prep coursework. The report contended that textbooks assigned in methods coursework fail to provide teacher candidates with proper preparation. However, an academic review finds that the report is of little value in improving teacher preparation, selecting textbooks, or for guiding educational policy. P.L. Thomas, Furman University, and Christian Z. Goering, University of Arkansas reviewed the report , Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know , for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The NCTQ report is based on six strategies adapted from a practice guide provided by the What Works Clearinghouse , which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The report offers recommendations for textbook publishers, teacher education programs, and state departments of education. However, Thomas and Goering find, in their review, that the report is not grounded in a comprehensive examination of the literature on teaching methods. Moreover, the report relies on a single source, which itself was based on a narrow set of research studies. The reviewers note that, despite posing an interesting question, NCTQ's report falls short because it uses a narrow set of criteria and applies it in a misleading and superficial way. Thomas and Goering, both respected teacher educators, agree with the report's authors that teacher education programs, textbooks used in methods courses, and candidate preparedness are all important topics for further analysis. Nevertheless, they conclude: "this report in no way justifies taking the conclusions or recommendations seriously when determining policy or practice." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know on the web: http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Learning_About_Learning_Report 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: P.L. Thomas , (864) 294-3386, paul.thomas@furman.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