< Back Getting Ahead by Staying Behind: An Evaluation of Florida’s Program to End Social Promotion Summary This Education Next article summarizes the Manhattan’s Institute’s 2004 study, An Evaluation of Florida’s Program to End Social Promotion. The authors analyze the test scores of two third-grade cohorts over the period of one year and conclude that there are major positive effects associated with retention in the program. Publication Date February 22, 2006 Authors Ed Wiley, University of Colorado Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Overstates Impact of Florida Retention Policy, Review Finds October 10, 2006 For Immediate Release Education Research and Practice (248)444-7071 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Derek Briggs, University of Colorado at Boulder (303)492-6320 (e-mail) Derek.Briggs@colorado.edu EAST LANSING, Mich. (Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006) — A recent Manhattan Institute report which concludes that Florida’s policy of retaining third-grade students based on their scores on a standardized reading test has helped them to improve their reading overstates the effect of retention on student achievement according to a Think Twice review of the report by Derek Briggs of University of Colorado. The report, “Getting Farther Ahead by Staying Behind: A Second-Year Evaluation of Florida’s Policy to End Social Promotion,” by Jay Greene and Marcus Winters reaches findings that “are best described as suggestive and merit further investigation” according to Briggs. In his review, he points out some principal shortcomings which undermine the validity of the report’s conclusions: The Florida policy doesn’t simply ‘retain’ third-graders who fail to achieve the threshold score in the state reading test, in the way the term is commonly understood. In addition to repeating the same grade, Florida’s policy also requires retained students to attend summer school and receive intensive remedial reading instruction. The authors are unable to isolate the effect of repeating the same grade from the effect of attending summer school and of receiving intensive reading instruction. While using methods that appear to be appropriate, the authors “omit important information necessary to understand and evaluate” their statistical models, including important descriptive statistics about the samples of students analyzed in the study. The authors appear to overstate the retention effect that their report estimates. This is due to the way they quantify the magnitude of the results from their statistical analysis. On the issue of other interventions that accompany retention, Briggs says that because Greene and Winters do not isolate effects of retention from those of summer school and intensive reading instruction, it is very difficult to conclude whether retention itself had a positive or negative effect. The report is a follow-up to a 2005 report by Greene and Winters which evaluated the first year of the Florida retention policy. This report was analyzed in a Think Twice review by Ed Wiley who was critical of the report’s methods and findings. Find the 2006 Manhattan Institute report and its review by Derek Briggs and the 2005 report and its review by Ed Wiley at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back On the Public-Private School Achievement Debate Summary The Lubienskis’ review of the report finds that the evidence and claims made in the report are critically flawed. Among other things, the researchers did not control for key student demographic data and student-reported data neglected to include key information. Publication Date August 29, 2006 Authors Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Theule Lubienski, University of Illinois Research Areas Charter Schools 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 Review of The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice Programs in America, 2023 Edition Summary The 2023 (fifth) edition of a semi-regular EdChoice report about school-choice studies is billed as an updated overview of the varied and often contested research on outcomes in voucher-like programs that provide public funding for private schools. But like earlier editions, it uses flawed methods that tally certain voucher studies finding impacts on any subgroup, even if there was no effect on most students. There is little to no accounting for the studies’ sampling, quality, generalizability, or other important factors. Publication Date October 11, 2023 Authors EdChoice; Christopher Lubienski, Indiana University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Simplistic Analysis of School Voucher Studies Results in an Incomplete and Misleading Report An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report uses flawed methods to "prove" that school choice works. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (October 12, 2023) - The 2023 (fifth) edition of a semi-regular EdChoice report about school-choice studies is billed as an updated overview of the varied and often contested research on outcomes in voucher-like programs that provide public funding for private schools. But like earlier editions, it uses flawed methods that tally certain voucher studies finding impacts on any subgroup, even if there was no effect on most students. There is little to no accounting for the studies’ sampling, quality, generalizability, or other important factors. Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University reviewed The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice Programs in America, 2023 Edition and found fault in its study-selection issues, a mis-weighting of studies of varied value, and a simplistic and often misleading design. The report examines research on student achievement, access, competitive effects, and other topics, purportedly to help policymakers and parents weigh the benefits and costs of these voucher programs. The report seeks to tally all the relevant studies meeting its criteria and summarize the findings in an easy-to-understand format. Through this "vote-counting" exercise, EdChoice claims to show that school choice "works," based on finding more positive than negative studies. Yet, as Professor Lubienski explains, vote-counting is a simplistic, flawed approach that obscures important differences in studies and can create a misleading narrative about the research evidence. Moreover, the report does not fully disclose its strategies for including studies, some of which are questionable. While it claims to present "the research" in a fair way, the report excludes or downplays research that is not as favorable to its agenda. In the end, this report is somewhat useful as a selective bibliography of studies, but the "vote-counting" methodology at the heart of the report seriously limits its use for evaluating these policies. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice Programs in America, 2023 Edition , published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/123s-of-School-Choice-WEB-07-10-23.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 Christopher Lubienski (812) 856-8389 clubiens@iu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Final Reports No. 29, 30 & 32 Summary The three reports are among more than 30 produced by the School Choice Demonstration Project, which has conducted a five-year longitudinal growth study of the Milwaukee voucher program. Publication Date April 18, 2012 Authors Casey Cobb, University of Connecticut Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers 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 Adding Up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and Philanthropy among New York City Charter Schools Summary Adding Up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and Philanthropy Among New York City Charter Schools analyzes the financial resources available to charter schools and also looks at their performance on state standardized tests. The study concludes that while NYC charter spending varies widely and seems to depend upon access to private donations, they are not underfunded compared with traditional public schools. Further, on average NYC charters are not out-performing traditional public schools and there doesn’t appear to be a connection between charter funding and test scores. Publication Date January 26, 2011 Authors Bruce Baker and Richard Ferris, Rutgers Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Rutgers report dispels many myths about charters' funding and performance EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 27, 2011) — In a blow to conventional wisdom, New York City charter schools are not outperforming traditional public schools and are not inadequately funded, according to a new study out of Rutgers University. New York City charter schools are often held up as an example of how charter schools are outperforming traditional public schools and doing it with less money, which in turn is used to justify increased public funding for charters. Such assumptions do not hold water, according to the study, "Adding Up the Spending: Fiscal Disparities and Philanthropy among New York City Charter Schools," authored by Rutgers education professor Bruce Baker and Rutgers doctoral student Richard Ferris. The study was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The study shows that New York City charter schools are not underfunded compared with traditional public schools. One reason for this is because the city's charter schools serve a much smaller percentage of students who are very poor or still learning English. These populations require far more resources, and they must be accounted for when making comparisons between charters and non-charters, Baker and Ferris noted. "The assumption that these charter schools should receive support equal to traditional public schools is incorrect, because they do not serve similar populations," Baker and Ferris wrote. Baker and Ferris also found significant funding disparities among New York City charter schools. While some charters receive almost no private funding, the most endowed charter schools receive in excess of $10,000 more per-pupil compared with traditional schools. The study also found that on average, charter schools are not outperforming traditional public schools. After controlling for population and environmental factors, there is no statistically significant difference between charters and non-charters in performance for grades 4, 6 and 7. Meanwhile, 5th-grade charter school students underperformed their peers enrolled in traditional public schools, according to the study. Based on their research, Baker and Ferris recommend that public funding be more tightly linked to the needs to students attending all schools, whether they're traditional public schools or charter schools. The researchers also suggest policymakers conduct annual audits of school funding levels and perhaps consider sanctioning schools that fail to adequately serve students with greater needs. To read Baker and Ferris' full report, go to: www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The report is also available on the National Education Policy Center's website at http://nepc.colorado.edu . --###-- 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: Bruce Baker: (732) 932-7496 ext. 8232 or bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940 or 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 Review of Student Assessment During COVID-19 Summary Student Assessment During COVID-19, a recent report from the Center for American Progress (CAP), argues that there should be no waivers of the federally mandated administration of standardized tests in spring 2021.In its report, CAP sides with the Department of Education’s policy of denying requests for waivers, and it calls for additional assessments that “capture multiple aspects of student well-being, including social-emotional needs, engagement, and conditions for learning” as well as supplementary gathering of student information. Publication Date October 28, 2020 Authors Laura Jimenez; Gene V Glass, San José State University, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release More Latitude, Fewer Mandates Required for Student Assessment in Current Times An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Center for American Progress report issues a tone-deaf call for expanded assessment. EAST LANSING, MI (October 29, 2020) - Student Assessment During COVID-19 , a recent report from the Center for American Progress (CAP), argues that there should be no waivers of the federally mandated administration of standardized tests in spring 2021. Gene V Glass of San José State University, William J. Mathis of the University of Colorado Boulder, and David C. Berliner of Arizona State University reviewed Student Assessment During COVID-19 and found it to be, in the current backdrop of the pandemic, ill-timed, tone deaf and disruptive. In its report, CAP sides with the Department of Education’s policy of denying requests for waivers, and it calls for additional assessments that “capture multiple aspects of student well-being, including social-emotional needs, engagement, and conditions for learning” as well as supplementary gathering of student information. Though the report contends this will ensure greater equity in the time of the pandemic, supposedly through the addition of the new measures, this approach remains unproven. Taking little heed of past attempts at multivariable, test-based accountability schemes, the report endorses this less-than-successful approach, citing only to studies that do not address the complexity of the undertaking or the effects of its implementation. Considering the massive disruption now occurring in schools and the limited utility of standardized tests even in ordinary times, state agencies and local districts are too hard-pressed by fiscal and time demands and the ramping up of health costs to consider these additional and costly programs of dubious value. For these reasons, the reviewers conclude, the CAP proposal is badly timed, unrealistic, and inappropriate for dealing with the exigencies arising from the pandemic. Find the review, by Gene V Glass, William J. Mathis, and David C. Berliner, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find Student Assessment During COVID-19, written by Laura Jimenez and published by Center for American Progress, at: https://cdn.americanprogress.org/content/uploads/2020/09/09063559/COVID-Student-Assessment1.pdf?_ga=2.166859322.509167313.1603332006-695044446.1546624010 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: 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 Gene V Glass: gvglass@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress NCLBs School Evaluation System 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 December 31, 1969 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report concludes school evaluation system is fundamentally flawed FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE East Lansing, Mich., Sept. 25, 2006— Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the main indicator of academic achievement under No Child Left Behind, is an unproven, unrealistic and underfunded system for improving student performance in the nation’s public schools, according to a policy brief funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. AYP –and the accompanying penalties for failure –should be suspended and additional research into its effectiveness should be conducted before schools invest any more time or money or suffer anymore consequences for failure to achieve it, according to the policy brief titled The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate yearly Progress, NCLB’s Evaluation System by Professor William J. Mathis of the University of Vermont. The AYP requirement is the driving force behind NCLB. It uses yearly gains in standardized test scores to measure school and student achievement. Failure by a school to meet yearly performance goals triggers sanctions and “corrective action” plans. The goal of AYP is that every child masters their state’s standardized tests by 2014. According to Mathis, a University of Vermont researcher, “AYP is not an effective instrument for measuring school performance and it is not sparking school reform as promised. Corrective action must be taken to prevent more harm to students and schools, and to develop a tool that will do the job.” The policy brief reveals that: The meager improvements in test scores are unlikely to be the result of the AYP process and are too modest to achieve the goal of 100 percent mastery by 2014; Funding is inadequate to effectively implement the program, particularly for high poverty schools; The AYP process is driving schools to focus only on subjects that are tested at the expense of other important instruction; The nation’s poor and diverse schools are hit hardest by the negative effects of AYP. Many of the brief’s conclusions mirror an earlier study released by the Great Lakes Center which found that nearly every school in the Great Lakes states will be labeled as “failing” by 2014 due to inadequate funding, lack of flexibility and other problems associated with the AYP requirement of NCLB. The full policy brief is available at http:// www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: William J. Mathis (802) 247-5757 (e-mail) 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 The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System Summary The brief, authored by Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, explores this economic burden, asking what level of resources-not just direct money outlays but also time and effort that must be ultimately be paid for in some way-is lost because of racial discrimination. Publication Date June 9, 2021 Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release The Price Tag of Racial Inequality in Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New brief examines the effects of racism through an economic perspective to document the burden of inequity in the U.S. K-12 education system. EAST LANSING, MI (June 10, 2021) - Even as the U.S. education system becomes more ethnically and racially diverse, racial disparities persist with regard to school segregation, educational resources, disciplinary treatment, and ultimately educational outcomes. These disparities harm students individually and have significant societal impacts as well, including economic consequences. Educational resources are misallocated, while Black and Hispanic students often leave school with substantially lower levels of human capital and, as a result, have lower lifetime earnings on average. Together, these misallocations and losses in human capital are examined in a new NEPC policy brief, The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System . The brief, authored by Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, explores this economic burden, asking what level of resources-not just direct money outlays but also time and effort that must be ultimately be paid for in some way-is lost because of racial discrimination. Racism within the formal K-12 educational system is best understood as a carryover or symptom of societal racism. By focusing on schools, this brief should not distract from that reality. Just as importantly, focusing on just the economic price tag of racism should not distract from or minimize the human cost of racism - in terms of lost lives and other physical and psychological brutality, as well as economic inequities that may not impact the bottom-line numbers. All of these harms are part of the same systemic whole wrought by racism. And seriously addressing racism in schools and in the society housing those schools will lead to across-the-board benefits, however measured. In approaching his analysis, Professor Belfield notes that some harms cannot be included because resources haven’t been identified and calculated. But he conservatively estimates that, for each cohort of students age 18, the burden from lower human/social capital is between $42 and $92 billion in lost lifetime economic outcomes. For schools and districts, costs of racial disparities are incurred each year from K through 12th grade. Approximately and conservatively, these additional costs annually amount to $0.4 billion on school discipline, $3.8 billion on special education, $3.2 billion grade repetition, and $0.1 billion on direct spending to combat racism. These conservative estimates of the main economic burdens of racial disparities point to the need for more complete and precise data. Professor Belfield concludes with recommendations calling for further investigation to fully understand both the economic burden of racism in U.S. education and how racism in other domains of society affects racial inequalities within schools. Find The Economic Burden of Racism from the U.S. Education System , by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://www.greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Clive Belfield : (917) 821-9219, clive.belfield@qc.cuny.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 Redrawing the Lines: How Purposeful School System Redistricting Can Increase Funding Fairness and Decrease Segregation Summary A recent New America report argues that states can advance educational equity by redrawing school district boundaries to reduce within-state fiscal and demographic disparities. While the analysis has some methodological limitations, it offers policymakers a useful framework for understanding how existing district lines shape unequal access to resources. Publication Date January 28, 2026 Authors Christopher Cleveland, Brown University; Joshua Almes, Brown University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New America report offers a helpful starting point for policy discussions focused on redistricting to address fiscal and demographic inequities across districts. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JANUARY 29, 2026) - A recent New America report argues that states can advance educational equity by redrawing school district boundaries to reduce within-state fiscal and demographic disparities. While the analysis has some methodological limitations, it offers policymakers a useful framework for understanding how existing district lines shape unequal access to resources. Christopher Cleveland and Joshua Almes of Brown University reviewed Redrawing the Lines: How Purposeful School System Redistricting Can Increase Funding Fairness and Decrease Segregation . Their review assesses how well the report meets its goals, and it identifies areas where additional research could strengthen the discussion. The report models three redistricting strategies: a "blank-slate" approach that creates new districts from Census tracts, a county-aligned approach that uses county boundaries, and targeted mergers of existing districts. Compared with current district maps, all three models increase equity in access to local property tax revenue and improve racial and economic integration, with the blank-slate approach producing the largest gains. Cleveland and Almes do point to the need for further analysis, particularly to incorporate real-world constraints and to compare redistricting with other equity-focused reforms. Yet they conclude that the report successfully positions district boundaries as a meaningful policy lever and prompts informed discussion of strategies to advance educational equity. Find the review, written by Christopher Cleveland and Joshua Almes, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Redrawing the Lines: How Purposeful School System Redistricting Can Increase Funding Fairness and Decrease Segregation , authored by Zahava Stadler and Jordan Abbott and published by New America, at: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/redrawing-the-lines-school-system-redistricting-increase-funding-fairness-decrease-segregation/ 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 Christopher Cleveland Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Michigan Student Opportunity Scholarships: Overview and Fiscal Analysis Summary A recent Mackinac Center report claims that the proposed Michigan Student Opportunity Scholarship (MSOS) neovoucher program has the potential to create fiscal benefits for the state of Michigan and its school districts. Publication Date July 13, 2022 Authors Ben DeGrow, Martin Lueken; Christopher Saldaña, University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Uses Flawed Research to Paint Michigan Neovoucher Proposal in a Positive Light An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Problematic assumptions undermine analyses of the fiscal impact of neovoucher policies. EAST LANSING, MI (July 14, 2022) - A recent Mackinac Center report claims that the proposed Michigan Student Opportunity Scholarship (MSOS) neovoucher program has the potential to create fiscal benefits for the state of Michigan and its school districts. Its conclusions were examined in a new review, however, and found faulty. Christopher Saldaña of the University of Wisconsin-Madison reviewed Michigan Student Opportunity Scholarships: Overview and Fiscal Analysis . He found it to be more misleading than useful, with poorly grounded assumptions and a narrow use of research. States fund neovoucher programs through tax-credited donations, which sets up a more complicated fiscal analysis that requires more assumptions than a conventional voucher policy. To inform its key assumptions about the factors influencing the fiscal impact of neovoucher policies, the report relies overwhelmingly on problematic reports and approaches produced by think tanks that regularly advocate for school choice. Because of this, Professor Saldaña concludes, the report paints a misleadingly rosy picture of how the MSOS will impact the state's finances and the finances of its school districts. On closer examination, the assumptions the analysis relies upon are flawed in several ways, rendering the report's results, conclusions, and broad policy recommendations useless for Michigan policymakers. Legislation creating the MSOS program was passed by the Michigan legislature in 2021 but vetoed by the state's governor. A group called " Let MI Kids Learn " is now attempting to revive it through a petitioning (signature-gathering) process unique to Michigan. With enough signatures, the legislature can again pass the legislation and it would become law without the governor's approval. Find the review, by Christopher Saldaña, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Michigan Student Opportunity Scholarships: Overview and Fiscal Analysis , written by Ben DeGrow and Martin Lueken and published by the Mackinac Center, at: https://www.mackinac.org/archives/2022/s2022-05.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Christopher Saldaña: (303) 492-2566, cmsaldana@wisc.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 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 13, 2023 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 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers 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 Review of Helping Families Navigate the Changing Education Landscape Summary A recent Cato Institute report describes how Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), the newest form of private-school voucher, have the potential to transform education by giving families increased options for tailoring their child's education, especially with the guidance of special consultants along the way. A review of that report, however, determines that it fails to provide useful evidence to support its conclusions and its recommendation that the cost of these "choice navigators" should be included as an eligible expense. Publication Date September 9, 2024 Authors Colleen Hroncich and Jamie Buckland; Huriya Jabbar, University of Southern California Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Report Promotes "Choice Navigators" Without Sufficient Evidence of Their Benefits An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The report baselessly assumes that these consultants are beneficial for families. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 10, 2024) - A recent Cato Institute report describes how Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), the newest form of private-school voucher, have the potential to transform education by giving families increased options for tailoring their child's education, especially with the guidance of special consultants along the way. A review of that report, however, determines that it fails to provide useful evidence to support its conclusions and its recommendation that the cost of these "choice navigators" should be included as an eligible expense. In her review of Helping Families Navigate the Changing Education Landscape , Huriya Jabbar of the University of Southern California agrees with the report's assertion that the school choice environment is becoming increasingly complex, particularly with the advent and rapid growth of ESAs. She also does not contest the likelihood that families, particularly those from historically marginalized groups, may benefit from additional guidance, a documented challenge stemming from differential access to information and resources needed to successfully access and enroll in educational programs. However, Professor Jabbar's review explains the report's lack of research and evidence, aside from a few handpicked testimonials, to support its claims about choice navigators as helpful in addressing these challenges. Accordingly, the report asks readers to simply accept the purported benefits of these consultants or choice navigators for families. Given the lack of new evidence or support from prior literature, the report's conclusions are not valid or useful to policymakers. Find the review, by Huriya Jabbar, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Helping Families Navigate the Changing Education Landscape , written by Colleen Hroncich and Jamie Buckland and published by the Cato Institute, at: https://www.cato.org/policy-analysis/helping-families-navigate-changing-education-landscape 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 Huriya Jabbar Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More