< Back Review of K-12 Without Borders: Public School Students, Families, and Teachers Shut In by Education Boundaries Summary A recent report from the directors of EdChoice, published by the Manhattan Institute, oversimplifies important equity issues as problems of school zone boundaries. Publication Date March 2, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Martin F. Lueken and Michael Q. McShane; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University; T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Illogical Assumptions and Lack of Evidence Render School Choice Analysis Useless An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's claims that school choice can fix education, housing markets, and teacher pensions are unsupported and unfounded. EAST LANSING, MI (March 2, 2023) - A recent report from the directors of EdChoice, published by the Manhattan Institute, oversimplifies important equity issues as problems of school zone boundaries. Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University and T. Jameson Brewer of the University of North Georgia reviewed K-12 Without Borders: Public School Students, Families, and Teachers Shut In by Education Boundaries . Their review criticizes the report for illogical assumptions, lack of evidence, sleight of hand, and improbable leaps of logic, all of which make its advice to policymakers useless. The report's core contention is that diminishing or eliminating school district boundaries and expanding school choice will allow for three desirable outcomes: (1) students attending better schools, (2) homeowners moving to cheaper housing or seeing their property value rise, and (3) teachers enjoying improved pensions. The review points to a dearth of reliable evidence offered in the report to support these assertions. For example, despite noting mixed research results on how school choice affects housing patterns, the report assumes that eliminating school zone boundaries will necessarily result in wealthy families voluntarily relocating into poorer neighborhoods. It never addresses the documented reality that many parents work to ensure that school district boundaries replicate segregation and inequity. Similarly, the report offers no solutions to such concurrent problems as transportation for students choosing distant schools or housing for residents displaced by gentrification. Instead, the report glibly assumes someone, somewhere, will somehow find solutions. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski and T. Jameson Brewer, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find K-12 Without Borders: Public School Students, Families, and Teachers Shut In by Education Boundaries , written by Martin F. Lueken and Michael Q. McShane and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/k-12-without-borders.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and 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. Visit us at: https://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: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com T. Jameson Brewer: (678) 910-2744, jameson.brewer@ung.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Schools without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System Summary This report, which is a comprehensive examination of enrollment patterns in charter schools operated by Education Management organizations (EMOs), finds that charter schools run by EMOs are segregated by race, family income, disabilities and English language learner status as compared with their local public schools districts. Publication Date February 9, 2010 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Gary Miron, Jessica L. Urschel, William J. Mathis,* and Elana Tornquist Dept. of Educational Leadership, Research & Technology College of Education Western Michigan University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report url: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Miron_Diversity.pdf EAST LANSING, Mi., Feb. 9, 2010 – A comprehensive examination of enrollment patterns in schools operated by private corporations finds these schools segregate by race, family income, disabilities, and English language learner status. As compared with their local public school districts, these schools operated by Education Management Organizations, or EMOs, are substantially more segregated, and the strong segregative pattern found in 2001 is virtually unchanged through 2007. The study, funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, finds: Charter schools tended to be strongly concentrated in racial or ethnic terms – either more heavily populated with minority students, or more heavily populated with White students – compared to the districts that send students to those schools. "Only one-fourth of the charter schools had a composition relatively similar to that of the sending district," according to the report. The charter schools in this study draw their students from the extremes of family income, divided into either largely high-income or largely low-income populations. "Between 70% and 73% of the schools were in the extreme categories of the scale, depending on the comparison." Most of these EMO-operated schools enrolled substantially fewer special education children than their home districts. At the same time a small number of charter schools focused almost exclusively on students with special needs. More than half of these privately managed schools enrolled far fewer English language learners than did their home districts. About one-third of the schools had an ELL population similar to their district. "The segregation patterns of 2000-2001 were virtually identical to those in 2006-2007. Consequently, a pattern of segregation attributable to EMO-operated schools is being maintained." The new study, Schools without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System , is written by Gary Miron, Jessica Urschel, and Elana Tornquist of Western Michigan University, and William Mathis of the University of Colorado at Boulder. It comes to conclusions remarkably similar to another nationwide study, released last week by UCLA's Civil Rights Project/Proyecto Derechos Civiles . The two studies, conducted independently using different data, different researchers and different methods, both found extensive segregation in charter schools. Together, these two new studies paint a powerful picture of charters adding to the school segregation caused by the nation's highly segregated neighborhoods. "Given that educational equality, whether financial or programmatic, has not occurred in this nation, the perpetuation of educational policies that have the effect of further dividing society is troubling and calls for rectification," says lead researcher Gary Miron. "Charter schools were originally intended to provide distinctive learning environments," Miron observes. "As it turns out, what is often most distinctive about charters is the composition of their student bodies." The schools show evidence both of White flight and of minority flight . "Parents are selecting schools where their child will experience less diversity," says Miron. The new EMO study relies on an extensive database of nearly 1,000 schools which represents 90% of the schools operated by for-profit and nonprofit Education Management Organizations, firms that primarily manage charter schools. The researchers constructed the database from sources that included the National Center for Education Statistics' Common Core of Data as well as annual profiles of for-profit and nonprofit EMOs that are produced for the Commercialism in Education Research Unit at ASU. Find the report, Schools without Diversity: Education Management Organizations, Charter Schools, and the Demographic Stratification of the American School System , on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org ### 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: Gary Miron – (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.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 State Standards 2006 Summary The report assigns grades to the academic content standards in each state and claims that higher content standards lead to better student test scores. Publication Date September 11, 2006 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Authors Kenneth Howe, 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 Negotiating Public and Private: Philosophical Frameworks for School Choice 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 The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Montana The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Georgia The Fiscal Impact of a Corporate & Individual Tax-Credit Scholarship Program on the State of Indiana Summary The Friedman reports which focus on Georgia, Montana and Indiana purport to demonstrate that programs awarding tax-credits to donors funding private school vouchers will reduce government expenditures and make the finance system more efficient. In his review, Huerta finds the reports' conclusions highly suspect and sharply criticizes them for presenting unsubstantiated claims and failing to adequately consider short- and long-term costs of such tax-credit programs. Publication Date June 22, 2009 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Luis Huerta, Teachers College, Columbia University. Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release http://www.greatlakescenter.org Friedman Tax-Credit Reports Inaccurate and Unsubstantiated June 22, 2009 Reports’ conclusions highly suspect, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi., June 22, 2009. – A recent series of reports focused on Georgia, Indiana and Montana conclude that programs awarding tax credits to donors funding private school vouchers will reduce government expenditures and make the finance system more efficient. A new review of the reports finds their conclusions highly suspect and sharply criticizes them for presenting unsubstantiated claims and failing to adequately consider short- and long-term costs of such tax-credit programs. The reports are The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Montana and The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Georgia , and The Fiscal Impact of a Corporate & Individual Tax-Credit Scholarship Program on the State of Indiana . All three are published by the Friedman Foundation, a think tank which advocates free-market approaches to education. The three reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Luis Huerta of Teachers College, Columbia University. Tax-credit voucher programs – sometimes dubbed neovouchers – provide a non-refundable tax credit to individuals or corporations contributing to non-profit corporations, which then distribute the money to students attending private schools. These neovouchers (often called “scholarships” in the state laws) now exist in six states—Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida, Rhode Island, Iowa, and Georgia—and others, including Indiana and Montana, are considering them. The three Friedman reports claim that implementing such programs would result in a net financial saving to the states. They base their conclusions, Huerta observes, on assumptions about the sensitivity of public school revenues and expenditures to enrollment declines, as well as assumptions about a pent-up demand for publicly funded private school choice and the nature and degree of supply and demand pressures. Huerta tests all these assumptions and finds them to be largely groundless and frequently at odds with established research. In fact, Huerta notes that the reports’ use of research is largely confined to work from advocacy groups like the Friedman Foundation itself. He observes that this “insular approach further calls into question the validity of the new reports’ conclusions.” While the report on Indiana offers a “more thoughtful” approach to research, Huerta continues, the literature it cites is poorly used and doesn’t clearly support the report’s estimates and conclusions. Huerta’s review hits particularly hard on the reports’ failure to consider key factors concerning private school supply and demand if neovoucher programs were to be implemented. Specifically, these factors are crucial to the reports’ analyses, and the review shows them to be highly problematic. Similarly, the reports fail to adequately account for the additional expenditures of a tax-credit program when it subsidizes families who were going to choose a private school anyway, making their expenditure calculations almost worthless. “Policymakers should be cautioned to look beyond the seductive promises of increased fiscal savings and efficiency, which are unsubstantiated and inaccurately estimated in these reports,” Huerta concludes. “Instead, policymakers should seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments that would allow them to make informed decisions about how to proceed with effective school reform polices.” Find Luis Huerta’s review on the web at: 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. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 678-4199; lah2013@columbia.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 Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways Summary Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways, a recent report from the Center of American Progress, offers a set of recommendations for middle school career and technical education (CTE) programs. Publication Date December 8, 2020 Research Areas Technology & AI; Community Schools Authors Meg Benner and Scott Sargrad; Marisa Saunders, UCLA Center for Community Schooling, and Cynthia Estrada, UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Helpful Report on Middle School CTE Programs Comes Up Short on Confronting Inequities An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: While the report makes broadly appealing recommendations, it misses the opportunity to directly confront stratified opportunities within middle school career and technical education programs. EAST LANSING, MI (December 8, 2020) - Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways , a recent report from the Center of American Progress, offers a set of recommendations for middle school career and technical education (CTE) programs. The included recommendations are sound, although the report fails to provide much-needed evidence that connects the implementation of middle school CTE to increased access to high-quality pathways. Marisa Saunders, from the UCLA Center for Community Schooling, and Cynthia Estrada, from the UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies, reviewed the new report and determined that its recommendations are helpful but come up short in confronting patterns of stratification, whereby marginalized students are being denied access to high-quality pathways that integrate an academic and CTE curriculum. The report does document inequitable access to these high-quality pathways. In particular, it explains how many students, particularly those from low-income backgrounds and minoritized populations, have not been provided the academic preparation needed to access pathways that prepare students for postsecondary education and career. In the face of these trends, the report contends that well-designed middle school CTE programs that support college and career exploration and guidance can prepare students for high-quality pathways and address current patterns of differential access. Yet while the report offers appealing recommendations for states and districts as they move to implement middle school CTE, Saunders and Estrada explain in their review that the suggestions do not directly address the key challenge. The report's landscape analysis identifies college and career exploration standards that emphasize career development. Middle school CTE programs following the report's suggestions may therefore fail to prepare middle school students with the academics or knowledge they need to access high-quality pathways. In fact, beyond improved academic preparation, middle school CTE programs must provide the necessary student supports and resources that can ensure all students succeed in these programs. Accordingly, the reviewers conclude, the report is helpful but incomplete and could lead states, districts, and schools to implementation strategies and practices that fall into familiar routines that maintain the harmful status quo for students from marginalized backgrounds. Find the review, by Marisa Saunders and Cynthia Estrada, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Creating Strong Building Blocks for Every Student: How Middle Schools Can Lay the Foundation for Rigorous High School Pathways , written by Meg Benner and Scott Sargrad and published by the Center for American Progress, at: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2020/07/31111946/Strong-Building-Blocks2.pdf?_ga=2.154356856.1745955946.1599782721-695044446.1546624010 NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Marisa Saunders: (310) 866-2263, m.saunders@ucla.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Evaluation of Teach for America in Texas Schools Summary This study by Edvance Research, with funding from Teach For America, claimed that TFA corps members and alumni had outsized impact on middle schools in several Texas districts. Publication Date April 9, 2013 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Ed Fuller, Penn State University Nathan Dadey, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review Explains Weaknesses of Teach For America Texas Study EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 9, 2013) – Despite data that paints a mixed picture of success, the Teach For America program has had a significant impact on policy decisions in schools across the country. However, very little independent research exists to inform policymakers about the actual effects of TFA teachers on schools or students. In an effort to more closely study the impact of TFA on student test scores, Edvance Research, recently released a report, funded by TFA, that found TFA members and alumni had a substantial impact on middle school test scores in Texas. A new review challenges the methodology and conclusions of that report. Ed Fuller, an associate professor and Director of the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy Analysis in the Department of Education Policy Studies at Pennsylvania State University, and Nathan Dadey, a doctoral candidate at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the report, Evaluation of Teach For America in Texas Schools, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Fuller previously served as the Director for Research at the Texas State Board for Educator Certification and Program Director for Evaluation at the Charles A. Dana Center at The University of Texas at Austin. The review was prepared for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The study attempted to compare differences between elementary- and middle- grades math and reading test scores from the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) for students taught by novice TFA and non-TFA teachers, as well as by TFA alumni and experienced non-TFA teachers. Of the eight comparisons, three showed that the average scores of students taught by TFA corps were significantly higher, relative to students not taught by TFA corps. Fuller and Dadey found several limitations in the study, including several issues related to the report's statistical model. These issues make it likely that the actual differences in test scores between TFA teachers and non-TFA teachers differ from those found in the report. The methodology used to match schools and students for the study was also flawed, which calls into question the conclusions reached. Given these limitations, Fuller and Dadey note "the conclusion TFA teachers have a positive impact on student TAKS test scores in mathematics and reading is simply not adequately supported by this report." The reviewers conclude, "this report should not be considered solid evidence of the effect of TFA teachers or TFA alumni on student test scores in Texas." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Evaluation of Teach for America in Texas Schools on the web: http://www.edvanceresearch.com/Teach_for_America_Texas_Schools.htm 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 by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-evaluation-tfa-texas --###-- 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: Ed Fuller, (512) 971-5715, ejf20@psu.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 Redefining Teacher Pensions. Strategically Defined Benefits for New Teachers and Fiscal Sustainability for All Teacher Effectiveness from Changing Retirement Benefits Buyer Beware: The Risks to Teacher Effectiveness from Changing Retirement Benefits Summary These two reports consider the potential costs and benefits of eliminating traditional defined benefit pension plans for teachers and replacing them with cash-balance plans. Publication Date November 22, 2011 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Teresa Ghilarducci, New School for Social Research, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Changing Pension Systems to Attract Best Teachers and Cut Costs Puts Cart before the Horse Two CAP reports raise important issues about pension plan changes, but more research is needed EAST LANSING, MI (November 22, 2011) –The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released two reports that consider the potential benefits and detriments of scrapping traditional defined benefit pension plans for teachers in favor of cash balance plans. A new review of the reports finds that while they have some limitations, they raise important issues in the face of limited knowledge. The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Teresa Ghilarducci, a nationally recognized expert on pensions and a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research and Director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The two reports examine the potential costs and benefits of defined benefit and cash balance pension plans. One report argues that switching to a cash balance plan might have benefits, while the other warns that this approach would likely end up costing more and creating incentives for the exit of peak-performance teachers from the profession. Both reports, however, conclude that current teachers' benefits should not be cut and that, if states convert to a cash-balance plan, they should maintain average pension benefits and strive to not cut benefit costs. Ghilarducci notes that both reports have their merits and both acknowledge the relatively scant research that currently exists on the questions they raise. She concludes, "These two reports are valuable contributions, not so much because of the proposals they set forth but as flags for the complicated and sometimes counter-productive effects of many current proposals." Find Teresa Ghilarducci's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the CAP report, Redefining Teacher Pensions. Strategically Defined Benefits for New Teachers and Fiscal Sustainability for All , by Raegan T. Miller, on the web at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/redefining_teacher_pensions.html . Find the CAP report, Buyer Beware: The Risks to Teacher Effectiveness from Changing Retirement Benefits , by Christian Weller on the web at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/buyer_beware.html The Think Twice think tank review project, 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-redefining-teacher-pensions . --###-- 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: Teresa Ghilarducci: (212) 229-5901; Teresa.ghilarducci@gmail.com Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940; tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking - Reading Qualitative Educational Policy Research Summary According to William J. Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, both quantitative and qualitative research methods have the ability to inform policymaking. In particular, qualitative research can fill in gaps in our understanding that quantitative methods cannot capture. Mathis says, “Regardless of the research method used, readers should insist on high-quality work.” This short, concise policy brief provides questions that readers can look for of quality qualitative research. Publication Date May 4, 2016 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Elements of Reading Qualitative Education Policy Research What questions should readers be asking? EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 4, 2016) – Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. The fifth section, released in two parts, seeks to provide guidance regarding the reading and usefulness of education policy research. Last week, Holly Yettick identified tips for recognizing higher-quality research studies and making better use of education policy research. Yettick's Five Simple Steps to Reading Policy Research focused on quantitative research methods. In Reading Qualitative Educational Policy Research , William J. Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, explores key elements of evaluating a qualitative study. According to Mathis, both quantitative and qualitative research methods have the ability to inform policymaking. In particular, qualitative research can fill in gaps in our understanding that quantitative methods cannot capture. As such, Mathis says, "Regardless of the research method used, readers should insist on high-quality work." Mathis suggests readers ask the following key questions of qualitative research studies: Was the study conducted with rigor? Are the data sources appropriate for its conclusions? Was the study placed in a larger body of research? Did the study display signs of quality, such as: independent peer-review, source integrity, and absence of obvious bias? and Are the methods clearly explained? These key elements can help readers identify signs of quality and usefulness with a qualitative study. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This concise brief, fifth in a series, is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, and is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: 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: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net 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 Review of The Enrollment Decline Windfall Summary Most U.S. states continue to heavily rely on per-pupil funding models. Accordingly, projections of declining school-aged populations through 2030—combined with the rapid expansion of private school voucher policies—have raised serious concerns about the future adequacy of public school funding. A recent EdChoice report downplays these concerns. Publication Date May 8, 2025 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Ben Scafidi, EdChoice; David E. DeMatthews and Jinseok Shin of the University of Texas at Austin Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Misleadingly Considers Links Between Declining Enrollment and School Funding An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: EdChoice report's oversimplified methods and faulty assumptions undermine its claims that public school districts benefit when enrollment declines. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 8, 2025) - Most U.S. states continue to heavily rely on per-pupil funding models. Accordingly, projections of declining school-aged populations through 2030-combined with the rapid expansion of private school voucher policies-have raised serious concerns about the future adequacy of public school funding. A recent EdChoice report downplays these concerns. However, in their review of The Enrollment Decline Windfall , David E. DeMatthews and Jinseok Shin of the University of Texas at Austin explain that the report's analysis is fundamentally flawed due to its overly simplistic treatment of a complex issue. The EdChoice report argues that districts with declining enrollment may end up with more resources per remaining student, partly because federal, state, and local funding levels do not always drop proportionately as student enrollment drops. But DeMatthews and Shin identify five major shortcomings that undermine the report's conclusions about enrollment decline: (a) it fails to consider structural cost differences that influence district finances; (b) it oversimplifies the categorization of school district types; (c) it lacks an adequate approach to analyzing longitudinal data; (d) it includes faulty assumptions about how per-student expenditures benefit students; and (e) it fails to consider how more severe declines in student enrollment can trigger reduced services, school closures, and other reductions that would negatively impact students, especially those with the greatest needs. For these reasons, DeMatthews and Shin conclude that EdChoice's report offers little of value to policymakers or state leaders. Its unsophisticated analysis fails to engage with the real complexities of public school funding and enrollment trends. Find the review, by David E. DeMatthews and Jinseok Shin, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Enrollment Decline Windfall, published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/research/the-enrollment-decline-windfall/ 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 David E. DeMatthews: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Integrating Housing and Education Solutions to Reduce Segregation and Drive School Equity and When Good Parents Go to Jail: The Criminalization of Address Sharing in Public Education Summary The first report, Integrating Housing and Education Solutions to Reduce Segregation and Drive School Equity, specifically focuses on inequitable school resources and educational outcomes tied to residential and school segregation. The second report, When Good Parents Go to Jail: The Criminalization of Address Sharing in Public Education, similarly locates school and residential boundaries as drivers of educational inequities. Publication Date November 14, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Megan Gallagher, Rachel Lamb, Alexa Kort, and James Carter | Tim DeRoche, Hailly T.N. Korman, and Harold Hinds; Andrene J. Castro, Virginia Commonwealth University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Two Reports Explore the Inequities Inherent in the Coupling of Housing and Schooling An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Education inequities are not solely a function of education policy and school leadership; instead, they are affected by other social and economic policies and realities, including those related to housing. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (November 14, 2023) - School attendance boundaries, like the district boundaries that encompass them, are politically and socially constructed, largely determined by state boards of education or local school boards. Two recent reports address issues associated with the inequities that result from the coupling of housing and schooling. A review finds one of these reports to be substantially more helpful than the other, although both have helpful as well as unsupported elements. Andrene J. Castro of Virginia Commonwealth University reviewed Integrating Housing and Education Solutions to Reduce Segregation and Drive School Equity from the Urban Institute, as well as When Good Parents Go to Jail: The Criminalization of Address Sharing in Public Education , from a new organization called Available to All. The first report, Integrating Housing and Education Solutions to Reduce Segregation and Drive School Equity , specifically focuses on inequitable school resources and educational outcomes tied to residential and school segregation. Citing relevant research and arguing that education policies alone cannot remedy school segregation, the report outlines a multipronged approach for municipalities and school districts. Though the report has some weaknesses, the arguments are well-supported and the recommendations provide useful insights to inform policy and practice. Decision makers should, however, remain aware of potential contextual complications given insufficient attention. The second report, When Good Parents Go to Jail: The Criminalization of Address Sharing in Public Education , similarly locates school and residential boundaries as drivers of educational inequities. Specifically, it explores families' use of an address other than their own to enroll a child in a more desirable school-a practice known as address sharing, punishable by law in many locales. Highlighting high-profile cases of prosecutions across the U.S., the report offers a descriptive analysis of widespread and highly variable state statutes or laws that criminalize address sharing, with punishments ranging from fines to incarceration. The report clearly signals a need for further research as well as for policymakers to consider decriminalization. Among the recommendations of both reports are calls for increased use of one or more types of school choice-but superficially makes sense given that these policies de-link residence and school assignment. The Urban Institute report focuses on magnet schools and charter schools, with protections in place to overcome transportation and admissions obstacles. The Available to All report simply recommends expanding open enrollment. Professor Castro warns readers that both reports fail in this regard to meaningfully wrestle with the research base that finds most forms of school choice adding to-rather than alleviating-segregation. She points to forms of controlled choice as deserving consideration. In light of these findings, and because decisions are complex and local conditions vary widely, Professor Castro concludes that neither report is sufficiently nuanced to directly shape policy, although both can do much to inform it. Find the review, by Andrene J. Castro, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Integrating Housing and Education Solutions to Reduce Segregation and Drive School Equity , written by Megan Gallagher, Rachel Lamb, Alexa Kort, and James Carter, and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/integrating-housing-and-education-solutions-reduce-segregation-drive-school-equity Find When Good Parents Go to Jail: The Criminalization of Address Sharing in Public Education , written by Tim DeRoche, Hailly T.N. Korman, and Harold Hinds, and published by Available to All, at: https://availabletoall.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/WHEN-GOOD-PARENTS-GO-TO-JAIL-Available-to-All-001.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 Renée Valladares Andrene J. Castro Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Charter School Autonomy: A Half-Broken Promise Summary This report argues that autonomy is a prerequisite for there to be innovative, effective charter schools. Publication Date May 26, 2010 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Charisse Gulosino, University of Massachusetts-Boston Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Fordham Charter School Report of Little Value for Guiding Policy May 26, 2010 Report claiming less regulation of charters will enhance their performance lacks evidence, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi., (May 26, 2010) – A recently released report claims that charter schools would be more effective and innovative if they had more autonomy. A new review of that report finds that the report assumes the positive impact of such autonomy and fails to provide any supporting empirical evidence for this claim. The report, Charter School Autonomy: A Half-Broken Promise , was published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by professor Charisse Gulosino of the University of Massachusetts-Boston. The report examines state charter school laws and then hands out letter grades to states on the basis of how much autonomy their enabling laws grant charters. In her review, Gulosino finds numerous flaws in the report, the most obvious and important of which is "the arbitrariness of the report's scoring, weighting and grading system." She writes: "The report's interpretation of the effects on autonomy of each state's statute language leaves a lot of room for arbitrariness in the metric scores and grade ranges." In addition, she writes, the report "is missing evidence establishing the level of constraints on charter autonomy or how such constraints adversely affect school performance." The report's rationale "is largely rhetorical, not empirical," Gulosino writes. It simply assumes the benefits of greater freedom for charters. At the same time, she notes, it ignores the point "that charter school autonomy comes at a price: state educational bodies that may authorize charter schools bargain autonomy for accountability." Gulosino also refutes the report's claim that local education agencies and higher education institutions are associated with low levels of autonomy. Her own examination of the data finds that the level of school autonomy is not in fact associated with the type of charter authorizer; instead, it is states with more authorizing options that are linked to higher "grades" for autonomy and greater numbers of charters. "With multiple types of chartering authorities, charter applicants may have fewer barriers to entry and more opportunities to self-select based on preferred authorizing standards/practices." Gulosino concludes: "The report does not further our understanding of this issue and is of little or no help in guiding policy for charter school authorizers, state legislators, school district leaders, donors, school leaders, teachers, parents, or even charter school supporters." Find Charisse Gulosino's review on the web and a link to the Fordham Institute report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Think Tank Research Quality: Lessons for Policy Makers, the Media, and the Public , a new book based on the work of the Think Twice/ Think Tank Review Project, is now available at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/think_twice_research_quality/Order_Form.pdf About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Charisse Gulosino (617) 287-7583; charisse.gulosino@umb.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More