< Back Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement: the Research on School Turnaround Summary The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released a report advocating for implementation of evidence-based best practices for turning around low-performing schools through the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. It concluded that five dramatic actions are necessary to bring about dramatic school improvement. An academic review finds the rationale for its assertions to be narrow, incoherent, and misleading. Publication Date May 10, 2015 Authors The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released a report advocating for implementation of evidence-based best practices for turning around low-performing schools through the federal School Im; Tina Trujillo, University of California Berkeley Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release CAP turnaround report bold, seductive on the surface, lacks evidence-based foundation EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 11, 2015) – A recently released report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) advocated for implementation of evidence-based best practices for turning around low-performing schools through the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. It concluded that five dramatic actions are necessary to bring about dramatic school improvement. Unfortunately, an academic review finds the rationale for its assertions to be narrow, incoherent, and misleading. Tina Trujillo, assistant professor at the University of California Berkeley, reviewed Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement: the Research on School Turnaround for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report asserts that it offers clear lessons about the most effective, research-based methods for turning around low-performing schools through the federal SIG program. In her review, Trujillo notes that the analysis is primarily limited to the findings of twelve documentary sources, and four anecdotal snapshots from schools identified as successful turnaround models. Trujillo further finds that the report essentially ignores large bodies of research on high-stakes accountability, school improvement, and emerging evidence on school closures and federally funded turnarounds. Specifically, Trujillo cautions that a more inclusive review of extant research "reveals that the federal SIG program's turnaround policies are based on unwarranted claims and are contradicted by the empirical evidence." Trujillo's review identifies that the report failed to meet standards for evidence and analytic transparency, and is of little use to policymakers or practitioners. According to Trujillo, "In the end, schools, district, and states that follow the report's advice stand only to reproduce the unequal conditions that have led, in part, to their need for dramatic turnaround in the first place." Read his full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement on the web: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2015/03/31/110142/dramatic-action-dramatic-improvement/ 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: Tina Trujillo, (510) 642-6272, trujillo@berkeley.edu Daniel 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 "Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers Summary Grow Your Own programs must also focus on improving retention of new teachers by considering how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. Publication Date May 18, 2022 Authors Conra D. Gist of the University of Houston Research Areas General Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release "Grow Your Own" Programs Can Build Equity in Local Schools and Communities, Explains New Policy Brief Key Takeaway: Grow Your Own programs must also focus on improving retention of new teachers by considering how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. EAST LANSING, MI (May 19, 2022) - Grow your own (GYO) programs are designed to recruit, prepare, and place community members as teachers in local schools. They do this through partnerships between educator preparation programs, school districts or local educational agencies, and community-based organizations. The nation is currently seeing new and thoughtful uses of the approach. Particularly intriguing are models with an explicit commitment to advancing justice and equity in teacher development, which can be leveraged to open doors to the profession for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) teachers with roots in, and understanding of, the community. These models are examined in a new NEPC policy brief from Conra D. Gist of the University of Houston, titled " Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers . The recent increase of federal, state, and district GYO initiatives to recruit community teachers is timely, signaling a new era of GYO program development in the 21st century. However, Professor Gist cautions, despite the enthusiasm about the potential of GYO programs to advance educational equity for BIPOC students, research on BIPOC educators has generally offered a cautionary note for any teacher development program that focuses too much on recruitment—without equally responsive preparation and strategic retention structures. For programs to improve retention of new teachers, they must consider how the teaching and learning needs of BIPOC teachers evolve as they progress along the teacher development continuum. Even if programs evidence some upticks in teacher retention, a shortsighted approach to teacher development may leave these teachers without the guidance and resources needed to enhance their students’ learning. To help policymakers avoid these pitfalls, Professor Gist considers historical lessons from past community teacher development initiatives as well as emerging research. Professor Gist concludes by sharing recommendations for GYO program designers, policymakers, and researchers. The recommendations will help ensure that new GYO programs are crafted in ways that prepare and sustain BIPOC community teachers. Find " Grow Your Own" Programs: Examining Potential and Pitfalls for a New Generation of Black, Indigenous, and People of Color Community Teachers , by Conra D. Gist, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org) . The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, 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 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Choice and Segregation by Race Class and Achievement Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date February 29, 2008 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Report Advocating for More Charter School Facilities Funding Offers Scarce Rationale for Doing So Summary A recent report from Bellwether Education Partners contends that more funding should be given for charter school facilities. Focusing on a series of Idaho case studies, the report argues that charter schools are unfairly denied funding for the construction and renovation of their school buildings. These arguments, while focused on Idaho in this particular report, have been made with regard to charter school policies across the U.S. Publication Date March 11, 2019 Authors Mark Weber, Rutgers Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Advocating for More Charter School Facilities Funding Offers Scarce Rationale for Doing So Key Takeaway: Report's flaws in comparison and reasoning hamper its usefulness in guiding Idaho charter school policy. EAST LANSING, MI (March 12, 2019) – A recent report from Bellwether Education Partners contends that more funding should be given for charter school facilities. Focusing on a series of Idaho case studies, the report argues that charter schools are unfairly denied funding for the construction and renovation of their school buildings. These arguments, while focused on Idaho in this particular report, have been made with regard to charter school policies across the U.S. Mark Weber of Rutgers and New Jersey Policy Perspective reviewed Fairness in Facilities: Why Idaho Public Charter Schools Need More Facilities Funding . He found several flaws that undermine its usefulness for policymakers looking to provide an adequate and equitable education. The report makes comparisons of charter and public school facilities spending. But the examples it relies on are not "apples-to-apples" comparisons. It avoids discussing differences in student characteristics between the charter and public school district sectors, and it does not examine the issue of school governance and facilities ownership. This renders any statewide generalizations suspect, and it results in problematic recommendations. The report bemoans the fact that charter school facilities are not part of local school districts' bonds and tax levies, yet it does not acknowledge that charter facilities are often owned by private entities. Mandating that local taxpayers support charter facilities would, therefore, force them to pay for buildings they would not own. Further, the report's calculation of "costs-per-seat" ignores the reality that different students have different needs. For example, public district schools enroll proportionally more students with disabilities and English language learners, with one consequence being that they tend to have more support staff per pupil than charter schools. These additional staff require additional space to do their work, which may result in greater facilities expenses per pupil in public school districts than in charter schools. Given these limitations, Dr. Weber concludes that the report provides little guidance for policymakers and other stakeholders at a time when Idaho is working to overhaul its school funding system. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Weber-Charter-Funding.pdf Find Fairness in Facilities: Why Idaho Public Charter Schools Need More Facilities Funding , written by Kelly Robson, Juliet Squire, and Lynne Graziano, and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_BFP-Idaho_CharterFacilitiesReport_Final.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Mark Weber: (908) 358-5828, mark.weber@gse.rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

< Back The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018 Summary A recent report from Mackinac Center for Public Policy seeks to measure and publicize high school performance by ranking schools according to their test scores after attempting controlling for students’ “economic status.” Publication Date April 17, 2019 Authors Ben DeGrow and Ronald Klinger; John T. Yun of Michigan State University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Multiple Shortcomings Mar Report Ranking Michigan High Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report does a disservice by introducing questionable information not substantiated by any credible analysis. EAST LANSING, MI (April 18, 2019) - A recent report from Mackinac Center for Public Policy seeks to measure and publicize high school performance by ranking schools according to their test scores after attempting controlling for students’ “economic status.” Associate Professor John T. Yun of Michigan State University reviewed The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018 . He concluded that while the stated goal of the report is laudable, the reality falls far short due to several shortcomings. The report touts its decision to take free-lunch status into account as its major contribution, in comparison to past school rankings (although this type of calculation has been done previously in many contexts). Beyond this choice, however, the study lacks both justification and explanation of its methodological decisions. The validity and reliability of combining disparate tests across different years without proper equating invalidates the findings – particularly for the high-stakes applications presented in the report. Additionally, the free-lunch percentage measures used in the study have a great deal of measurement error, which argues against this sort of ordinal ranking. And the use of a single predictor with unacceptably low correlations for this type of usage grossly oversimplifies and biases the estimates. Given these shortcomings, the rankings presented in this report should be given no weight in any discussions of policy or practice. In fact, this report does a disservice by introducing questionable information in an easily readable form that is not substantiated by any credible analysis. Find the review, by John T. Yun, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Yun-Rankings.pdf Find The Michigan Context and Performance Report Card: High Schools 2018 , written by Ben DeGrow and Ronald Klinger and published by Mackinac Center for Public Policy, at: https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2019/s2019-01.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net John T. Yun: (517) 884-7822, jyun@msu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Economic Benefits of New York City’s Public School Reforms, 2002-2013 Summary An estimated $74 billion impact was attributed to the reforms (based on earnings of students who graduated under the reforms – who might not have otherwise – and on property values). The report assumes that higher graduation rates and charter school availability increased residential property values in the city. Publication Date March 30, 2014 Authors Robert J. Shapiro, Sonecon, Inc. & Kevin A. Hassett, American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Sean P. Corcoran, New York University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice Review of NYC Reforms Sonecon analysis seriously flawed, useless for policymakers EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 31, 2014) – A recent paper attempts to estimate the economic impact of school reforms implemented by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The report suggests that reforms enacted by Bloomberg boosted the city's economy by an estimated $74 billion. However, a review of the report out today finds that it is so seriously flawed as to be useless for policymakers. The Economic Benefits of New York City's Public School Reforms, 2002-2013 was produced by Robert J. Shapiro of Sonecon, Inc., a Washington, D.C., economic advisory firm, and Kevin A. Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute. Sean P. Corcoran, associate professor of educational economics at New York University, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think thank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The paper highlighted a range of school reforms implemented by Bloomberg: (1) centralizing school governance while increasing both financial autonomy and accountability for individual school leaders; (2) raising teacher salaries; (3) standardizing the curriculum; (4) tying school funding to student need; and (5) aggressively expanding school choice, including the opening of 160 charter schools. An estimated $74 billion impact was attributed to the reforms (based on earnings of students who graduated under the reforms – who might not have otherwise – and on property values). The report assumes that higher graduation rates and charter school availability increased residential property values in the city. Professor Corcoran writes, "While such estimates are always an exercise in some level of speculation, this report relies on highly inappropriate assumptions to reach its conclusions." Breaking down the math of the authors, Corcoran calculates that the impact on property values attributed to the Bloomberg-era educational reforms is comparable to "two-thirds of the entire increase in residential property values between 2007 and 2013." Corcoran found that many NYC public school students did experience "real educational and economic gains" during Bloomberg's time in office, but the estimates that the Sonecon report makes, he concludes, "are pure fantasy." Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Economic Benefits of the New York City's Public School Reforms, 2002-2013 on the web: http://www.sonecon.com/studies.php Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publication. The project is made possible with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Sean Corcoran, (212) 992-9468, sean.corcoran@nyu.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

ADVANCING K-12 Research Browse Publications By Topic Assessment & Accountability Curriculum & Instruction Education Policy Equity & Civil Rights Community Engagement School Choice & Charter Schools School Climate School Funding School Leadership Early Childhood Teacher Workforce Technology & AI Our Research Initiatives At the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, we strive to enhance K-12 education through rigorous research and insightful publications. Our work supports educators and policymakers in making informed decisions that impact students' lives. Discover More Our Mission 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. Learn About Us Join Us On Social Media! sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Wisconsin's Most Cost-Effective K-12 Program Summary As one of the nation's longest-running private school voucher initiatives, Wisconsin's program has drawn decades of research interest. A recent report from a think tank called School Choice Wisconsin considers the cost-effectiveness of voucher-receiving schools in Racine, Milwaukee, and across the state. Publication Date October 27, 2025 Authors School Choice Wisconsin; Bruce Baker, University of Miami Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release False Claims and Faulty Methods Doom Wisconsin Voucher Report OCTOBER 28, 2025 False Claims and Faulty Methods Doom Wisconsin Voucher Report An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: School Choice Wisconsin report's conclusions about the cost effectiveness of private school vouchers rest on invalid methods and inaccurate data. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (OCTOBER 28, 2025) - As one of the nation's longest-running private school voucher initiatives, Wisconsin's program has drawn decades of research interest. A recent report from a think tank called School Choice Wisconsin considers the cost-effectiveness of voucher-receiving schools in Racine, Milwaukee, and across the state. University of Miami professor Bruce Baker reviewed Wisconsin's Most Cost-Effective K-12 Program , which claims that Wisconsin's voucher-receiving schools are far more cost effective than public district schools. Baker found the report's conclusions to be not just flawed, but completely wrong. The report compares revenues and student outcomes between public district schools and private voucher schools, concluding that the latter produce better outcomes for every $1,000 in revenue per pupil. Professor Baker, in concluding that the report is both "flawed" and "wrong," explains that a flawed analysis applies the right method poorly; a wrong analysis uses the wrong method altogether. Charitably, this report does both. Cost-effectiveness ratios, as used in this report, are wholly inadequate for evaluating the relative efficiency or productivity of educational institutions serving non-randomly distributed student populations. Moreover, even if one were to accept the report's unfounded premise, its imprecision and inaccuracy in reporting spending, outcomes, and demographics severely undermine its findings. Put simply, Baker concludes, School Choice Wisconsin has conducted the wrong analysis, and done it the wrong way. The report offers no valid insight for informing education policy in Wisconsin or anywhere else. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Wisconsin's Most Cost-Effective K-12 Program, from School Choice Wisconsin, at: https://schoolchoicewi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Wisconsins-Most-Cost-Effective-K-12-Program.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 mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Bruce D. Baker Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools during COVID-19 Summary A new report from the Mercatus Center argues that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, education budgets should be reallocated toward investments in virtual schools. It describes the pandemic as presenting Americans with the opportunity to see the benefits of virtual schooling, which "could change education content delivery forever, making instruction more flexible and suited to the needs of each individual student." Publication Date April 6, 2020 Authors Jonathan Butcher; Kevin Welner, CU Boulder Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Unconvincingly Argues that Crisis Should Initiate a Long-Term Shift to Virtual Schooling An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report asks policymakers to use the coronavirus crisis to embrace virtual schooling for the long term, notwithstanding clear evidence of the limitations and problems with this online approach. EAST LANSING, MI (April 7, 2020) - A new report from the Mercatus Center argues that, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, education budgets should be reallocated toward investments in virtual schools. It describes the pandemic as presenting Americans with the opportunity to see the benefits of virtual schooling, which "could change education content delivery forever, making instruction more flexible and suited to the needs of each individual student." CU Boulder professor of education policy, Kevin Welner, who is the Director of the National Education Policy Center, reviewed Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools during COVID-19. As the report points out, these virtual schools are primarily run by two private vendors, so the "public-private partnerships" involve school districts contracting with one of these vendors. While immediate crisis responses in some jurisdictions may reasonably involve such partnerships, the report's broader call for this crisis response to lead to a long-term shift to virtual schooling is not supported by the report. In fact, this recommendation flies in the face of a half-dozen clear shortcomings of this online approach: low achievement outcomes, disproportionate harm to students with the fewest advantages, limited ability to serve children with special needs, lack of needed infrastructure, an inability to fulfill schooling's group/team activities or social purposes, and a lack of wraparound services. The sector has also been plagued by misuse of taxpayer funds. With the exception of brief discussions of infrastructure and special education, these issues are not addressed in the Mercatus report. Professor Welner concludes that the report makes an uncompelling plea for policymakers to use this crisis to embrace an educational approach that the author sees as beneficial, notwithstanding the clear evidence of its limitations and problems. He nonetheless predicts that additional reports are likely to follow, making similar arguments for a lasting transformation of schooling. Find the review, by Kevin Welner, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Public-Private Virtual-School Partnerships and Federal Flexibility for Schools during COVID-19, written by Jonathan Butcher and published by the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, at: https://www.mercatus.org/system/files/butcher-virtual-schools-covid-19-mercatus-v1.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: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Kevin Welner: (303) 492-8370, kevin.welner@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The State of Education Savings Account Programs in the United States Summary A new policy brief from the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) explores the research on Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), a form of private-school vouchers first adopted in Arizona in 2011. Through December 2017, ESA laws have been enacted in six states and have been strongly promoted by school voucher advocates. The brief examines ESA policies, their similarities and differences with other voucher approaches, and examines the legal issues created by these programs. The authors conclude, “policymakers should be extremely wary of adopting or expanding an ESA program. When considering ESAs, policymakers from all perspectives must carefully weigh the evidence on their impact on key elements of U.S. education.” Publication Date January 22, 2018 Authors Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos, Arizona State University, and William J. Mathis and Kevin G. Welner, University of Colorado Boulder. Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Despite a lack of evidence, state policy makers are expanding voucher-like programs EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 23, 2018) — A new policy brief from the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) explores the research on Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) , a form of private-school vouchers first adopted in Arizona in 2011. Through December 2017, ESA laws have been enacted in six states and have been strongly promoted by school voucher advocates. The brief examines ESA policies, their similarities and differences with other voucher approaches, and examines the legal issues created by these programs. Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos , Arizona State University, and William J. Mathis and Kevin G. Welner , University of Colorado Boulder, authored the brief, The State of Education Savings Account Programs in the United States . Jimenez-Castellanos is an associate professor in education policy and evaluation in the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College at Arizona State University. The brief was made possible by support provided to NEPC by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . ESAs set-aside state funding on a per-pupil funding formula in individual accounts for participating families. In addition to private and religious schooling, ESAs can be used for tutoring, online courses, and transportation. These programs differ from conventional school vouchers and tax-credit scholarships (another voucher-like policy), but they similarly divert public monies into the private marketplace. According to the authors, Arizona's program (the nation's first) was designed to "work around state constitutional prohibitions preventing using public money to fund private schools, particularly religious schools." According to the policy brief, the research evidence on ESA policies is quite limited and the majority of ESA literature has been provided by conservative think tanks advocating for expansion. Therefore, the authors suggest that the best evidence is likely found in the research on conventional voucher programs. Overall, the authors caution that the existing research literature on vouchers and voucher-like programs raises serious questions about their performance. The brief also provides six important questions that policy makers should ask to ensure accountability and address issues of access and segregation regarding ESA policies. Jimenez-Castellanos, Mathis, and Welner offer the following policy recommendations to states with existing ESA policies and those designing new policies: Policymakers should be wary of adopting or expanding an ESA program in light of the lack of any empirical evidence to support them and in light of their potential adverse effects. Legislatures in states with existing ESA programs should mandate and fund comprehensive program evaluation systems to determine their programs' impact on students, families, schools, districts and states. Legislatures designing new programs should routinely include mandated and funded comprehensive evaluation systems. In conclusion, the authors note "policymakers should be extremely wary of adopting or expanding an ESA program. When considering ESAs, policymakers from all perspectives must carefully weigh the evidence on their impact on key elements of U.S. education." Find the policy brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The brief 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: Oscar Jimenez-Castellanos , (602) 543-6366, jimenzcastellanos@asu.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 The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: 2009 Update Summary Belfield finds that the report offers valuable insights on the fiscal impact of voucher programs. However, he questions the benefits and notes that the report omits some important factors which are essential in order for a more complete analysis to be done. Publication Date December 31, 1969 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Voucher Cost Report Provides Useful Starting Point April 29, 2009 While report on Milwaukee program sheds light on vouchers' fiscal impact, it omits discussion of important factors EAST LANSING, MI (April 29, 2009)—A recent report finds that the Milwaukee voucher program offers a net savings to taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin but places a disproportionate financial burden on taxpayers in the city of Milwaukee. A new review concludes that the report offers valuable insights on the fiscal impact of voucher programs. However, it also questions the fiscal benefits and notes that the report omits some important factors essential to a more complete analysis. The report, The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program , was written by Robert Costrell for the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Dr. Clive Belfield of Queens College/City University of New York. Dr. Belfield is also co-director of the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Costrell’s report is an update of earlier work examining the funding formula of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), which provides vouchers to low-income families in the Milwaukee Public School system to attend private schools. Since its inception in 1990, MPCP has grown into the largest district voucher program in the U.S., enrolling upwards of 20,000 students in private secular and religious schools in the current academic year, at a cost to taxpayers of $6,607 per student in 2009. By comparing that cost to the projected cost of teaching those students in public schools—$9,462 for 2009—the report estimates a net public-sector savings of $37 million a year from the program. But, as Belfield notes, “the report also concludes that this net fiscal benefit is not allocated evenly.” Milwaukee taxpayers lose $45 million a year, while other property taxpayers save $52 million and state taxpayers save $30 million. So, while the end result is calculated as a $37 million gain, there are big winners and losers. Recent attempts to rectify the disparity by refining the state’s formulas for aid to the city school district have failed, the report concludes. The new report “is a useful guide to the financing of the MPCP,” Belfield writes in his review. “It makes clear how the funding systems in Milwaukee and Wisconsin operate and how they interact to yield a net resource transfer from the city to the state.” Despite this strength, Belfield writes in his review, the report falls short in some key areas. Its calculation of net taxpayer savings from vouchers assumes, based on only minimal evidence, that 90 percent of voucher students would have attended public schools without the voucher. Change that to 80 percent, however, and the savings fall, and if only 70 percent of voucher students switch from public schools—an assumption that isn’t unreasonable, Belfield notes—there are no net savings whatsoever. Thus, the report offers the precise number of $37 million in savings, but the true figure could be very different. Furthermore, Belfield writes, the Arkansas report does not take into account two other factors: 1) school districts costs incurred in the service of voucher students, such as transportation and administrative expenses, which would further reduce any voucher savings; and 2) the question of whether the education of voucher students costs less on average than that of the public school students who stay behind -- because, for example, the students who apply for vouchers are less likely to require special education services. “It is to the credit of this report that it makes clear the importance of analyzing the funding formula for vouchers in Milwaukee,” Belfield concludes. “However, it does not consider many of the possible policy ramifications for efficient and equitable implementation of voucher programs.” Find Clive Belfield’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Clive Belfield (718) 997-5448; Belfield@qc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More