< 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

< Back The Hidden Value of Curriculum Reform: Do States and Districts Receive the Most Bang for their Curriculum Buck? Summary The Center for American Progress (CAP) issued a recent report that drew on bold conclusions about the high payoff of better textbooks. The report claimed that, compared to other reforms, a switch to better textbooks was a cost-efficient way to improve student achievement. The report pointed to very real problems with textbook adoption, including poor alignment with standards. It also made strong claims about the payoff of schools’ investment in high-quality curriculum materials. Publication Date November 19, 2015 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Authors Ulrich Boser, Matthew Chingos, and Chelsea Straus; Sarah Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Universal preschool report unhelpful, misleading, a review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 12, 2015) – A new Brookings Institution project called "Evidence Speaks" claims in a recent report that advocates exaggerate unmet need as well as the cost of universal pre-kindergarten. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report released today finds the report vastly underestimates unmet need and costs. According to the review, both estimates are based on serious factual errors and unfounded assumptions. The report, Do We Already Have Universal Preschool? , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. Think Twice is a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report estimates that 69 percent of all four-year-olds already attend preschool and that universal access tops out at 80 percent enrollment. However, in his review, Barnett finds that the report vastly underestimates unmet need as well as the costs (estimated at $2 to $4 billion per year). Additionally, the report also fails to account for issues of quality. According to Barnett, access for four-year-olds to high quality preschool (as opposed to attendance in any preschool classroom, no matter the quality) is actually under 25 percent, not 69 percent. Barnett also points out that high quality universal pre-kindergarten could enroll more than 90 percent, not 80 percent, of children. Regarding the overall usefulness of the report, Barnett determines, "The report's conclusions regarding needs and the costs to meet them are invalid and misleading, and it should not be used as a basis for policymaking." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Do We Already Have Universal Preschool? on the web: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/09/evidence-speaks/evidence-speaks-report-vol1.pdf 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: W. Steven Barnett, (848) 932-4350, sbarnett@nieer.org Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 240-2940, 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 End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind Summary This report urges scrapping the No Child Left Behind law and replacing it with a national voucher or tax credit system. Publication Date October 8, 2007 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Bruce Fuller, University of California-Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORT’S URGE TO SCRAP NCLB AND REPLACE WITH VOUCHERS WEAKENED BY IDEOLOGY Review finds Cato report offers valuable critique of NCLB but refuses to subject market-based reforms to critical analysis EAST LANSING, MI – A recent report from the Cato Institute urges scrapping the No Child Left Behind law and replacing it with a national voucher or tax credit system. A review of this report finds that though it offers a strong analysis of NCLB’s weaknesses, it ignores evidence of the benefits of state-led accountability efforts prior to NCLB and fails to subject market-based solutions to the same scrutiny applied to NCLB. The Cato report, “End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind,” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Bruce Fuller, director of the Policy Analysis for California Education Center. Fuller’s review offers praise for the report’s analysis of how NCLB has failed to deliver on its promise of raising student achievement and has resulted in a number of negative consequences for schools including narrowing curriculum and a lowering of the achievement bar. Fuller criticizes the report, however, for its “highly selective, even misleading” use of research to make some of its points. He points out that the report’s argument for shrinking the government’s role in overseeing education would be greatly weakened had the report’s authors not ignored research finding rising test scores and narrowing achievement gaps during the 1990s – as states implemented accountability systems. He also points out that the report ignores or downplays research raising serious questions about the benefits of market proposals such as school vouchers – Cato’s preferred alternative to NCLB. According to Fuller, even though the Cato report offers a critical analysis of NCLB, “when attention is turned to market proposals, the report offers only the party line.” Find Bruce Fuller’s review and a link to the Cato Institute’s “End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind” report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940; (email) 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 Review of Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era Summary A recent Fordham Institute report argues that post-pandemic enrollment declines will inevitably force districts to make the controversial decision to close some schools. Embracing this possibility, it provides dual criteria of substantial declines in enrollment and chronic low performance as indicators of which schools should be closed first, naming nearly 500 specific schools that meet the criteria. Publication Date January 28, 2025 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Sofoklis Goulas; Sally A. Nuamah, Northwestern University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's School Closure Recommendations are Not Supported by Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Fordham report relies on arbitrary assumptions and calculations, and empirical research fails to support its inflated claims of school-closure benefits. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 28, 2025) - A recent Fordham Institute report argues that post-pandemic enrollment declines will inevitably force districts to make the controversial decision to close some schools. Embracing this possibility, it provides dual criteria of substantial declines in enrollment and chronic low performance as indicators of which schools should be closed first, naming nearly 500 specific schools that meet the criteria. In her review of Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era , Sally A. Nuamah of Northwestern University finds little evidence to support the report's contention that closing these schools will meaningfully reduce budget deficits and improve education outcomes. The report cherry-picks studies about school closures, discussing very little of the peer-reviewed research evidence concerning the negative impacts of school closings on affordable housing, school accessibility, racial equity, attendance, and socio-emotional health. The report also does not include what researchers would expect in terms of a "methods" section that explains and supports the approach used. Instead, it presents some descriptive data and analyses, the import of which depends on readers embracing the authors' assumptions and ignoring standard empirical procedures. Finally, the report fails to account for the broader civic and social purposes of schools, including their role in providing children with food, shelter, childcare, civic learning, health care, and social services. Further, Professor Nuamah contends, it ignores the potential harmful effects of closing schools in communities that have already experienced chronic disinvestment. Thus, she concludes, policymakers would do best to ignore this report, including its list of candidates for school closure. It offers an unfounded and oversimplified solution to highly complex challenges. Find the review, by Sally A. Nuamah, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era ,written by Sofoklis Goulas and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/underachieving-and-underenrolled-chronically-low-performing-schools-post-pandemic 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 Sally A. Nuamah (312) 671-0441 sally.nuamah@northwestern.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders Summary This report from the Center on American Progress, proposes a range of state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. This report from the Center on American Progress, proposes a range of state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. Publication Date January 10, 2012 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Center for American Progress Report on School Leadership is Poorly Researched and Misleading, says New Review Report on improving school principals' preparation ignores data, common practices, and common policies EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 10, 2012) – A new review of a recent report that proposes a range of state policies designed to make school principals more effective ignores existing research on the subject, lacks evidence for the approaches it advocates, and sidesteps both state and professional policies that directly address the sorts of problems it purports to remedy. The Center for American Progress (CAP) report, Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Margaret Terry Orr, a professor at Bank Street College of Education and director of the College's Future School Leaders Academy. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Gateways to the Principalship focuses on policies concerning the preparation, licensure and retention of school principals. The report identifies eight states it considers "lagging" and eight it considers "leading," asserting that the "leading" states employ practices that the "lagging" states and others like them should adopt in order to improve the performance of school principals. The lagging states are Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. The leading states are Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. Professor Orr's review finds that the report makes assertions without evidence and arguments without foundation. Further, she writes, the report appears to be unaware of scholarship and common practices on the subject it seeks to address. Particularly glaring omissions include not using policy-related reports from the Wallace Foundation (not referenced), the Education Commission of the States (not referenced), and the National Conference of State Legislators (referenced but never used), each of which have in various ways addressed how to improve school leadership. Each of these has also taken note of what policymakers are actually doing to improve the education of principals. Further, the report's identification of 16 focus states is never adequately explained. It does not define what it means when it labels eight states as "lagging" in their eligibility requirements for candidates admitted to principal-preparation programs. Similarly, it selects eight "leading" states in this area for their adoption of other policies the report's authors favor, yet it never compares the two groups of states on similar types of policies. "Very little in the way of supporting data is presented to justify [the report's] claims," Orr writes. For example, of the sources cited, only one is from a peer-reviewed journal; the rest are from organizations and foundations whose claims and assertions are often weakly supported and poorly argued—yet are accepted uncritically in the CAP report. "The report has little utility for policy or practice," Orr concludes. Instead, she writes, it merely "distracts from more relevant and potent policy strategies to improve leadership preparation." Find Margaret Terry Orr's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders by Gretchen Rhines Cheney and Jacquelyn Davis on the web at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/principalship.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 the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-gateways-principalship . --###-- 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 . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Margaret Terry Orr, 212-875-4546, morr@bankstreet.edu Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071; tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners Summary Bellwether Education Partners recently published a report that establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). The report provides a useful resource for policymakers and practitioners. Publication Date March 2, 2021 Research Areas General / Needs Review; Equity & Civil Rights; Curriculum & Instruction Authors Brandon Lewis, Melissa Steel King, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis, University of New Mexico Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Argues Convincingly for More High-Quality Early Childhood Math Programs for Dual Language Learners An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report contributes to an understanding of the benefits and challenges involved in engaging dual language families to support their young children in learning math. EAST LANSING, MI (March 2, 2021) -Bellwether Education Partners recently published a report that establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). The report provides a useful resource for policymakers and practitioners. Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis of the University of New Mexico reviewed Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners . She explains that the Bellwether report presents lessons from research and practice on engaging families of DLLs in early mathematics learning. Drawing from the strengths of students, families, and communities, it highlights two case studies, Mighty Math and Zeno Math, on engaging dual language families to support mathematics with their young children. Dr. Celedón-Pattichis did note that major studies were omitted from the report that are key to advancing our understanding of the capacity of young DLLs to engage in rigorous mathematical concepts when given opportunities to do so. Further, in the report's recommendations for teacher education and professional development, it misses the opportunity to address what early childhood educators need to know about how young DLLs develop languages. Nonetheless, the recommendations in the report valuably inform policymakers and other stakeholders as they build asset-based programs that can support families and communities in engaging young DLLs in mathematics learning. Find the review, by Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners , written by Brandon Lewis, Melissa Steel King, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_LanguageCounts-HSF_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: 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 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: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis: (505) 277-2536, sceledon@unm.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Portfolios – A Backward Step in School Accountability Summary This report argues that the current standardized testing system should be retained and criticizes the use of multiple measures, particularly portfolios, to assess school performance. Publication Date September 19, 2007 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors William Mathis, University of Vermont Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release LEXINGTON ‘PORTFOLIOS’ REPORT OF LITTLE VALUE TO POLICY MAKERS Report’s support of NCLB standardized testing rife with glaring weaknesses and faulty generalizations. EAST LANSING , Mich. —A Lexington Institute report released earlier this month argues that the current standardized testing system should be retained and criticizes the use of multiple measures, particularly portfolios, to assess school performance. A review of that report, however, finds it is ill-founded and of little value as research or for policy development. The Lexington report, “Portfolios – A Backward Step in School Accountability,” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by William Mathis of the University of Vermont. The report appears to have been written in anticipation of a “discussion draft” concerning NCLB changes, released by the leadership of the House Education Committee. The draft proposes changes that would allow states to use a broad list of “multiple indicators” – for example graduation rates and percent of students taking advanced courses – to assess education outcomes rather than depend so heavily upon standardized test scores. As Mathis notes, the House Committee’s summary contains a broad list of various multiple indicators, but portfolio assessment is not on the list. He explains that given the absence of portfolio assessment from the list, it is troubling that the Lexington report offers portfolios as the most notable of what it calls “multiple measures” and then erroneously generalizes findings about portfolios to argue against adopting any instruments other than standardized tests. Further, the report ignores a body of research with findings that present portfolios in a more favorable light. Mathis writes that the report more closely resembles political propaganda than a research report. It provides no new data, examines only two studies done 13 years ago and includes only results favorable to the report’s conclusions. He concludes that the report’s failure to discuss contradictory research undermines its conclusions, and its attempt “to generalize all multiple measures from this questionable base completely discredits (the report).” Find the complete review by William Mathis as well as a link to the Lexington Institute report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 247-5757; (email) WMathis@sover.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More