< Back America's Private Public Schools Summary This report identifies public schools across the U.S. that enroll very few students from low-income families (private public schools) and argues that the existence of these "exclusive" schools justifies the support of publicly funded vouchers to private schools. Publication Date March 24, 2010 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors John T. Yun, University of California, Santa Barbara Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release "Private-Public School" Report Leaps to Unsupported Recommendations March 24, 2010 Fordham report's call for expansion of private school vouchers is unsupported by data and based on tenuous logic, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 24, 2010) – A recently released report identifies public schools across the U.S. that enroll very few students from low-income families and uses the existence of these schools to argue that private schools should be publically funded by vouchers and tax credits. A Think Twice review of that report concludes that the report's policy arguments are based on tenuous logic, oversimplification and "critical omissions of fact, context and prior research." The Thomas B. Fordham Institute report, America's Private Public Schools , was reviewed by professor John Yun of the University of California, Santa Barbara. Yun observes that the report does raise interesting issues in its finding that about 4 percent of the public school population attend some 2,800 schools where fewer than 1 in 20 students qualify for free- or reduced-price lunch. In the report, these schools are labeled "private public schools." The report argues that the prevalence of these "exclusive" schools justifies the expansion of publically funded private school voucher and tuition tax credit programs. Yet, Yun says, the report's attempts to use its findings to support that recommendation don't hold up. Moreover, even the term itself is misleading since it implies that lack of poverty alone makes a private school. The report's primary argument to tie lower levels of class segregation to school choice policies is extremely weak. Essentially, the report points to some states with choice policies and points out that they have fewer identified "public private schools." But Yun notes that the report offers little or no evidence to meaningfully link choice policies to lesser segregation, beyond sweeping "associational implications." The report also fails to explore alternative explanations for such variations, such as historic housing segregation or the presence of large county-wide districts (which tend to have less segregation) common in Southern states like Florida. Beyond these problems, Yun notes serious concerns about accuracy of the report's data, classifications, and calculations. Some schools classified as "private public" appear to be quite diverse, while others that escaped this classification appear to have few if any low-income students. Moreover, the report ignores prior research showing that private schools are more likely to be more economically exclusive than public schools, calling into question the recommended "solution" of sending more students to those private schools. Yun states that, "While policymakers should indeed engage with the issue of elite, secluded public schooling, shifting more students into a private sector that is even more stratified does not appear to offer a wise solution." The report fails to explain how even a voucher policy targeted to low-income students would result in overall improvement of the segregation problem. He concludes, "In pursuing such a flawed argument on such an important topic, the authors miss a chance to seriously address this critical issue in favor of making an unsupported recommendation for a private school voucher policy that has very little hope of addressing de facto socioeconomic segregation in any substantive way." Find John T. Yun's review as well as a link to America's Private Public Schools 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: John T. Yun (805) 893-2342; jyun@education.ucsb.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Getting Ahead by Staying Behind: An Evaluation of Florida’s Program to End Social Promotion Summary This Education Next article summarizes the Manhattan’s Institute’s 2004 study, An Evaluation of Florida’s Program to End Social Promotion. The authors analyze the test scores of two third-grade cohorts over the period of one year and conclude that there are major positive effects associated with retention in the program. Publication Date February 23, 2006 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Ed Wiley, University of Colorado Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Overstates Impact of Florida Retention Policy, Review Finds October 10, 2006 For Immediate Release Education Research and Practice (248)444-7071 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Derek Briggs, University of Colorado at Boulder (303)492-6320 (e-mail) Derek.Briggs@colorado.edu EAST LANSING, Mich. (Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006) — A recent Manhattan Institute report which concludes that Florida’s policy of retaining third-grade students based on their scores on a standardized reading test has helped them to improve their reading overstates the effect of retention on student achievement according to a Think Twice review of the report by Derek Briggs of University of Colorado. The report, “Getting Farther Ahead by Staying Behind: A Second-Year Evaluation of Florida’s Policy to End Social Promotion,” by Jay Greene and Marcus Winters reaches findings that “are best described as suggestive and merit further investigation” according to Briggs. In his review, he points out some principal shortcomings which undermine the validity of the report’s conclusions: The Florida policy doesn’t simply ‘retain’ third-graders who fail to achieve the threshold score in the state reading test, in the way the term is commonly understood. In addition to repeating the same grade, Florida’s policy also requires retained students to attend summer school and receive intensive remedial reading instruction. The authors are unable to isolate the effect of repeating the same grade from the effect of attending summer school and of receiving intensive reading instruction. While using methods that appear to be appropriate, the authors “omit important information necessary to understand and evaluate” their statistical models, including important descriptive statistics about the samples of students analyzed in the study. The authors appear to overstate the retention effect that their report estimates. This is due to the way they quantify the magnitude of the results from their statistical analysis. On the issue of other interventions that accompany retention, Briggs says that because Greene and Winters do not isolate effects of retention from those of summer school and intensive reading instruction, it is very difficult to conclude whether retention itself had a positive or negative effect. The report is a follow-up to a 2005 report by Greene and Winters which evaluated the first year of the Florida retention policy. This report was analyzed in a Think Twice review by Ed Wiley who was critical of the report’s methods and findings. Find the 2006 Manhattan Institute report and its review by Derek Briggs and the 2005 report and its review by Ed Wiley at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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 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: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Trends in Charter School Authorizing Summary This report surveyed charter school authorizers to explore how they rated on factors that the report’s authors considered important. Publication Date May 11, 2006 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Ernest House, University of Colorado Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Despite Serious Problems and a Lack of Research Support, Virtual Schools Continue to Spread as Policymakers Remain AWOL Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date May 29, 2019 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Technology & AI Authors Alex Molnar, Series Editor University of Colorado, Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 28, 2019) — Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 , a three-part research brief released today by the National Education Policy Center, examines the claim that online curriculum can be tailored to individual students more effectively than curriculum in traditional classrooms. Proponents contend that this potential for individualization allows virtual schools to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. NEPC researchers found, however, that the research evidence does not support this claim. Yet the lack of research support has done little to dampen policymakers' enthusiasm, perhaps because virtual schools are marketed as promising lower operating costs—primarily via cutbacks in instructional personnel and facilities. Section I of the brief, Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance , provides straightforward analyses of the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools. The data reveal that full-time virtual and blended learning schools continue to perform poorly. Section II, What Virtual and Blended Education Research Reveals , points to a serious shortfall in the scholarly research. It reviews the relevant available studies related to virtual school practices and finds that much of this is atheoretical, methodologically questionable, contextually limited, and overgeneralized. As a result, the available research is of little value in guiding policy. Section III, Key Policy Issues in Virtual Schools: Finance and Governance, Instructional Quality, and Teacher Quality , provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft policy regarding virtual schools. As in past years, bills to increase oversight of virtual schools continue to be introduced. Some legislative actions have been prompted by state audits and legal challenges, as exemplified by recent virtual school controversies in California and Ohio. As such, the bills have been aimed at addressing accountability and governance structures, as well as curbing the operation of for-profit virtual schools. However, there is little evidence that legislative actions are being informed by available research on the performance of virtual schools. The authors recommend that policymakers hit the pause button on further virtual school expansion until we understand how to address the poor performance of these schools. Find Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 , edited by Alex Molnar, at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This research brief was made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Charter Schools and the Achievement Gap Summary A recent report published by the Future of Children, a collaboration of the Brookings Institution and Princeton University, recommended the expansion of intensive school discipline practices to drive academic results. Despite charter schools performing no better than traditional public schools on average, the report found “no-excuses” charter schools demonstrate promising results. The report advanced that the practices should be expanded within and outside the charter school sector. Publication Date April 10, 2018 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Sarah Cohodes, Teachers College, Columbia University; A. Chris Torres, Michigan State University; & Joanne Golann, Vanderbilt University. Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report recommending the expansion of "no-excuses" charter practices fails to recognize the problems associated with replication EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 10, 2018) — A recent report published by the Future of Children , a collaboration of the Brookings Institution and Princeton University , recommended the expansion of intensive school discipline practices to drive academic results. Despite charter schools performing no better than traditional public schools on average, the report found "no-excuses" charter schools demonstrate promising results. The report advanced that the practices should be expanded within and outside the charter school sector. However, a new academic review of the report finds that the report leaves readers with an incomplete understanding of the recommended practices and fails to address limits and potential problems. The report, Charter Schools and the Achievement Gap , was reviewed by A. Chris Torres , Michigan State University, and Joanne Golann , Vanderbilt University, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . According to the reviewers, the report provided a standard literature review, which was appropriate for its purposes. The reviewers add, "We see several important problems with the recommendation to replicate 'no-excuses' schools and their practices based purely on the evidence reviewed." More specifically, the reviewers find three primary flaws with the report's conclusions: The report bases its recommendations only on academic success, and does not address the controversy over the use of harsh discipline methods; The report fails to identify which practices included in "no-excuses" charters should be replicated; and The report ignores some of the factors that would allow "no-excuses" charters to be successful. In their conclusion, the reviewers add: "Policymakers, practitioners, and researchers need to do much more to understand and address the potential costs of the 'no-excuses' model before giving thought to expanding these practices in either the charter or traditional school sector." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter Schools and the Achievement Gap here: https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/news/charter-schools-and-achievement-gap 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. You can also find the review 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: A. Chris Torres , (517) 432-0136, ctorres@msu.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 State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Students Achievement in Philadelphia Summary These two reports examine the impact of private and district management on student achievement in Philadelphia. In 2002, Philadelphia restructured 86 of its lowest-achieving schools and shifted the management of some of them to private companies. The RAND-RFA report concludes that private management has had no impact on math or reading achievement, while district management had a positive effect on math achievement but none on ready. The PEPG report reached virtually the opposite conclusion. It found that private management has had a positive effect on math and reading achievement, while district management has had no measurable effect. Publication Date May 7, 2007 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Derek Briggs, University of Colorado at Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. – Two recent studies examining the restructuring of the lowest-achieving public schools in Philadelphia reach different conclusions about whether private management has improved student achievement. Because similar restructuring reform is promoted by the federal No Child Left Behind law, these studies have important national implications. Both studies have flaws, however, and neither study is yet sufficient to make definitive claims about the effects of Philadelphia’s school restructuring reform. The two reports reviewed are State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Student Achievement in Philadelphia released by the RAND Corporation in partnership with Research for Action (RFA); and School Reform in Philadelphia: A Comparison of Student Achievement at Privately-Managed Schools with Student Achievement in Other District Schools published by the Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University. The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Derek Briggs, a professor at the University of Colorado at Boulder. Both reports attempt to assess the impact of a school reform in Philadelphia. Starting in 2002, the city’s school district restructured its 86 lowest-achieving elementary and middle schools. The most prominent approaches shifted school management to either the district or to one of several private companies. The reports examine the impact of private or district management on student achievement in math and reading. The RAND-RFA paper concludes that private management had no impact on math or reading achievement, while district management had a positive effect on math achievement but none on reading. The PEPG paper, meanwhile, reached virtually the opposite conclusion. It found private management has had a positive effect on the performance of lower-scoring students in math and reading, while district management had no measurable effect. In his review, Briggs indicates that the different findings can largely be explained by the fact that PEPG did not have the same access to data as did RAND-RFA. He also identifies and describes the methodological weaknesses in both reports. Briggs concludes: “These two studies, read together, do contribute to our understanding of Philadelphia’s experience. Yet, although the RAND-RFA study sheds more light on that experience than does the PEPG study, neither study offers a complete picture, and more research is needed before drawing any definitive conclusions.” Find the complete review by Derek Briggs as well as links to the PEPG and RAND-RFA reports on the web 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. Kevin Welner, the project co-director and editor, explains that the project is needed because “despite their garnering of media attention and their influence with many policy makers, reports released by private think tanks can be of very poor quality. We don’t consider our reviews to be the final word, nor is our goal to stop think tanks’ contributions to a public dialogue. That dialogue is, in fact, what we value the most. The best ideas come about through rigorous critique and debate.” 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: Derek Briggs (303) 492-6320 (email) Derek.Briggs@Colorado.EDU Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Systems for Success: Thinking Beyond Access to AP Summary Systems for Success contends that a variety of interventions help promote student access and success in AP, including teacher support and development, analysis of class composition, careful scheduling, and provision of during- and after-school academic support for students. Publication Date September 25, 2018 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Ashley Griffin and Davis Dixon; Beth C. Rubin Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (September 11, 2018) — A recent report from Excel in Ed and Texas Public Policy Foundation examines the charter-school authorizing process in Texas and contends that a 2013 legislative policy change made the authorization process too restrictive, thus reducing the number of applicants and stifling innovation. Professor Edward J. Fuller of Penn State University reviewed T ime to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools and found that its findings and conclusions are not supported by research or other compelling evidence and thus do not provide useful guidance for policymakers. 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 . Fuller's key finding is that although the report is billed as a case study, it fails to supply solid evidence. The report's lack of research and analysis results in an unsupported advocacy paper instead. After surveying current and past Texas authorizing policies, the report claims Texas had formerly been a leader in creating high-performing charter schools. It further claims that Texas' past low barriers for entry into the market (i.e., ease of having an application approved by an authorizer) was a contributing factor to this success. The report then provides recommendations for creating an easier authorization process. While the report contends it is a case study, Professor Fuller notes that it does not employ case study methodology. Moreover, the report fails to review or cite relevant research; it instead relies on unsubstantiated claims, anecdotes, misleading statements, and even demonstrably false statements to promote the development of more charter schools in Texas. In short, Fuller concludes, this report is an advocacy paper masquerading as a case study. Policymakers would be well advised to skip the report and look for evidence-based reviews of the Texas charter authorizing process. Find the Think Twice Review by Fuller 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 Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools , written by Adam Jones and Amanda List and published by Excel in Ed and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, at https://www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ExcelinEd.TexasCharterSchoolPaper.TimeToChangeCourse.June2018.pdf You can also find the review by Edward Fuller on the NEPC website: https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-texas-charters 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 Review of From School Aid to Student Aid: Modernizing K-12 Funding in Michigan Summary In recent years, supporters of school choice have promoted school finance reforms sometimes called "backpack funding," but also called "money follows the child" or "student-based budgeting." Whatever the term used, the idea is facilitate choice by attaching a funded amount to each student, with that payment following the students to their chosen schools. A recent version of this proposal is found in a new report from the Mackinac Center, which provides a six-part recommendation for changes to Michigan's current approach to financing public and charter schools. The report's overarching theme, which is examined in a new review, is to move toward a system where more funding follows the student to either public, charter, or private schools—or to other service providers. Publication Date May 3, 2022 Research Areas School Funding Authors Ben DeGrow; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Promoting a 'Money Follows the Child' Funding System Lacks Rigorous Analysis An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's conclusions based on a selective review of literature and false assumptions. EAST LANSING, MI (May 3, 2022) - In recent years, supporters of school choice have promoted school finance reforms sometimes called "backpack funding," but also called "money follows the child" or "student-based budgeting." Whatever the term used, the idea is facilitate choice by attaching a funded amount to each student, with that payment following the students to their chosen schools. A recent version of this proposal is found in a new report from the Mackinac Center, which provides a six-part recommendation for changes to Michigan's current approach to financing public and charter schools. The report's overarching theme, which is examined in a new review, is to move toward a system where more funding follows the student to either public, charter, or private schools—or to other service providers. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed From School Aid to Student Aid: Modernizing K-12 Funding in Michigan , and found it to provide some useful, albeit insufficiently researched, guidance on shifting categorical funding into core funding and modifying the state's approach to financing programs for children with disabilities. Yet Professor Baker also describes how the report mischaracterizes literature on whether school finance reforms matter for school quality, and on the benefits of school district consolidation. The report also fails to recognize the various factors that affect the costs of providing children equal educational opportunity. Further, it largely ignores the realities and constraints of how schools and school systems work and how annual budget planning and resource allocation work toward efficiently providing high-quality educational services to children, regardless of sector or location. Accordingly, Professor Baker concludes, key elements of the report and its proposals are built on false promises and assumptions and are not helpful for policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find From School Aid to Student Aid: Modernizing K-12 Funding in Michigan , written by Ben DeGrow and published by the Mackinac Center, at: https://www.mackinac.org/S2022-01 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 Bruce D. Baker: (848) 932-0698, 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 Understanding a Vicious Cycle: Do Out-of-School Suspensions Impact Student Test Scores? Summary The Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas released a recent working paper on the association between out-of-school suspensions and student test scores. The paper concluded that punishment works, and that out-of-school suspension had a positive relationship to math and language arts test scores. However, an academic review of the paper finds multiple methodological and validity concerns, which limit the claims made. Publication Date June 1, 2017 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Authors Kaitlin P. Anderson, Gary W. Ritter, & Gema Zamarro; Brea L. Perry, Indiana University; and Daniel Losen, director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies initiative at the Civil Rights Project at UCLA Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Paper showing positive impact of out-of-school suspensions not useful for policymakers, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 1, 2017) — The Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas released a recent working paper on the association between out-of-school suspensions and student test scores. The paper concluded that punishment works, and that out-of-school suspension had a positive relationship to math and language arts test scores. However, an academic review of the paper released today finds multiple methodological and validity concerns, which limit the claims made. Brea L. Perry, Indiana University, and Daniel Losen, director of the Center for Civil Rights Remedies initiative at the Civil Rights Project at UCLA, reviewed the paper, Understanding a Vicious Cycle: Do Out-of-School Suspensions Impact Student Test Scores? , 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. The working paper used multilevel regression modeling of student discipline records across six years for all K-12 public schools in Arkansas. In contrast to prior work, the report found a modest positive relationship between days of suspensions and student test scores. The reviewers find multiple problems with the report, including: (1) the effects of out-of-school suspensions are not measured in the same year in which the suspensions occurred; and (2) other factors were not considered (viz., lost instructional time; the deterioration of student-teacher relationships; psychological distress; and other more immediate consequences of suspensions). Perry and Losen note that past research has predominantly shown exclusionary discipline to adversely effect test scores, GPA, grade retention, and increases the chances of a student dropping out. Because of this, the findings, according to the review, have weak face validity. In their conclusion, the reviewers state: "This paper offers no value for guiding disciplinary policy and practice." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/understanding-a-vicious-cycle-do-out-of-school-suspensions-impact-student-test-scores/ 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: Brea L. Perry, (812) 856-0447, blperry@indiana.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 As a Matter of Fact: National Charter School Study III 2023 Summary In a recent report, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) examined charter school students' year-to-year test score growth over four years, and across 31 states. The report shows very small differences favoring charter schools and has been repeatedly trumpeted by charter school advocates as having policy significance-as weighing in favor of charter school expansion. Publication Date September 7, 2023 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding; Charter Schools Authors Margaret E. Raymond, James L. Woodworth, Won Fy Lee, and Sally Bachofer; Joseph J. Ferrare University of Washington Bothell Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release CREDO Report Makes Overstated Claims of Charter School Gains An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Unobserved factors may be driving the very small reported differences in test score growth across sectors. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 7, 2023) - In a recent report, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) examined charter school students' year-to-year test score growth over four years, and across 31 states. The report shows very small differences favoring charter schools and has been repeatedly trumpeted by charter school advocates as having policy significance-as weighing in favor of charter school expansion. A review reveals, however, how the report's main findings fail to meet the minimum baseline experts consider to be meaningful. In fact, CREDO itself has labeled these small differences as "meaningless" and "small" -back when they found charter schools to be on the losing end of those differences. Joseph J. Ferrare of the University of Washington Bothell reviewed As a Matter of Fact: National Charter School Study III 2023 and warns that it should be approached with caution by policymakers, given the nonexperimental design that renders it unable to fully account for the factors that drive families to choose charter schools. Those omitted factors could account for the small measured differences. The recent CREDO report finds that charter school students, when compared to those in traditional public schools, experienced small, positive impacts in reading and math (0.028 and 0.011 standard deviations, respectively), but with considerable variation between groups and types of schools. For instance, Black and Hispanic students in the study showed more positive outcomes than other racial and ethnic identities. Virtual charter schools, meanwhile, produced strongly negative outcomes. The geographic scope of the report and the researchers' access to detailed data sets offer the potential to provide policymakers with an expansive bird's-eye view, comparing charter school students' learning in reading and math to students in traditional public schools. Unfortunately, the CREDO researchers repeat mistakes of their past charter school studies, including the use of the "days of learning" unconventional metric, that leads to more confusion than clarity. This and other problems have been pointed out by several past NEPC reviews: in 2009 , when the small differences were flipped; 2013 and again later in 2013 ; 2015 ; and 2017 . Similar and additional concerns were raised by Andrea Gabor in 2015 and by Carol Burris as regards the 2023 study. CREDO's reports do have potential, but that potential will not be realized unless and until the researchers respond constructively to these sincere and important criticisms. Find the review, by Joseph J. Ferrare, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find As a Matter of Fact: National Charter School Study III 2023 , written by Margaret E. Raymond, James L. Woodworth, Won Fy Lee, and Sally Bachofer and published by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO), at: https://ncss3.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Credo-NCSS3-Report.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: Michelle Renee Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Joseph J. Ferrare: (425) 352-3801, jferrare@uw.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 A 21st Century School System in the Mile-High City Summary A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute advocated for expanded use of the “portfolio model” of school governance. The report drew on contemporary reforms adopted by the Denver Public Schools. It claimed that reforms enacted by the Denver Public Schools (viz., portfolio model, school closings, and charter expansion) positively impacted student test scores. The goal was to highlight Denver as a success story that should be copied elsewhere. Publication Date July 26, 2016 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Curriculum & Instruction Authors David Osborne; Terrenda White, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report praising Denver school reforms not supported with evidence, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jul. 26, 2016) — A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute advocated for expanded use of the "portfolio model" of school governance. The report drew on contemporary reforms adopted by the Denver Public Schools, which include aggressively closing public schools and expanding charter schools and charter networks. An academic review released today finds that the report oversteps its claims in an attempt to positively portray Denver's reforms. The report , A 21st Century School System in the Mile-High City , was reviewed by Terrenda White, University of Colorado Boulder, for the Think Twice think thank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report, funded by the Walton Family Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Laura and John Arnold Foundation, claimed that reforms enacted by the Denver Public Schools (viz., portfolio model, school closings, and charter expansion) positively impacted student test scores. The goal was to highlight Denver as a success story that should be copied elsewhere. However, White's review raises serious concerns about the claims made. Most notably, White finds that the only data presented were simple charts that lacked any conventional statistical analysis. Regarding the report's use of research literature, White finds that the report drew primarily from advocacy publications from partisan foundations. In her conclusion, White says: "Ironically, the report celebrates Denver's portfolio strategy and its expansion of charter schools as a model of 21st century reform at a time when other cities have discovered that charters are not panaceas." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A 21st Century School System on the web: http://www.progressivepolicy.org/issues/education/21st-century-school-system-mile-high-city/ 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: Terrenda White, (404) 661-2439, terrenda.white@colorado.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 Differences by Design? Student Composition in Charter Schools with Different Academic Models Summary A report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) compared differences in approaches and demographics between and among charter school models and traditional public schools. The report used three national data sets to capture the national universe of charter schools. Using enrollment demographics at different charter school models (e.g., art focused, no-excuses, single-sex, etc.), the report demonstrated that different demographic groups attend different types of charter schools. With regard to different categories of race and ethnicity, family income, and special education status, the report documents demographic sorting as an outcome of school choice. Publication Date April 13, 2017 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Nat Malkus And Jenn Hatfield; T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia; and Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report dismissive of charter school segregation and stratification, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 13, 2017) — A report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) compared differences in approaches and demographics between and among charter school models and traditional public schools. The report used three national data sets to capture the national universe of charter schools. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report released today finds that it fails to consider: (1) a large body of research on parent-decision-making; (2) research suggesting that charter schools are not as innovative as they claim; and (3) the purpose and aims of an equitable public education system. The report, Differences by Design? Student Composition in Charter Schools with Different Academic Models , was reviewed by T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia, and Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Using enrollment demographics at different charter school models (e.g., art focused, no-excuses, single-sex, etc.), the report demonstrated that different demographic groups attend different types of charter schools. With regard to different categories of race and ethnicity, family income, and special education status, the report documents demographic sorting as an outcome of school choice. The reviewers find that the report presents charter school de facto segregation as a benign byproduct of parental choice. In fact, the review finds that the original report actually acknowledged that this type of stratification was part and partial of a "properly" functioning charter sector - one in which parents get to choose the type of school their children attend. According to the reviewers, the methodological decisions of the original report were not clear or fully justified. Additionally, the report failed to adequately describe how they classified special education students - not distinguishing between disabilities. Regarding the report's use of research literature, Brewer and Lubienski, in their review, find that the report relies heavily on other reports from AEI and pro-charter advocacy organizations. Only two sources from the original report were from peer-reviewed journals. Ultimately, the reviewers conclude: "While the authors and AEI may have conceived this report as a rationale for advancing charter schools, their data demonstrates that charter schools may be destructive of the common good." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report on the web: https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Differences-by-Design.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: T. Jameson Brewer , (404) 941-4530, jameson.brewer@ung.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