< Back Student-Centered State Funding: A How-to Guide for State Policymakers Summary A report from Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd) attempted to illustrate and explain how state policymakers could design fairer and more transparent state funding systems where monies ‘follow the child’ through parental choice. The school finance systems promoted in the report allow for all state and local tax dollars to flow freely to local district, charter, or private and religious schools. The central premise of the report is: “that adopting ‘student-centered’ funding to enable parental choice of schools necessarily leads to a fairer and more transparent system for financing children’s schooling.” Publication Date January 8, 2018 Authors Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Student-centered school funding report provides little value to policymakers, academic review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 9, 2018) — A report from Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education ( Excel in Ed ) attempted to illustrate and explain how state policymakers could design fairer and more transparent state funding systems where monies 'follow the child' through parental choice. The school finance systems promoted in the report allow for all state and local tax dollars to flow freely to local district, charter, or private and religious schools. However, an academic review released today finds that the report lacks any clear understanding of the true costs of providing equal educational opportunities and provides too few specifics to inform policy design. Bruce D. Baker , a professor of education finance and the economics of education at Rutgers University, reviewed the brief, Student-Centered State Funding: A How-to Guide for State Policymakers , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center , is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Baker says that the central premise of the report is: "that adopting 'student-centered' funding to enable parental choice of schools necessarily leads to a fairer and more transparent system for financing children's schooling." The report, according to Baker, supports an approach that sanctions public tax dollars that follow children to the schools of their choice. These 'money follows the child' approaches facilitate the diversion of public funds into school choice programs. In his review, Baker finds the arguments offered in the report to be "entirely unsubstantiated and unlikely to stand up to even the most cursory debate within state legislative subcommittees." He finds three major faults in the report: It advances a false dichotomy between funding the child and the institutions (e.g., public school districts) serving children; It is based on overly simplistic, frequently misrepresented, and often outright incorrect versions of the status quo , including overly broad mischaracterizations of how schools are currently financed; and The recommendations advanced within the report are purely speculative and unsubstantiated. "Worst of all," Baker concludes, "the authors convey reckless disregard for equity and equal educational opportunity through their outright denial of and recommendations in opposition to well understood, empirically validated factors affecting the costs of providing children equal opportunities to achieve common outcome goals." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report and other similar reports from Excel in Ed on the web at: https://www.excelined.org/quality/education-funding/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Bruce D. Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.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 Review of Think Again: Is Education Funding in America Still Unequal? Summary The Thomas B. Fordham Institute recently released a report claiming that the problems of inequality and inadequacy of public school funding have largely been solved. This is incorrect, according to a review of the report. Publication Date September 4, 2023 Authors Adam Tyner; Bruce Baker, University of Miami Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Alas, the Problem of Unequal School Funding Hasn't Been Resolved An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Despite a recent report's assertions of funding equality, evidence shows persistent and significant disparities in school funding. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 5, 2023) - The Thomas B. Fordham Institute recently released a report claiming that the problems of inequality and inadequacy of public school funding have largely been solved. This is incorrect, according to a review of the report. Bruce Baker, professor and chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami, reviewed Think Again: Is Education Funding in America Still Unequal? and found it lacking any sort of guidance to inform policymakers about state school finance issues. While the Fordham report does acknowledge that additional school funds may be necessary in some cases, it suggests those are relatively few. Relying on national funding averages that can mask the shortchanging of districts serving vulnerable student populations, the report's analysis is too coarse-grained to inform state-level policy, where inequities and inadequacies persist despite the report's assertion otherwise. The Fordham report also recommends that policymakers stop pursuing funding adequacy (because the concept is too subjective and unscientific) and focus instead on improving efficiency and on equalizing tangible resources like teacher compensation. This argument ignores a vast literature detailing rigorous methods for analyzing education costs, allowing for reasonable calculation of funding necessary to provide all students with genuinely equal educational opportunity. Professor Baker's critique of the report further points out its lack of attention to the persistent disparities and underfunding in many states' schools and districts, as well as the well-established connections between spending levels and crucial resources such as teacher wages and class sizes. Overall, the report lacks a sound evidentiary base and provides no reliable or useful guidance for policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Think Again: Is Education Funding in America Still Unequal? , written by Adam Tyner and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/think-again-education-funding-america-still-unequal-final-7-11.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 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 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 Bruce Baker: (848) 932-0698, educpolicy@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Reports on 10 state public opinion surveys on K-12 school choice Summary This is a series of reports based on public opinion polls in 10 states that claim that voters view public schools as unsatisfactory, that they prefer private over public schools, that vouchers should be available and that potential voters are more likely to support candidates who support school choice proposals. Publication Date December 1, 2008 Authors Jon Lorence and A. Gary Dworkin, University of Houston Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds Pro-voucher Polls Plagued by Biased Questions and Sampling Problems EAST LANSING, Mi., (December 2, 2008)—A series of reports based on public opinion polls in 10 states claims that state political candidates could increase their electability if they support school vouchers and other school-choice measures. A Think Twice review of the reports, however, finds that the polls on which they rely contain poorly worded, biased questions and suffer from sampling problems. The states surveyed thus far are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, and the reports were published by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a think tank that promotes school-choice proposals, including taxpayer-funded private-school vouchers. They were reviewed by professors Jon Lorence and A.Gary Dworkin, both of the University of Houston. The 10 reports conclude that voters view public schools as performing unsatisfactorily, that they prefer private over public schools, that public funds should be available so parents can send their children to private schools and that potential voters are more likely to support candidates who back school choice proposals such as vouchers. Lorence and Dworkin note that none of the reports cite any other surveys or research literature regarding opinions on vouchers or on public, private, or charter schools. By comparison, the reviewers cite a series of Gallup polls, conducted annually for Phi Delta Kappa, that include questions measuring public support for private-school vouchers and for public education in general. Those surveys consistently find less support for voucher proposals than shown by the Friedman surveys. In fact, the Gallup surveys consistently show that more Americans oppose vouchers than support them. In addition, the reviewers point to a number of other factors which might explain why the Friedman surveys yielded more favorable results for school choice proposals. First, they note that that the population samples surveyed might not represent the voting populations of their states nor the population of parents for whose children school vouchers are intended. Information to establish sampling accuracy is largely missing from the reports, and in at least one of the three instances where sufficient data were provided, the low response rate raises a red flag about possible sample bias. Additionally, Lorence and Dworkin found repeated instances in which the wording of questions appeared likely to bias the results. These questions appeared to be worded in ways to encourage respondents to favor private-school funding. The reviewers use the corresponding Gallup questions to highlight these problems with wording. Additionally, the survey questions in some instances used terms not widely understood, such as questions about proposals to grant tax credits to companies that finance private school scholarships (vouchers). “Had the respondents been presented more neutral questions about tax credits and vouchers, the findings may have been less favorable towards these issues,” the reviewers write. Lorence and Dworkin observe that the 10 papers reviewed are aimed at driving a pro-school-choice agenda through the promotion of tax credits, vouchers, and charter schools. They conclude that the reports should not guide policy and recommend that policymakers avoid relying on, “public opinion surveys that present beliefs as fact,” and encourage them to, “examine research investigating whether charter schools and vouchers actually increase student achievement and other important outcomes.” Find the review by Jon Lorence and A. Gary Dworkin 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: Jon Lorence, (713) 743-3959; jlorence@uh.edu A. Gary Dworkin, (713) 743-3955; gdworkin@uh.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effect of Co-locations on Student Achievement in NYC Public Schools Summary The report from the Manhattan Institute investigated the effect of colocations of charter schools and traditional public schools on a narrow range of standardized test scores. It focused on students' test scores and looked at fourth through eighth grade ELA and math standardized assessment gains. Colocation was not found to have a significant impact on students' test scores. Publication Date April 14, 2014 Authors Marcus A. Winters; Tina Trujillo and Marialena Rivera, UC-Berkeley Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NYC Charter Co-location Report Provides Little Help to Policymakers Think Twice review reveals limitations EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 15, 2014) – A recent report by Marcus Winters of the Manhattan Institute argues that co-locations of charter schools with traditional public schools have no statistical impact on traditional public school achievement in New York City. However, a review of the report out today finds that the report omitted important details about its analysis, which provides little help to policymakers attempting to evaluate the effects of co-locations. The report, The Effect of Co-locations on Student Achievement in NYC Public Schools , attempts to determine whether co-locations influence school academic outcomes. Tina Trujillo, assistant professor at University of California Berkeley’s Graduate School of Education, and Marialena Rivera, a doctoral student, reviewed the report 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 reviewers found that the report omits important details about its analysis, thereby making its validity difficult to determine. Additionally, the report narrowly focuses on standardized test scores as the ultimate outcome of schooling, neglecting important outcomes related to socio-emotional development, safety, health, and broader academic experiences. The report suffers from three major limitations: It does not adequately build on existing research or background information The analysis is poorly documented, lacking sufficient methodological transparency It perpetrates an overly narrow focus on standardized test scores as the ultimate outcome of schooling Trujillo and Rivera note in their review that the report takes on several complicated research questions that are not easily answered. However, because of a lack of transparency behind the design and analysis, the report requires a certain amount of trustworthiness. Given the limitations of the report, the authors conclude “neither policymakers nor practitioners can use this report to make informed decisions about the effects of co-location on students’ educational experiences and outcomes, both of which are inextricably linked with their opportunities for and access to high-quality conditions for teaching and learning.” Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Effect of Co-locations on Student Achievement in NYC Public Schools on the web: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_85.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publication. The project is made possible with 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: Tina Trujillo, (510) 517-0874, trujillo@berkeley.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 Review of Religious Charter Schools: Legally Permissible? Constitutionally Required? Summary The Manhattan Institute recently published a report concluding that the Supreme Court’s 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue requires states to grant charters to religious organizations, including those that intend to deliver an explicitly religious curriculum that teaches religion as truth. Publication Date January 25, 2021 Authors Nicole Stelle Garnett; Derek Black, University of South Carolina School of Law Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Informative Report on Religious Charters Weakened by Key Omissions An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Recent Manhattan Institute report is useful in clearly identifying the main issues to be resolved regarding religious charter schools, but its conclusions and proposals lack an adequate foundation upon which states should act. EAST LANSING, MI (January 26, 2021) -The Manhattan Institute recently published a report concluding that the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue requires states to grant charters to religious organizations, including those that intend to deliver an explicitly religious curriculum that teaches religion as truth. Derek Black of the University of South Carolina School of Law reviewed Religious Charter Schools: Legally Permissible? Constitutionally Required? He determined that the report is useful in identifying the key issues to be resolved regarding religious charter schools, but its conclusions lack an adequate foundation to guide states in policymaking. The report reasons that the logic of Espinoza, which struck down the exclusion of religious schools from a publicly financed private school voucher program, applies in full force to charter schools as well. That outcome is certainly possible, given the current make-up of the U.S. Supreme Court. And Professor Black praises the report for raising an important question and for identifying the essential issues for answering it. But Black points to several weaknesses in the report's legal arguments, including the omission of key federal and state case law. Similarly, the report fails to acknowledge extensive key expert analysis on matters left unresolved by courts. The result, Professor Black concludes, is a one-sided analysis of the issue that is not a reliable basis for state action. Find the review, by Derek Black, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Religious Charter Schools: Legally Permissible? Constitutionally Required?, written Nicole Stelle Garnett and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/religious-charter-schools-legally-permissible-NSG.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 Derek W. Black: (803) 777-9652, blackdw@law.sc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Community Schools: An Evidence-Based Strategy for Equitable School Improvement Summary A new policy brief, co-produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), explores the research on community schools. Community schools represent a partnership and school improvement strategy to integrate resources provided by community agencies and local government for improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities. According to the authors, community schools are strongly supported by research, and can be a particularly important strategy for transforming high-poverty schools. Further research on community schools and the conditions required for successful implementation is needed. Publication Date June 4, 2017 Authors Jeannie Oakes, National Education Policy Center and the Learning Policy Institute; Anna Maier, LPI; and Julia Daniel, NEPC. Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Community Schools; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Community schools are strongly supported by research evidence, as required by ESSA EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 5, 2017) – A new policy brief, co-produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and the Learning Policy Institute (LPI) , explores the research on community schools. Community schools represent a partnership and school improvement strategy to integrate resources provided by community agencies and local government for improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities. Common pillars of community schools include: (1) integrated student supports; (2) expanded learning time and opportunities; (3) family and community engagement; and (4) collaborative leadership and practices. The brief, Community Schools: An Evidence-Based Strategy for Equitable School Improvement , authored by Jeanie Oakes , Anna Maier , and Julia Daniel , investigated whether well-designed community schools could be harnessed under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to meet the needs of low-achieving students in high-poverty schools. The brief also provides support to school, district, and state leaders as they consider, propose, or implement a community school intervention. Community Schools was made possible in part by support provided to NEPC by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The research underlying the brief was supported in part by grants to LPI from the Ford Foundation and the Sandler Foundation. The policy brief draws from a larger research brief from LPI of 125 peer-reviewed studies, program evaluations, and published research reviews. The authors found that community schools are strongly supported by research, and can be a particularly important strategy for transforming high-poverty schools. Moreover, the authors say: "Sufficient evidence meeting ESSA's criteria for 'evidence-based' approaches exists to justify including community schools as part of targeted and comprehensive interventions in high-poverty schools." Broader use of the approach is recommended. Other considerations for future work include: Taking a comprehensive approach; Recognizing that successful community schools do not all look alike; Collaboration between schools, service providers, parents, and staff is key; Local community members, parents, and young people need to be part of a needs assessment, design, planning, and implementation process; Evaluation strategies need to provide useful information about implementation and exposure to services; and Data should be used for continuous improvement. The authors also encouraged further research on community schools for a stronger understanding of their effectiveness. They note that more information is needed on the conditions needed for these efforts to work. Find this brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can also find the brief on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The Learning Policy Institute's website is: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org 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 Barbara McKenna, (831) 588-4309, bmckenna@learningpolicyinstitute.org 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 Spend Smart: Fix Our Broken School Funding System Summary This report asserts that the Connecticut system for public school funding is broken and should be fixed by adopting a very simple weighted student funding formula where the money follows the student to whatever type of school he/she attends. Publication Date April 13, 2011 Authors Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ConnCAN report makes false claims, harms low-income students April 14, 2011 New review finds "Spend Smart: Fix Our Broken School Funding System" report of little value for policymaking EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 14, 2011) - A report on school funding in Connecticut public schools unfairly boosts charter schools and would divert funding from low-income students, according to an independent review released today. The Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) recently released a study claiming the Connecticut system for financing public schools should be reformed by adopting an overly simplified, weighted formula that allows money to follow a student to his or her school of choice. Legislation (SB 1195) has also been introduced in the Connecticut Legislature based on the flawed principles outlined in this report. A thorough review of the ConnCAN study was conducted by Bruce Baker, associate professor in the Graduate School of Education at Rutgers University and a member of the editorial boards of The Journal of Education Finance and Education Finance and Policy. Baker's review revealed the ConnCAN report is largely devoid of substantiated facts and includes patently false assertions. According to Baker, the ConnCAN report's findings would lead to substantial funding disparities for low-income students and be a boon for charter schools, which serve few of Connecticut's lowest-income children and children who are English-language learners (ELL). The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ConnCAN's report fails to prove that a weighted student funding formula would improve equity among public schools, according to Baker. The study also overlooks a vast amount of literature on student need-based costs, which suggest that schools with a large percentage of ELL students or in high-poverty districts may require additional funds to ensure student success. ConnCAN's flawed funding formula includes only one adjustment for student need - shares of children qualifying for free or reduced lunch. The ConnCAN report ignores many other sources of need, such as English-language proficiency, Baker notes. ConnCAN's report inaccurately argues that only one measure of student need is required, due to a correlation between ELL enrollment and low-income enrollment. When reviewing the correlation between ELL students and subsidized lunches, Baker found that it was far too weak to be adequately addressed by a single adjustment for student need. In addition to incorrectly categorizing ELL students with students who receive subsidized lunches, the ConnCAN report also uses an inaccurate poverty threshold that fails to distinguish the difference between free and reduced lunch families, making the weighted funding formula even more inaccurate. Baker found that by eliminating the weighted funding formula for ELL students and not distinguishing between free and reduced lunches, ConnCAN's report was able to maximize funding for charter schools. Notably, Connecticut's charter schools serve very few ELL students and children from the state's lowest-income families. The Think Twice think tank review project, 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 in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find Baker's complete review and a link to the ConnCAN report, at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-spend-smart . --###-- 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: Bruce Baker: (732) 932-7496 ext. 8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Costs of Online Learning Summary This report analyzes the cost drivers of virtual and blended-learning schools compared to traditional brick-and-mortar schools and determines that it's far cheaper for students to be education online. Publication Date March 5, 2012 Authors Jennifer King Rice, University of Maryland Research Areas School Funding; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Report lacks evidence to claim virtual schools cheaper than brick-and-mortar schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 6, 2012) – A recent Thomas B. Fordham Institute report analyzing the cost drivers of virtual and blended-learning schools compared to traditional brick-and-mortar schools uses no empirical evidence to support its conclusion that it's significantly cheaper for students to be educated online, according to an academic review released today. The Fordham report, The Costs of Online Learning, determined that virtual schools cost $6,400 per student on average, compared to $10,000 per student spent in brick-and-mortar schools. The report also claimed blended-learning schools cost $8,900 per student. Jennifer King Rice, a professor at the University of Maryland, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "It is surprising that this report cites no empirical evidence on the costs or effectiveness of the various approaches to online learning," Rice wrote in her review. According to Rice, the approaches used in the report are too general and not evidenced-based. The report also does not review economies of scale that would influence the per-pupil costs of online learning. "Given the growing use of technology in K-12 education as a way to improve student outcomes and decrease costs, policymakers need evidence on how best to invest limited resources. However, the report's lack of clarity surrounding the models being studied and methodological shortcomings limit its utility," Rice concluded. Find Jennifer King Rice's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Costs of Online Learning by Tamara Butler Battaglino, Matt Halderman, and Eleanor Laurens at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-costs-of-online-learning.html Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Jennifer King Rice: (301) 405-5580, jkr@umd.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance Summary The first year of the second Trump administration has seen a radical break from six decades of federal education policy, discarding the longstanding vision of equal access and human capital development in favor of a new, and as yet undefined, approach to American educational governance. In a new policy brief, Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance, Dr. Derek Gottlieb, a leading scholar of education policy, examines the educational purposes that administration officials have publicly articulated across a variety of platforms, along with the actions that the federal government has taken over the past year to achieve its goals. Publication Date April 20, 2026 Authors Derek Gottlieb Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Long-standing equity-focused framework is being replaced by executive-driven governance, creating uncertainty for schools nationwide and increasing the importance of participatory approaches. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (APRIL 21, 2026) - The first year of the second Trump administration has seen a radical break from six decades of federal education policy, discarding the longstanding vision of equal access and human capital development in favor of a new, and as yet undefined, approach to American educational governance. In a new policy brief, Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance , Dr. Derek Gottlieb, a leading scholar of education policy, examines the educational purposes that administration officials have publicly articulated across a variety of platforms, along with the actions that the federal government has taken over the past year to achieve its goals. Citing the supposed need to align education policy with "Presidential priorities," the administration has expanded executive authority over federal spending and legal rules. Meeting little resistance from either Congress or the Supreme Court, it has altered antidiscrimination enforcement, redirected congressionally approved funding, and revised university research contracts. Yet no single unifying vision has emerged. Instead, a patchwork agenda includes expanding parental choice through charter funding and a federal tax-credit scholarship, curbing grade inflation and campus activism, and reducing federal capacity for research and data. Much of these changes have at their core a sweeping reinterpretation of Equal Protection and Title VI and IX enforcement. The administration has applied these interpretations to limit initiatives supporting minoritized and vulnerable populations, while also targeting what it characterizes as ideological "indoctrination" in schools. At the same time, it has advanced a definition of "merit" that excludes consideration of structural inequality. Among the results are that educational institutions face heightened uncertainty, inclusionary practices risk federal investigation, funding streams have become less predictable, and public resources are increasingly diluted across both public and private sectors. More broadly, the executive branch now exerts unprecedented influence over institutional decision-making. Because educational institutions are operating under increasingly arbitrary rule, protecting mission-driven work will require stronger engagement with local constituencies - from civil-society and business groups to voters. Although federal authority rests on funding and enforcement, it has historically been constrained by state and local resistance. In this context, Dr. Gottlieb suggests that education leaders must build public trust through strategies such as participatory budgeting and stakeholder engagement to sustain institutional missions and navigate ongoing federal pressure. Find Studying the First Year of Trump's Second Term: The Renewed Importance of Participatory Governance , by Derek Gottlieb, 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 Derek Gottlieb (262) 299-0325 derek.gottlieb@marquette.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 Economic Impact from Colorado's Choice to Participate in the "Education Freedom Tax Credit" Provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Summary The Common Sense Institute recently published a report declaring large potential benefits of the federal education tax-credit voucher program created through President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. However, the report's claims about the improvements the program would create for Colorado are unlikely to materialize. Publication Date May 20, 2026 Authors Thomas Young and Jimena Sanchez; Joydeep Roy, Teachers College, Columbia University Research Areas School Funding; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MAY 20, 2026 Dubious Claims About Colorado Benefits From Federal Tax-Credit Voucher Program An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's projected economic gains and private school enrollment increases are overstated and unsupported by evidence. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 20, 2026) - The Common Sense Institute recently published a report declaring large potential benefits of the federal education tax-credit voucher program created through President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. However, the report's claims about the improvements the program would create for Colorado are unlikely to materialize. Joydeep Roy of Teachers College, Columbia University explains why in his review of The Economic Impact from Colorado's Choice to Participate in the "Education Freedom Tax Credit" Provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As part of the legislation passed in July 2025, the federal government established a nationwide tax credit for contributions to so-called scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) that can fund some K-12 educational expenses. Taxpayers can receive a credit of $1,700 each year for these donations. Although key rules are still being drafted by the Trump administration, eligible families given a voucher by a private SGO will likely be able to use these funds on a range of educational expenses, including private school tuition, tutoring, transportation, instructional materials, and courses offered at either private or public educational institutions. The Common Sense Institute report claims significant benefits will emerge for Colorado when-pursuant to the intentions of Gov. Polis-it opts into the program starting in 2027. The report predicts that the tax credits will boost incomes, create jobs, generate additional revenue for public schools, and increase private school enrollment. However, many of these hypothesized benefits are unlikely. The methods used in the report's economic impact model leave important questions unanswered, and it relies on speculative assumptions about participation and economic effects. For instance, participation rates in similar scholarship programs have historically been much lower than the report predicts for Colorado, raising doubts about the report's assumptions and conclusions. (Neither the report nor the review addresses the program's long-term impact on the health of the state's public education system.) Ultimately, Professor Roy concludes, the report provides little value in fostering an informed, evidence-based policy debate about the likely economic effects of the federal education tax credit program in Colorado. Find the review, written by Joydeep Roy, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Economic Impact from Colorado's Choice to Participate in the "Education Freedom Tax Credit" Provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , written by Thomas Young and Jimena Sanchez and published by the Common Sense Institute, at: https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/education/the-economic-impact-from-colorados-choice-to-participate-in-the-education-freedom-tax-credit-provision-in-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Joydeep Roy Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Unleashing Educational Opportunity: The Untapped Potential of Expanded Tax Credit Scholarships Summary A Commonwealth Foundation report argues that expanding a program that uses tax credits to create vouchers for private schooling can lead to large economic gains for the state of Pennsylvania. Such gains would result from two purported benefits: increased lifetime earnings for those attending private schools on vouchers, and reduced social costs associated with crime. Publication Date October 21, 2020 Authors Corey DeAngelis; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Concocts Supposed Economic Benefits of Pennsylvania's Neovoucher Program An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Due to report's false claims based on misrepresentation and misapplication of research findings, it is of little value for informing policies. EAST LANSING, MI (October 22, 2020) - A Commonwealth Foundation report argues that expanding a program that uses tax credits to create vouchers for private schooling can lead to large economic gains for the state of Pennsylvania. Such gains would result from two purported benefits: increased lifetime earnings for those attending private schools on vouchers, and reduced social costs associated with crime. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed Unleashing Educational Opportunity: The Untapped Potential of Expanded Tax Credit Scholarships , and found issues that undermine the report's conclusions and its usefulness. The report's assertions, Professor Baker points out, are based on the erroneous claim that a vast body of rigorous research shows higher academic achievement among voucher recipients and shows that these voucher recipients are more likely to attend and graduate college and less likely to commit felonies. Supporting that thesis would require sufficient evidence that expanding vouchers for private schooling in Pennsylvania or similar contexts would likely lead to the projected outcomes. The report cannot honestly muster that evidence. Instead, it ignores recent negative studies of statewide private school choice programs, misapplies findings on charter schools, and misrepresents literature on crime reduction. Moreover, Professor Baker points out, the core claim that vouchers improve reading achievement is based on findings from some charter school studies, not studies of children attending private school on taxpayer-subsidized vouchers. Given the negative effects on student achievement found in recent studies of voucher programs, this data selection choice makes the estimates particularly suspect. Finally, the report applies facile assumptions to suggest that vouchers generate additional cost savings, a suggestion that's achieved by setting public expenditure levels for vouchers that are lower than average district per-pupil spending levels. For all these reasons, Professor Baker concludes that the report is of no practical use to policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Unleashing Educational Opportunity: The Untapped Potential of Expanded Tax Credit Scholarships, written by Corey DeAngelis and published by Commonwealth Foundation, at: https://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/docLib/20200813_UnleashingEducationalOpportunityDeAngelis08_13_2020reduced.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: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Bruce D. Baker: (303) 492-8370, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High Quality Observation with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains Summary This report is the second to come out on the e Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project and focuses on an evaluation method in which videotaped lessons, evaluated by trained raters, are used to assess teachers. Publication Date March 12, 2012 Authors Cassandra Guarino, University of Indianana Brian Stacy, Michigan State University Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) Project Makes Important Contribution to Research Base Highlights the Variability in Teacher Performance Measures Based on Classroom Observation Instruments, Raises Important Questions EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 13, 2012) – The Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) project, published by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, examines several methods of evaluating teacher performance, including so-called value-added measures, the subject of much recent attention. The project's second report, Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observation with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains , focuses on analyzing ratings of classroom observations using a variety of observation instruments. Cassandra Guarino of Indiana University and Brian Stacy of Michigan State University reviewed it for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Reviewers Guarino and Stacy question the emphasis placed on validating classroom observations with test score gains. Observation scores may pick up different aspects of teacher quality than do test-based measures. It is possible that neither type of measure used in isolation captures a teacher's contribution to all the useful skills that students learn in schools. From this standpoint, the authors' conclusion that multiple measures of teacher effectiveness are needed is justifiable. The omission of relevant information is a shortcoming of the report. Key details regarding the study design and methodological approach are lacking. The review provoked several important questions to consider: Given the cost and painstaking efforts required to train classroom observers, can districts implement a classroom-evaluation system that creates a highly reliable measure? Do the classroom observations pick up on non-cognitive skills? Can the feedback they provide improve teaching effectiveness in a meaningful way? The authors conclude that the report offers ground-breaking descriptive information regarding classroom observation tools and raises many questions to be addressed in future research. It takes a large step forward but only scratches the surface in exploring how these measures can best be used or improved upon as evaluation tools. Find the review by Cassandra Guarino and Brian Stacy on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Gathering Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observation with Student Surveys and Achievement Gains by Thomas J. Kane and Douglas O. Staiger on the web at: http://www.metproject.org/downloads/MET_Gathering_Feedback_Practioner_Brief.pdf 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 funding from 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-gathering-feedback --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Cassandra Guarino, (812) 856-2927, guarino@indiana.edu Brian Stacy, (843) 696-5496, stacybri@msu.edu Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More