< Back Review of Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era Summary A recent Fordham Institute report argues that post-pandemic enrollment declines will inevitably force districts to make the controversial decision to close some schools. Embracing this possibility, it provides dual criteria of substantial declines in enrollment and chronic low performance as indicators of which schools should be closed first, naming nearly 500 specific schools that meet the criteria. Publication Date January 28, 2025 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Sofoklis Goulas; Sally A. Nuamah, Northwestern University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's School Closure Recommendations are Not Supported by Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Fordham report relies on arbitrary assumptions and calculations, and empirical research fails to support its inflated claims of school-closure benefits. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 28, 2025) - A recent Fordham Institute report argues that post-pandemic enrollment declines will inevitably force districts to make the controversial decision to close some schools. Embracing this possibility, it provides dual criteria of substantial declines in enrollment and chronic low performance as indicators of which schools should be closed first, naming nearly 500 specific schools that meet the criteria. In her review of Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era , Sally A. Nuamah of Northwestern University finds little evidence to support the report's contention that closing these schools will meaningfully reduce budget deficits and improve education outcomes. The report cherry-picks studies about school closures, discussing very little of the peer-reviewed research evidence concerning the negative impacts of school closings on affordable housing, school accessibility, racial equity, attendance, and socio-emotional health. The report also does not include what researchers would expect in terms of a "methods" section that explains and supports the approach used. Instead, it presents some descriptive data and analyses, the import of which depends on readers embracing the authors' assumptions and ignoring standard empirical procedures. Finally, the report fails to account for the broader civic and social purposes of schools, including their role in providing children with food, shelter, childcare, civic learning, health care, and social services. Further, Professor Nuamah contends, it ignores the potential harmful effects of closing schools in communities that have already experienced chronic disinvestment. Thus, she concludes, policymakers would do best to ignore this report, including its list of candidates for school closure. It offers an unfounded and oversimplified solution to highly complex challenges. Find the review, by Sally A. Nuamah, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era ,written by Sofoklis Goulas and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/underachieving-and-underenrolled-chronically-low-performing-schools-post-pandemic NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Sally A. Nuamah (312) 671-0441 sally.nuamah@northwestern.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

< Back Review of Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners Summary Bellwether Education Partners recently published a report that establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). The report provides a useful resource for policymakers and practitioners. Publication Date March 2, 2021 Research Areas General / Needs Review; Equity & Civil Rights; Curriculum & Instruction Authors Brandon Lewis, Melissa Steel King, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis, University of New Mexico Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Argues Convincingly for More High-Quality Early Childhood Math Programs for Dual Language Learners An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report contributes to an understanding of the benefits and challenges involved in engaging dual language families to support their young children in learning math. EAST LANSING, MI (March 2, 2021) -Bellwether Education Partners recently published a report that establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). The report provides a useful resource for policymakers and practitioners. Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis of the University of New Mexico reviewed Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners . She explains that the Bellwether report presents lessons from research and practice on engaging families of DLLs in early mathematics learning. Drawing from the strengths of students, families, and communities, it highlights two case studies, Mighty Math and Zeno Math, on engaging dual language families to support mathematics with their young children. Dr. Celedón-Pattichis did note that major studies were omitted from the report that are key to advancing our understanding of the capacity of young DLLs to engage in rigorous mathematical concepts when given opportunities to do so. Further, in the report's recommendations for teacher education and professional development, it misses the opportunity to address what early childhood educators need to know about how young DLLs develop languages. Nonetheless, the recommendations in the report valuably inform policymakers and other stakeholders as they build asset-based programs that can support families and communities in engaging young DLLs in mathematics learning. Find the review, by Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners , written by Brandon Lewis, Melissa Steel King, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_LanguageCounts-HSF_Final.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis: (505) 277-2536, sceledon@unm.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

< Back Choice and Education across the States Summary This report assigns letter grades to states based on how extensive the state’s school choice system is. Publication Date April 29, 2008 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Wendy Chi, University of Colorado at Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Choice Report Card Earns Poor Grades Review concludes think tank’s ranking of states’ choice policies offers little useful information EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 29, 2008)— Choice and Education across the States , a new report from the Heartland Institute, gives letter grades to states based on the extensiveness of their school choice systems. A review of the report for the Think Twice project concludes that it offers little or no useful information for policy makers. Wendy Chi, a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado at Boulder, reviewed the report, which was written by Michael Van Winkle and released on April 17th by Heartland, whose stated mission is to “promote free-market solutions” that include “parental choice in education.” The report, according to Chi, does little more than offer policy makers the argument that states should increase school choice, dressed up with a letter grade for each state. Chi did praise the report for its clearly stated grading system, whereby states with more school choice options and fewer restrictions in choice programs got higher grades. But she criticized the report on several grounds. She noted that the basis for awarding grades was merely the “values and beliefs of the Heartland author.” Chi finds that the report’s grading criteria “make no attempt to determine how states are employing the different types of school choice, nor do they attempt to assess the quality or results of those choice programs.” As a result, “a state with little demand for school choice would be awarded a better grade by the Heartland standard if it adopted poorly functioning, underfunded, ill-received choice programs that resulted in lower student performance.” Finally, Chi criticizes the report’s assertion that an increase in school choice will strengthen accountability and improve student achievement. She explains that the author’s belief is not supported by empirical research. More generally, she notes that the report offers very little in the way of objective data to support its advocacy. Many of its claims are “unsupported assertions, offered without citations,” she writes. In the end, the state legislators who are the intended audience for the Heartland report are likely to learn little of substance from it, other than the extent that the state offers school choice. As a result, she concludes, “it would seem the report is of use only as an advocacy document.” Find the complete review by Wendy Chi as well as a link to the Heartland Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Wendy Chi, (734) 678-5196; wendychi@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world’s best Summary America Achieves report calls for additional international testing. The authors of the report consider recent PISA results a "wake up call to America’s middle class" and contend in response that U.S. high schools should start taking part in a new international test that is to compare the academic knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds- around the world. Publication Date June 4, 2013 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors Martin Carnoy, Stanford University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review of America Achieves Report Cites No Evidence To Support Call For Additional International Testing EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 4, 2013) – A recent report remarks that U.S. students are performing inadequately on the math and science portions of the PISA (Program of International Student Assessment) exam, an international test run by the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development). The authors of the report consider the PISA results a "wake up call to America's middle class" and contend in response that U.S. high schools should start taking part in a new international test that is to compare the academic knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds- around the world. However, a review of the report released today finds no evidence to support the report's arguments. Martin Carnoy of Stanford University reviewed Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world's best . The report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Carnoy points out that with its report, America Achieves, an educational reform advocacy group, promotes the idea that individual school performance participation on such international tests offers a valid means of comparing improving the school effectiveness of various national school systems and the effectives of national education systems. Yet he notes that the report itself fails to support this claim, and the claim is also not supported by PISA reports or the broader literature on school improvement and educational reform. The America Achieves report "is not grounded in research but rather is an assertion that measurement, by itself, is an effective reform tool." And it makes that assertion without ever explaining how the test in question would be linked to curricula or strategies tailored to teaching mathematics and science, or to specific teacher professional development strategies. "Thus the report is of no utility to policymakers," Carnoy concludes. Find Martin Carnoy's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world's best , published by America Achieves, on the web at: http://www.americaachieves.org/docs/OECD/Middle-Class-Or-Middle-Of-Pack2.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 publications. The project is made possible with the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-middle-class-or-middle-of-pack -###- 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: Martin Carnoy, (650) 906-7469, carnoy@stanford.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 Making the Grade: Accounting for Course Selection in High School Transcripts with Item Response Theory Summary The role of standardized test scores in college admissions is evolving, with many institutions shifting away from the SAT and ACT. In their absence, high school GPA has become the primary indicator of college readiness, though it doesn't account for course difficulty. A new Annenberg Institute report introduces "Transcript Strength," a measure designed to adjust GPA based on course rigor. While promising, the report acknowledges the approach requires further research and development. Publication Date March 25, 2025 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights; General / Needs Review; School Funding Authors Kenneth A. Shores and Sanford R. Student; Michael Russell, Boston College Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review of an Interesting New Approach to Evaluating High School Achievement An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Annenberg Institute report explores promising "transcript strength" as an alternative to GPA, acknowledging that more research is needed. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (March 25, 2025) - The role of standardized test scores in college admissions is evolving, with many institutions shifting away from the SAT and ACT. In their absence, high school GPA has become the primary indicator of college readiness, though it doesn't account for course difficulty. A new Annenberg Institute report introduces "Transcript Strength," a measure designed to adjust GPA based on course rigor. While promising, the report acknowledges the approach requires further research and development. In his review of Making the Grade: Accounting for Course Selection in High School Transcripts with Item Response Theory , Michael Russell of Boston College agrees that the approach has potential but will require future refinement. The report applies a " partial credit model" from Item Response Theory-commonly used in assessment development and research-to evaluate course difficulty, generating a Transcript Strength measure. Preliminary findings suggest this tool provides insights into high school achievement distinct from GPA and SAT scores. Professor Russell identifies several ways the report's analyses could be improved and potential barriers to widespread adoption of the new measure. But he concludes that overall, the report's presentation is sound and reasonable. He concurs with the report's assertion that transcript strength holds promise from a theoretical perspective to be a more informative indicator of high school achievement than GPA, but it is not yet ready for implementation by policymakers or admission officers. Find the review, by Michael Russell, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Making the Grade: Accounting for Course Selection in High School Transcripts with Item Response Theory, written by Kenneth A. Shores and Sanford R. Student and published by Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, at: https://doi.org/10.26300/48d6-mx29 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 Michael Russell (781) 724-1898 russelmh@bc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Competitive Effect of School Choice Policies on Performance in Traditional Public Schools Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date March 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Charter School Funding: Support for Students with Disabilities Summary A recent brief from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas erroneously asserts that charter schools are shortchanged of funding for students with disabilities. Publication Date September 2, 2021 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Cassidy Syftestad, Patrick J. Wolf, Wendy Tucker, and Lauren Morando Rhim; Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Provides Deeply Flawed Picture of Special Education Funding for Charter Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: No valid conclusions can be drawn about special education population differences, needs, costs, or funding gaps from the inaccurate methods presented in report. EAST LANSING, MI (September 2, 2021) - A recent brief from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas erroneously asserts that charter schools are shortchanged of funding for students with disabilities. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed Charter School Funding: Support for Students with Disabilities, and found it to ignore substantial differences in the classifications, needs, and costs of children with disabilities in district-operated versus charter schools. Most obviously, the available data suggests that the students with disabilities that charter schools enroll have, on average, less severe needs. In addition, Professor Baker points to the report's exclusive citing of deeply flawed, self-published evidence of a purported charter school funding gap more generally, while it ignored more rigorous studies yielding contradictory findings. As such, he concludes, the report adds no value to legitimate debate over the comparability or adequacy of general or special education funding of charter schools. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter School Funding: Support for Students with Disabilities, written by Cassidy Syftestad, Patrick J. Wolf, Wendy Tucker, and Lauren Morando Rhim and published by the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas, at: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/9/544/files/2018/10/charter-school-funding-support-for-students-with-disabilities.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 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 Review of Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement Summary A recent report from the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver attempts to assess the effect of a "portfolio district strategy" on student performance in the Denver Public Schools. As was the case with its 2022 predecessor (reviewed here), advocates for portfolio reforms have trumpeted the new study as showing that this "portfolio" package of reforms has a positive and large impact on student outcomes. The review, however, concludes that the study lacks the ability to so definitively link Denver's improved outcomes to these particular reforms. Publication Date November 7, 2024 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Parker Baxter, Anna Nicotera, David Stuit, Margot Plotz, Todd Ely, and Paul Teske; Robert Shand, American University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Denver's Portfolio Reform Strategy Again Oversold An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report asserts that there is strong evidence linking student learning gains in Denver to portfolio reform. But the follow-up study, while better, does not allow for the causal inferences asserted by policy advocates. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 7, 2024) - A recent report from the Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver attempts to assess the effect of a "portfolio district strategy" on student performance in the Denver Public Schools. As was the case with its 2022 predecessor (reviewed here ), advocates for portfolio reforms have trumpeted the new study as showing that this "portfolio" package of reforms has a positive and large impact on student outcomes. The review, however, concludes that the study lacks the ability to so definitively link Denver's improved outcomes to these particular reforms. In his review , Robert Shand of American University finds that the assertions in this year's report, titled Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement , are exaggerated in both magnitude and certainty. The current report seriously addresses Professor Shand's previous criticism that the 2022 study had potentially misattributed academic gains to the portfolio reform by inadequately addressing the alternative explanation that student demographics that had changed during the reform period. The new report convincingly demonstrates that the gains are not primarily due to changing demographics. But the 2024 report fails to address Professor Shand's other critiques of the prior study, including (1) that the mechanisms whereby the portfolio model might improve outcomes (and not include possibly harmful elements) are undertheorized; and (2) that things besides what would be typically understood as included within the portfolio reform (or student demographics) were changing concurrently with the reform. As the review points out: The report dismisses factors such as additional funding, reduced class sizes, and changes in leadership or curriculum concomitant with the reform. As just one example, DPS received a large infusion of external resources during the time period under study, including over $15 million raised in 2014-15, the last year of the study period. This equates to about $175 per student from just one source. In sum, while these researchers and others have indeed observed significant academic improvements in Denver, the report's exuberant conclusion that Denver's reform is "among the most effective" in U.S. history cannot be supported by the study. In fact, the study-while it effectively ruled out demographic change-cannot identify the causes of the improved outcomes. Find the review by Robert Shand at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement , written by Parker Baxter, Anna Nicotera, David Stuit, Margot Plotz, Todd Ely, and Paul Teske and published by Center for Education Policy Analysis at the University of Colorado Denver, at: https://publicaffairs.ucdenver.edu/docs/librariesprovider36/default-document-library/denver_systemwide_and_intervention-effects-technical-report-september-2024.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Robert Shand (202) 885-6917 rshand@american.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 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