< Back Report on Academic Progress Is a Worthwhile Conversation Starter Summary The Fordham Institute recently released a report highlighting the academic progress of Black and Hispanic groups over the past two decades at the elementary school level on the NAEP exam. From this, the report offers the major claim, based on its author’s eyeball test, that the academic progress of students of color is attributable “mostly” to poverty reduction. The report, however, also acknowledges that correlation is not causation and calls for systematic statistical analysis to test the author’s proposition. Publication Date November 25, 2019 Authors Michael J. Petrilli; Jaekyung Lee, University at Buffalo, SUNY Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Academic Progress Is a Worthwhile Conversation Starter An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report emphasizes significant academic progress of Black and Hispanic students over the past two decades, but is incorrect in downplaying the persisting racial gaps or the phenomenon of the high school slump. EAST LANSING, MI (November 26, 2019) - The Fordham Institute recently released a report highlighting the academic progress of Black and Hispanic groups over the past two decades at the elementary school level on the NAEP exam. From this, the report offers the major claim, based on its author's eyeball test, that the academic progress of students of color is attributable "mostly" to poverty reduction. The report, however, also acknowledges that correlation is not causation and calls for systematic statistical analysis to test the author's proposition. Professor Jaekyung Lee of the University at Buffalo, SUNY, reviewed Fewer Children Left Behind: Lessons From the Dramatic Achievement Gains of the 1990s and 2000s , examining the validity of the report's arguments around progress and causes. He looks to expanded data sources, including both family income and school expenditures. Professor Lee notes the uneven patterns of achievement among grade levels and refutes the report's claim that flat achievement trends among 12th graders are a result of dropout reductions. His analysis of additional data suggests that poverty reduction has indeed been important, as has increased school funding. Further, he raises critical questions about national progress towards both excellence and equity. Overall, Lee concludes that the report helpfully brings attention to the significant academic progress of Black and Hispanic students over the past two decades, although it is incorrect to downplay the persisting racial gaps or the phenomenon of the high school slump. Find the review, by Jaekyung Lee, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Fewer Children Left Behind: Lessons From the Dramatic Achievement Gains of the 1990s and 2000s written by Michael J. Petrilli and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/fewer-children-left-behind 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), 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 Jaekyung Lee: ( 716) 645-1132, JL224@buffalo.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools Summary Over the past decade, pro-charter organizations have published a series of reports claiming that funding disparities put charter schools at a disadvantage compared to public schools run by school districts. However, those conclusions are invariably incorrect due to flawed research methods. In a policy memo released today by NEPC, Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools, Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective uses the latest "charter school funding inequity" report to illustrate these fundamental research flaws, thus providing a guide for stakeholders to evaluate the accuracy and transparency of related research. Publication Date September 11, 2023 Authors Mark Weber, Rutgers University Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Disregard Those Repeated Claims of Purported Funding Disparities Harming Charters Key Takeaway : Research quality is key when investigating the differences between charter and district public school finances, explains new policy memo. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 12, 2023) - Over the past decade, pro-charter organizations have published a series of reports claiming that funding disparities put charter schools at a disadvantage compared to public schools run by school districts. However, those conclusions are invariably incorrect due to flawed research methods. In a policy memo released today by NEPC, Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools , Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective uses the latest "charter school funding inequity" report to illustrate these fundamental research flaws, thus providing a guide for stakeholders to evaluate the accuracy and transparency of related research. Although the faulty methods used to support the "underfunded charter schools" claims have been repeatedly pointed out by third-party reviewers, there appears to be little willingness among the charter advocacy organizations to deviate from those methods. These problems include inadequate documentation of data, misunderstanding of financial transfers, invalid conflation of individual schools and school districts as units of analysis, invalid comparisons of student populations, invalid comparisons of the functions of charter and district public schools, unaccounted-for charter revenues, and neglect of the literature on charter school finances. The latest of the advocacy reports, Charter School Funding Disparities: Los Angeles, California , from the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas, asserts that traditional public schools in Los Angeles (LAUSD) "have consistently received more funding per pupil than charter schools in LAUSD-anywhere from 22 to 40 percent more." Weber uses an examination of this report and these claims to illustrate the problems with these analyses and to stress the importance of sound policymaking that serves all students equitably. Due to charter schools' substantial expansion in recent years, Weber also points out the importance of understanding and flagging such deceptive policy research. Redirecting additional funding to charters based on advocacy reports using unreliable data and flawed methods may have adverse effects on other schools and state budgets. Find Evaluating Research That Alleges Funding Disparities Between Charter and District Schools , by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy memo was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu 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 Mark Weber: (908) 358-5828, mark.weber@rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back NCLB's Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do they Improve the Quality of Education? 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 August 7, 2009 Authors William J. Mathis, Associate Professor (adj), University of Vermont Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Research predicts failure for NCLB’s ultimate sanctions, concludes new report EAST LANSING, MI, (April 8, 2009)—A new policy brief finds little evidence that sweeping school restructuring—mandated by the federal government for so-called failing schools—will raise student achievement. The report is titled NCLB’s Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do They Improve the Quality of Education? It was written by William J. Mathis, adjunct associate professor of school finance at the University of Vermont and a superintendent of schools. The report was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Mathis’s brief examines the impact of the specific school restructuring approaches required under the federal No Child Left Behind law. Under the law, enacted in 2001, schools are required to be restructured if they fail to make “adequate yearly progress” (measured by meeting test score targets) for six consecutive years. NCLB school restructuring can take one of the following forms: takeover of the school by the state; turning management of the school over to a private firm; shutting down and reopening as a charter school; or reconstitution of the school by replacing some or all administrators, staff, or faculty. A fifth option provided under the law endorses “any other major restructuring of a school’s governance arrangement.” The brief reviews the existing body of research on each of the five restructuring options and finds that “there is little or no evidence to suggest that any of these options delivers the promised improvements in academic achievement” but notes that “negative side effects are frequently recorded including increased segregation, substantial, short-term drops in achievement scores and organizational instability.” Mathis concludes: “Given that these approaches are being proposed for the nation’s most troubled schools, the solutions [currently set forth by NCLB] are likely to be woefully inadequate” and that “reliance on these restructuring options could actually deter schools from exploring more promising approaches of achieving the goal of a sound basic education for every child.” In light of such findings, Mathis recommends against relying on restructuring sanctions to promote school improvement and encourages the support of research on the effectiveness of other school improvement strategies. He also recommends support for strategies that have been shown to increase school improvement including early education, small school communities, and strong counseling and social support systems for students. Find William Mathis’s report, NCLB’s Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do They Improve the Quality of Education? 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: William J. Mathis – (802) 247-5757; WMathis@sover.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A New Frontier: Utilizing Charter Schooling to Strengthen Rural Education Summary A recent document from Bellwether Education Partners argues for expanding charter schools into rurally populated states. It recommends opening the rural charter market and removing barriers to expansion. It highlights several state-level policy recommendations and offers five directives to policymakers: (1) replace barriers to growth with smart, flexible policies; (2) provide flexibility from teacher certification rules; (3) provide fair funding; (4) make facilities accessible; and (5) leverage technology. Publication Date March 12, 2014 Authors Andrew Smarick; Craig Howley, Ohio University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice: Rural Charters Reviewed Multiple problems limit usefulness EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 13, 2014) – A recent document from Bellwether Education Partners argues for expanding charter schools into rurally populated states. It recommends opening the rural charter market and removing barriers to expansion. An academic review released today finds it to be inadequate for policy consideration. A New Frontier: Utilizing Charter School Spending to Strengthen Rural Education was written by Andrew Smarick and reviewed by Ohio University professor Craig Howley, who specializes in rural education and school size. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The New Frontier highlights several state-level policy recommendations and offers five directives to policymakers: (1) replace barriers to growth with smart, flexible policies; (2) provide flexibility from teacher certification rules; (3) provide fair funding; (4) make facilities accessible; and (5) leverage technology. In his review, Howley finds that the document provides no articulated rationale for its recommendations. Citing missing research and slanted representations, Howley declares it "useless as a source of objective information." The document employed very little peer-reviewed research and no reference was found to any peer-reviewed empirical research in rural education. Howley notes that the methods employed by New Frontier are entirely rhetorical, based on unstated assumptions that charter schools provide positive outcomes in all regards. Also, Howley finds the document "obscures rather than illuminates consideration of rural education, making it more harmful than helpful." In summarizing the usefulness of New Frontier , Howley says, "The document is useful only to those who seek to expand charter schools into rural areas." Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A New Frontier: Utilizing Charter School Spending to Strengthen Rural Education on the web: http://bellwethereducation.org/a-new-frontier-utilizing-charter-schooling-to-strengthen-rural-education/ 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: Craig Howley, (740) 590-8612, howleycb@gmail.com 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 Funding Formulas School Choice and Inherent Incentives 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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Housing Policy Summary Because educational opportunities and life chances are inextricably tied to family wealth and housing advantages, Kevin Welner and William Mathis call for a comprehensive, cohesive approach to address societal inequities. In Housing Policy, the authors recommend that multiple approaches can and should be implemented as a united set of mutually supportive initiatives. In their recommendations, the authors suggest that housing integration policies that address housing supply and affordability can be beneficial. Publication Date May 23, 2016 Authors Kevin G. Welner and William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 24, 2016) — The sixth in a series of concise policy briefs investigates five equity-focused approaches tied to educational opportunities and life chances for students. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In Housing Policy , Kevin G. Welner and William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss closing the opportunity gap through housing-focused policies coupled with other efforts. Welner and Mathis review five interventions: (1) school improvement policies; (2) school choice policies; (3) school desegregation policies; (4) wealth-focused policies; and (5) housing-focused policies. Regarding the approaches, Welner and Mathis caution that individually the interventions, without other supports, are insufficient to overcome the impact of poverty as it relates to food insecurity, housing insecurity, employment insecurity, or other obstacles facing students in schools today. Because educational opportunities and life chances are inextricably tied to family wealth and housing advantages, the authors call for a comprehensive, cohesive approach to address societal inequities. Welner and Mathis recommend that multiple approaches can and should be implemented as a united set of mutually supportive initiatives. In their recommendations, the authors suggest that housing integration policies that address housing supply and affordability can be beneficial. Specifically, they highlight the positive impact that inclusionary zoning can have on neighborhoods. Inclusionary zoning uses incentives to encourage developers to build affordable housing in high-cost neighborhoods. They conclude that sustained efforts in all areas should be pursued, including: school improvement, desegregation efforts, and policies that address wealth inequity. These policies do not have to be mutually exclusive. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Restoring Value To the High School Diploma: The Rhetoric and Practice Of Higher Standards 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 September 30, 2007 Authors W. Norton Grubb, Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley Jeannie Oakes, Ph.D. University of California, Los Angeles Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING , Mich. – Several recent high-profile reports calling for the “reinvention” of the American high school are simplistic and seriously flawed, according to a new policy brief released by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief, “‘Restoring Value’ to the High School Diploma: The Rhetoric and Practice of Higher Standards,” is by W. Norton Grubb and Jeannie Oakes. In the brief, the authors analyzed a wave of commission reports since 2004 that attack the American high school and call, in particular, for higher state graduation requirements and for exit exams. Grubb and Oakes conclude that this current push for “rigor” fails on several levels. The reports don’t adequately consider the likely consequences of the policies intended to enforce higher standards. They also “have little to say about how [the] imposition [of these standards] will enhance student performance.” And most discussions in these reports focus on narrow definitions of rigor—higher test scores, more demanding courses, or both—while ignoring other conceptions of rigor that may be as valid, if not more so. The authors explain that other conceptions of rigor include: depth rather than breadth; more sophisticated levels of understanding including “higher-order skills”; and the ability to apply learning in unfamiliar settings. These conceptions are largely neglected in the new “high standards” commission reports. In addition, while the reports stress “college and workplace readiness,” very few offer strategies that link to the workplace. The commission reports analyzed by Grubb and Oakes have had a very real policy impact. As they note, “Recent legislation has forced the translation of rhetoric into practice. Most states have increased their graduation requirements, and half the states have adopted exit exams.” Yet the current push to increase rigor and heighten standards is “seriously flawed,” they write, and “any gains come at the expense of other goals for high school reform, including equity, curricular relevance, and student interest.” In place of the current approaches, Grubb and Oakes describe a clear and distinctly different alternative to the nineteenth century model of the traditional high school. They suggest that high schools offer “multiple pathways” structured around themes, some drawn from occupational areas, others drawn from broad, multidisciplinary concepts. Such an approach would “provide room for examining the important occupational, political, and social issues of adult life in the process of teaching disciplinary subjects.” They also explain that focusing “on a single theme nurtures multiple concepts of rigor,” and “the approach distributes responsibility for standards throughout the educational community, and it provides students with the benefits of curricular choice and several routes to graduation.” Find “’Restoring Value’ to the High School Diploma: The Rhetoric and Practice of Higher Standards,” by W. Norton Grubb and Jeannie Oaks on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About the authors: W. Norton Grubb is an economist who holds the David Gardner Chair in Higher Education at University of California, Berkeley. Jeanne Oaks holds the Presidential Chair in Education Equity at University of California, Los Angeles. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Jeannie Oakes – (310) 825-2494; oakes@ucla.edu Teri Battaglieri – (517)293-2940; greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Call for Lawmakers to Loosen School Advertising Restrictions Overlooks Real Costs to Students Summary The Empire Center recently released a brief making the persuasive legal case that current policy and legal guidance from state education officials in New York severely restricts the ability of school districts to allow any form of commercial advertising. Because of this, the brief argues, it is more difficult than it should be for these districts to raise revenues from advertising, sponsorships, and naming rights deals Publication Date November 18, 2019 Authors Peter Murphy; William S. Koski, Stanford Law School Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Call for Lawmakers to Loosen School Advertising Restrictions Overlooks Real Costs to Students An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Brief ignores the potential harms of in-school advertising and provides little useful guidance for officials considering a substantive reworking of regulations. EAST LANSING, MI (November 19, 2019) - The Empire Center recently released a brief making the persuasive legal case that current policy and legal guidance from state education officials in New York severely restricts the ability of school districts to allow any form of commercial advertising. Because of this, the brief argues, it is more difficult than it should be for these districts to raise revenues from advertising, sponsorships, and naming rights deals. Professor William S. Koski of Stanford Law School reviewed Commercial Cash: How NY Schools Can Raise Extra Money Without Raising Taxes and found that while the brief provides a solid analysis of the legal and regulatory restrictions on commercial activities in schools, it addresses only the revenue half of the equation and leaves out crucial information. The unexplored half, Professor Koski explains, includes the significant costs of commercial advertising in schools, including the potential psychological, health-related, educational, and privacy harms stemming from corporate advertising and targeted digital marketing. The brief ignores substantial scholarly and empirical literature that has detailed the harms of advertising and media messaging on children generally and the harms from advertising in schools specifically. Beyond these potential harms, the brief may overstate the economic benefits of these deals because it does not consider either the costs of negotiating and administering these contracts or the potential of diminished donor and taxpayer support. While the brief’s call for the New York legislature to revisit and revise policy governing advertising in schools is timely and appropriate, Professor Koski concludes that it provides little useful guidance for officials considering a substantive reworking of regulations. Find the review, by William S. Koski, the Eric and Nancy Wright Professor in Clinical Education at Stanford Law School, at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Commercial Cash: How NY Schools Can Raise Extra Money Without Raising Taxes , written by Peter Murphy and published by Empire Center, at: https://www.empirecenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Commercial-Cash-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), 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 William S. Koski: (650) 799-9060, bkoski@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice / The Participant Effects of Private School Vouchers across the Globe: A Meta-Analytic and Systematic Review Summary Two reports claimed to offer empirical support of the effectiveness of school vouchers. The reviewed reports include: A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice; and The Participant Effects of Private School Vouchers across the Globe: A Meta-Analytic and Systematic Review from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas. The reports focused on randomized studies of the effects of school vouchers on educational outcomes, concluding that school vouchers have positive effects. Publication Date June 29, 2016 Authors M. Danish Shakeel, Kaitlin P. Anderson, & Patrick J. Wolf; Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Serious Problems and Errors Mar Two Voucher Reports, Academic Review Finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 30, 2016) — Two recent reports claimed to offer empirical support of the effectiveness of school vouchers. The reports focused on randomized studies of the effects of school vouchers on educational outcomes, concluding that school vouchers have positive effects. However, an academic review released today finds the reports have serious problems and errors. The reviewed reports include: (1) A Win-Win Solution: The Empirical Evidence on School Choice from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice; and (2) The Participant Effects of Private School Vouchers across the Globe: A Meta-Analytic and Systematic Review from the Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas. Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, reviewed both reports for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The Friedman report reviews studies purporting to show positive impacts from voucher programs in the U.S. According to Lubienski, the report is a rudimentary "vote counting" analysis of an extremely narrow set of studies, which used a biased counting system. The authors of the Arkansas report conducted a limited meta-analysis of U.S. and international voucher programs. Lubienski finds that the Arkansas report fails to offer a "global look" at vouchers - utilizing only three international studies. Additionally, the authors of the Arkansas report used only 19 studies, out of more than 9,000 available, with almost half of which conducted by the authors themselves or their associates. Ultimately, Lubienski concludes: "Both reports are marred by a number of serious problems and errors, including misrepresentations of the research literature, a failure to acknowledge the limitations of their approaches, not addressing the shortcomings of the theoretical underpinnings of vouchers, and the use of methods that bias the selections of the studies they utilize." He says, "Together, their manifold serious flaws undercut the trustworthiness and usefulness of these reports." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A Win-Win Solution on the web: http://www.edchoice.org/research/win-win-solution/ Find The Participant Effects of Private School Vouchers across the Globe on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/working-papers/ 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of #StudentsFirst: Empowering Parents to Help Students Regain Lost Learning Summary A new Buckeye Institute report recommends sweeping K-12 policy reforms in response to COVID-19 academic disruptions and what the report asserts to be declining confidence in public schools. However, a review of the report criticizes the analysis and cautions against its policy recommendations. Publication Date November 21, 2022 Authors Greg R. Lawson; David S. Knight, University of Washington Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Pandemic-Era Academic Setbacks Won't Be Fixed by School Choice An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Policy recommendations in recent report are more likely to yield negative than positive results. EAST LANSING, MI (November 22, 2022) - A new Buckeye Institute report recommends sweeping K-12 policy reforms in response to COVID-19 academic disruptions and what the report asserts to be declining confidence in public schools. However, a review of the report criticizes the analysis and cautions against its policy recommendations. Professor David S. Knight of the University of Washington reviewed #StudentsFirst: Empowering Parents to Help Students Regain Lost Learning and found its policy recommendations to rely on broad, untested assumptions. The report recommends the state rapidly expand three types of school choice or voucher-like policies—education savings accounts, public school choice, and tax credits for private school scholarship programs—combined with fiscal transparency. The report includes a discussion of research, referencing several studies, but it fails to support its recommendations with direct evidence of benefits or consider potential unintended consequences, such as reduced student achievement, increased racial segregation, and reduced funding for public schools. Instead, the report relies on tenuous assumptions about predicted impacts of its favored policy reforms. Professor Knight thus concludes that policymakers who read this report should carefully consider the assumptions embedded in the policy recommendations, the unintended consequences that may arise from adopting them, and the availability of alternative policy options. Find the review, by David S. Knight, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find #StudentsFirst: Empowering Parents to Help Students Regain Lost Learning ,written by Greg R. Lawson and published by The Buckeye Institute, at: https://www.buckeyeinstitute.org/library/docLib/2022-09-06-Students-First-Empowering-Parents-to-Help-Students-Regain-Lost-Learning-policy-report.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 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: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com David S. Knight: (206) 221-3456, dsknight@uw.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? Summary This policy brief explores the "common core" standards initiative embraced by the Obama administration as a means for increasing student achievement and ensuring global economic competitiveness. Author William Mathis raises questions about the development of common core standards and provides an overview of the relevant research on this topic. Mathis also includes a series of recommendations for moving forward with the common core standards initiative. Publication Date July 20, 2010 Authors William J. Mathis, Ph.D. University of Colorado at Boulder Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., July 21, 2010—Very little evidence supports the contention that establishing national academic standards for K-12 schools will improve the quality of American public education, and the standards push may distract attention from other vital school reforms, concludes a new policy brief, The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? The brief, authored by William J. Mathis, was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "Without addressing both the in-school and out-of-school influences on test scores, common core standards are not likely to improve the quality and equity of America's public schools," Mathis explains. The Obama administration has embraced "common core" standards and has pressured states to adopt them by stating that federal Title I aid will be withheld from states that do not adopt standards such as those being developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. In addition, states that adopt the standards have a major advantage on their Race to the Top applications. Standards advocates argue that common standards are necessary for keeping the nation competitive in a global economy. But Mathis points out that research does not support this oft-expressed rationale. No studies support a true causal relationship between national standards and economic competitiveness, and at the most superficial level we know that nations with centralized standards generally tend to perform no better (or worse) on international tests than those without. Further, research shows that national economic competitiveness is influenced far more by economic decisions than by test scores. Mathis also raises questions about the rapid development of the common-core standards, the lack of field testing, and the overarching need for any high-stakes consequences to be "valid," pursuant to established professional guidelines. Given these concerns, he says that the prospect of positive effects on educational quality or equality "seems improbable." Find William Mathis's report, The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? on the web at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Mathis_NationalStandards.pdf This policy brief was produced by the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. About The Great Lakes Center 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: William J. Mathis – (802) 383-0058; William.Mathis@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Multiple Shortcomings Mar Report Ranking Michigan High Schools Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date April 29, 2019 Authors Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher M. Saldaña, of the University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 30, 2019) — Personalized learning programs are proliferating in schools across the United States, fueled by philanthropic dollars, tech industry lobbying, marketing by third-party vendors, and a policy environment that provides little guidance and few constraints. In Personalized Learning and the Digital Privatization of Curriculum and Teaching , Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher M. Saldaña, of the University of Colorado Boulder, consider how we got to this point. Beginning with an examination of the history of personalized learning and the key assumptions made by its proponents, they review the research evidence and reflect on the roles and possible impacts of the digital technologies deployed by many programs. As the authors explain, these personalized learning products will continue to be aggressively marketed, so policymakers and educators should be prepared to critically evaluate those products and that marketing. They need a clear understanding of the history and evidence if they are to craft appropriate guidelines for personalized learning initiatives. The research brief’s specific findings are alarming. It reveals questionable educational assumptions embedded in influential programs, self-interested advocacy by the technology industry, serious threats to student privacy, and a general lack of research support for personalized learning programs. Despite the many red flags, however, the pressure persists for the adoption of personalized learning programs. States, for example, continue to embrace policies that promote implementation of digital instructional materials but that do little to provide for oversight or accountability. Unless guided by informed policies, linking personalized learning with proprietary software and digital platforms can put important educational decisions in private hands and compromise the privacy of children and their teachers. It can also distort pedagogy in ways that stifle students’ ability to learn and grow as people and as participants in democratic civic life. By emphasizing data collection and analysis over other instructional considerations, digital personalized learning programs inevitably reflect a restricted, hyper-rational approach to curriculum and pedagogy that reduces students’ agency, narrows what they can learn in school, and limits schools’ ability to respond effectively to a diverse student body. Given the current manifest lack of oversight and accountability, the authors recommend that schools and policymakers pause in their efforts to promote and implement personalized learning programs until rigorous review, oversight, and enforcement mechanisms are established. They also recommend that states establish an independent government entity responsible for evaluating the pedagogical approaches, assessment, and data collection embedded in digital personalized learning programs. This new entity should also be responsible for implementing and enforcing safeguards to ensure the security and privacy of student and teacher data. Find Personalized Learning and the Digital Privatization of Curriculum and Teaching , by Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar and Christopher M. Saldaña, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Boninger-Molnar-Personalized-Learning.pdf This research 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), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More