< Back Review of Representation of Social Groups in U.S. Educational Materials and Why It Matters Summary New America recently released a report about the value of culturally relevant curriculum in schools. According to a new review, the report is timely and helpful, although some limitations in its analysis weaken an otherwise valid exploration of how to address long-standing issues of racial and gender justice. Publication Date February 8, 2022 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Equity & Civil Rights Authors Amanda LaTasha Armstrong; Christine Sleeter, California State University, Monterey Bay Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Shows Curriculum Matters in Increasingly Diverse Classrooms An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Despite some shortcomings, report draws needed attention to the importance of culturally relevant curriculum. EAST LANSING, MI (February 8, 2022) - New America recently released a report about the value of culturally relevant curriculum in schools. According to a new review, the report is timely and helpful, although some limitations in its analysis weaken an otherwise valid exploration of how to address long-standing issues of racial and gender justice. Christine Sleeter of California State University, Monterey Bay, reviewed New America's Representation of Social Groups in U.S. Educational Materials and Why it Matters . The report synthesizes research studies that analyze representation of diverse groups in curriculum materials, particularly children's literature. It finds an underrepresentation of minoritized racial/ethnic groups and females, very little attention to nonbinary and LGBTQ characters, and very little analysis of characters with multiple identities. The report concludes that many students consequently lose the opportunity to see themselves in curriculum and to learn about minoritized Americans who differ from themselves. The report provides helpful resources, according to Professor Sleeter. But she also flags some weaknesses. First, it concentrates narrowly on character representation in literature; it gives little attention to questions pertinent to other subject areas, such as history. It is also limited by relying as much on non-peer-reviewed as on peer-reviewed studies. Finally, it misses opportunities to connect culturally relevant curriculum with student academic learning, connect gender with culturally relevant education, or reveal how cultures of power (white and male) are represented in curriculum. Despite these limitations, Professor Sleeter continues, the overall validity of the report's conclusions remains intact. Taken as a whole, the report draws needed attention to the importance of cultural relevance of curriculum materials. Find the review, by Christine Sleeter, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Representation of Social Groups in U.S. Educational Materials and Why It Matters , written by Amanda LaTasha Armstrong and published by New America, at: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/the-representation-of-social-groups-in-u-s-educational-materials-and-why-it-matter/ NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Christine Sleeter: (831) 915-3876, csleeter@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education Summary The brief examines the tension that has often arisen between the desire to link learning to post-high-school work and the desire to avoid low academic expectations for students perceived as unlikely to attend college. The brief’s authors explore the question of how schools might meaningfully support career exploration and preparation, while avoiding the tendency of prior vocational education to disproportionately sort students into distinct tracks by ethnic, racial, and/or socioeconomic characteristics. Publication Date February 24, 2020 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Emily Hodge, Montclair State University; Shaun Dougherty, Vanderbilt University; Dr. Carol Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Emily Hodge : (973) 655-3698, hodgee@montclair.edu Shaun Dougherty : (615) 322-1894, shaun.dougherty@vanderbilt.edu Evolution of Career and Technical Education: How to Connect School to Work but Avoid Past Mistakes A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: As the popularity of CTE grows, so does the need to ensure that it avoids stratification of the past. EAST LANSING, Mich. (February 25, 2020) — In one of the few bipartisan applause lines of his January State of the Union address, President Trump asked Congress to support his “plan to offer vocational and technical education in every single high school in America.” This bipartisan support for Career and Technical Education (CTE) is also seen in state houses and school districts throughout the US. But despite the popularity of CTE, concerns remain about the availability of resources for different CTE pathways, their relative status, and the degree to which adults working within schools are problematically sorting students explicitly or implicitly into different course-taking pathways. February is Career and Technical Education Month, a time to better understand CTE education. Accordingly, NEPC today is releasing a policy brief, Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education , authored by Professors Emily Hodge of Montclair State University and Shaun Dougherty of Vanderbilt University, and Dr. Carol Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education. The brief examines the tension that has often arisen between the desire to link learning to post-high-school work and the desire to avoid low academic expectations for students perceived as unlikely to attend college. The brief’s authors explore the question of how schools might meaningfully support career exploration and preparation, while avoiding the tendency of prior vocational education to disproportionately sort students into distinct tracks by ethnic, racial, and/or socioeconomic characteristics. After summarizing the history of vocational education and its relation to tracking, the brief describes how vocational education evolved into CTE, which has emerged as a variety of school-based efforts as also described in the brief. The authors conclude with recommendations for enacting CTE in ways that support the equitable distribution of educational opportunity: In whole-school models of CTE, school and district leaders should monitor enrollment at the school and program levels by student subgroups to ensure equitable access. In comprehensive high schools, administrators should build a schedule that allows for participation in CTE electives without de facto tracking of students. Students should have access to a broad variety of coursework with minimal or no levels within subjects. School district and state policymakers must ensure equitable distribution of resources across schools and for students across districts to avoid de facto tracking of specific subgroups of students into specific careers. To avoid mistakes of the past that replicated social stratification, researchers should carefully monitor the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic patterns of CTE in all of its forms. Find Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education, by Emily Hodge, Shaun Dougherty, and Carol Burris, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (greatlakescenter.org). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The High Cost of High School Dropouts in Ohio Summary This report offers up “dropout recovery” charter schools as a solution to reduce Ohio’s dropout rates. Publication Date March 4, 2009 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Authors Sherman Dorn, University of South Florida Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Dropout Report Uses Inaccurate Data Reviewer finds that Buckeye’s case for “dropout recovery” charter schools is made with inflated numbers EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 4, 2009)—A February report from the Buckeye Institute offers up “dropout recovery” charter schools as a solution for reducing Ohio’s dropout rate. But a new review of the report finds that it makes its case by relying on charter school graduation data that are inconsistent with state figures, “resulting in a dramatic overstatement of the graduation rates at the charters.” The report, The High Cost of High School Dropouts in Ohio was written by Matthew Carr for the Buckeye Institute for Public Policy Solutions. It was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida, a national expert on dropout data and policies. The Buckeye report points out that Ohio’s drop out rate is too high and that there are large social costs associated with low levels of high school graduation including lower tax revenues and higher costs for medical care and incarceration. It suggests that enrolling high-risk teenagers in last-chance charter schools can increase the graduation rate and recommends that the state expand investment in such charter schools to increase the graduation rate and save resources. The report borrows its formula from six previous reports by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation on graduation rates in various states. Dorn observes that the Buckeye report, like the Friedman reports it emulates, “uses the existing literature on dropping out and school competition in a superficial way”—comparing the relative earnings and social burdens of high school graduates and dropouts, while ignoring extensive debate over the real costs of dropping out. The report also ignores “a large body of useful research” on charter schools, even as it posits “dropout recovery” charter schools as the best solution to the so-called dropout problem. The most glaring problem identified by Dorn’s review is that Ohio state data contradict the report’s exaggerated claims about the number of students graduating from the charter schools that the Buckeye report holds up as the solution, most run by a controversial for-profit education management company called White Hat Management. For example, one school that Ohio reports had fewer than 10 graduates in 2004-05 is asserted in the report to have graduated 145; another with 42 is claimed to have graduated 338. “Overall, for 18 schools for which Ohio reported a specific number of graduates, the report claimed 1,610 more graduates in 2004-05 than what the state reported,” Dorn writes. “This documented exaggeration represents approximately half of the total graduates that the report claims for the 23 schools.” The Buckeye report doesn’t explain the source of its graduation data or discuss the discrepancy between its counts and those reported by the state. Dorn recommends that state policymakers interested in increasing graduation rates choose not to rely on the Buckeye report, but instead, “seek out the available well-researched scholarship on the topic.” Find Sherman Dorn’s review and a link to the Buckeye report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Contact: Sherman Dorn (813) 205-6143; sherman.dorn@gmail.com 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 10, 2024 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Colleen Hroncich and Jamie Buckland; Huriya Jabbar, University of Southern California 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

< Back Review of Think Again: Do Charter Schools Drain Resources From Traditional Public Schools? Summary A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute considers whether charter schools increase or decrease traditional public school districts’ total revenues, instructional spending per pupil, and efficiency. Publication Date May 18, 2023 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors David Griffith; Huriya Jabbar, University of Texas at Austin Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Useful But Flawed Analysis of Impact of Charter Schools on Traditional Public Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report fairly assesses existing empirical evidence but ultimately makes claims and recommendations that are not supported by the research. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (May 18, 2023) - A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute considers whether charter schools increase or decrease traditional public school districts’ total revenues, instructional spending per pupil, and efficiency. Though the report has useful starting points in looking at the impact of charters, its policy recommendations are flawed. Huriya Jabbar of the University of Texas at Austin reviewed Think Again: Do Charter Schools Drain Resources From Traditional Public Schools? and found its claims to be largely unsupported by evidence. Based on its review of literature, the report finds that charter schools have mixed impacts on district finances; additionally, it suggests that while short-term effects may be negative, traditional public schools facing charter competition see improved efficiency over time. The report references most of the relevant literature and fairly assesses the evidence. However, it makes claims and policy recommendations that are untested empirically and unwarranted based on the research. For example, it concludes that districts’ higher expenditures in a charter environment are due to policies protecting traditional public schools from revenue fluctuations caused by charter competition. In doing so, it fails to consider other possible explanations, such as charters strategically enrolling relatively few students who are particularly costly to educate. The report also suggests that public school closures resulting from unsupportable enrollment decline are a positive outcome of competition-downplaying how severely closures disrupt and negatively impact marginalized students and communities. Professor Jabbar concludes that while the report may be a good resource for identifying studies related to the important questions it asks, its unsupported claims and recommendations make its advice of little use to policymakers. Find the review, by Huriya Jabbar, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3135&type=think_twice Find Think Again: Do Charter Schools Drain Resources From Traditional Public Schools? , written by David Griffith and published by the Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/think-again-do-charter-schools-drain-resources-traditional-public-schools 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 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 Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Huriya Jabbar: ( 512) 475-8586, jabbar@austin.utexas.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back National Charter School Study 2013 Summary The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University examined charter schools in 26 states and New York City. Its primary findings were: (a) a small positive effect of being in a charter school on reading scores and no impact on math scores; and (b) a relative improvement in average charter school quality since CREDO’s 2009 study. Publication Date July 16, 2013 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Andrew Maul, University of Colorado Boulder Abby McClelland, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review of CREDO's National Charter School Study Finds Significant Reasons for Caution EAST LANSING, Mich. (July 16, 2013) – The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University announced in a press release that "charter school students now have greater learning gains in reading than their peers in traditional public schools." This conclusion was repeated in newspapers across the nation. But there is much less to the CREDO study and to its claim than meets the eye, according to a new review. The National Charter School Study 2013 examined charter schools in 27 partner states. Andrew Maul and Abby McClelland from the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed the study for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The CREDO study attempts to identify differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools. Its primary findings were: (a) a small positive effect of being in a charter school on reading scores and no impact on math scores; and (b) a relative improvement in average charter school quality since CREDO's 2009 study. Maul and McClelland, however, find "significant reasons for caution in interpreting the study's results." Some of those reasons concern important choices regarding analytic methods; others concern basic questions of how meaningful the findings really are. Technical concerns identified in the review: The statistical approach used to compare charter students to so-called virtual twins in traditional public schools may not adequately control for differences between families who select a charter school and those who do not, which could bias the results The researchers don't sufficiently justify their estimation of growth, which they express using the problematic "days of learning" approach The regression models fail to address independence of observations and the absence of measurement error – two key assumptions required in such analyses These 'technical' concerns could easily implicate differences in the study's results that are substantially larger than the highlighted results attributed to differences between charter schools and traditional public schools. Even if concerns over the study's analytic methods are set side, however, Maul and McClelland point out that the study itself shows only a tiny real impact on the part of charter schools: "less than one hundredth of one percent of the variation in test performance is explainable by charter school enrollment," they write. Specifically, students in charter schools were estimated to score approximately 0.01 standard deviations higher on reading tests and 0.005 standard deviations lower on math tests than their peers in traditional public schools. "With a very large sample size, nearly any effect will be statistically significant," the reviewers conclude, "but in practical terms these effects are so small as to be regarded, without hyperbole, as trivial." The study merely confirms that charter school performance mirrors that of traditional public schools . Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find National Charter School Study 2013 by CREDO on the web: http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html / 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. Andrew Maul and Abby McClelland's review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-credo-2013 -###- 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: Andrew Maul, (303) 492-7653, andrew.maul@colorado.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 Report Card on Education, 1983-84 to 2004-05 Summary This report, which promotes ALEC’s policy agenda, asserts that student achievement has not been improved by increased spending on education, smaller class sizes or improved teacher salaries. It concludes that improvement will occur when “accountability, choice and competition are injected into our current educational system.” Publication Date January 8, 2007 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ‘REPORT CARD ON EDUCATION’ GETS FAILING GRADES EAST LANSING, Mich. – The widely-touted Report Card on Education, 1983-1984 to 2004-2005 falls far short of valid or useful research according to a Think Twice review of the report done by Gene V Glass, Regents’ Professor at Arizona State University. The Report Card , written by Andrew T. LeFevre and published by The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) promotes ALEC’s policy agenda which includes charter schools and vouchers. The Report Card asserts that student achievement has not been improved by increased spending on education, smaller class sizes, or improved teacher salaries. It concludes that improvement will occur when “accountability, choice and competition are injected into our current educational system.” As Glass explains in his review, “ LeFevre presents a great deal of data, but the vast majority of these data are not analyzed.” Further, the Report Card “ignores, intentionally or unintentionally, the many studies that flatly contradict its findings and conclusions.” In fact, the Report Card fails to cite any research studies at all. “Particularly for a report with such sweeping, far-reaching recommendations, this oversight is indefensible,” Glass writes. Glass concludes: “In spite of being clad with myriad numbers and statistics, the Report Card on American Education is rhetoric, not research. Legislators may find value in looking up education statistics for their own state and comparing them with other states. But they will find neither credible findings nor any firmly established facts on which to base policy decisions.” Find the complete review by Gene V Glass as well as a link to ALEC’s Report Card on Education at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Gene V Glass (480) 965-2692 (email) glass@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance Summary This report seeks to provide relevant evidence to inform and guide options that policy makers should consider as they work to address prevalent concerns about the country’s virtual and blended school sectors. The Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance report is the sixth in an annual series of research briefs on the fast-growing U.S. virtual school sector. This year’s report provides a comprehensive directory of the nation’s full-time virtual and blended learning providers. The report finds both virtual and blended schools have not been as successful as traditional public schools. Despite this lackluster performance, virtual school enrollment has continued to grow. The report found evidence suggesting that several factors are key to the poor performance of virtual schools, including large school sizes and large student-to-teacher ratios. Publication Date May 1, 2018 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Gary Miron, Christopher Shank, & Caryn Davidson, Western Michigan University; and Alex Molnar, University of Colorado Boulder. Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release 6th Annual Virtual Schools Report Makes Recommendations to Improve Virtual and Blended Schooling EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 1, 2018) – A new report, Full-Time Virtual and Blended Schools: Enrollment, Student Characteristics, and Performance , is the sixth in an annual series of research briefs on the fast-growing U.S. virtual school sector. This year's report provides an overview and inventory of full-time virtual and blended learning providers. The report is intended to be a reference work for policy makers, educators, and the public. Gary Miron , Christopher Shank , and Caryn Davidson , Western Michigan University, authored the research brief for the National Education Policy Center , housed at the University of Colorado Boulder. Alex Molnar , NEPC publications director, serves at the series editor. The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice funded the report. In addition to the overview and inventory of virtual and blended learning providers, this year's report also — where data were available — provides an analysis of school performance measures. The available school performance measures indicate that both virtual and blended schools have not been as successful as traditional public schools. Despite this lackluster performance, virtual school enrollment has continued to grow. The report found evidence that suggests that several factors are key to the poor performance of virtual schools, including large school sizes and large student-to-teacher ratios. This year's report also finds that a new trend has emerged, with school districts opening their own virtual schools. Despite this trend, large virtual schools operated by for-profit education management organizations (EMOs) still dominate the sector. The report, based on the evidence available, recommends several improvements that policy makers should consider. In conclusion, the authors state: "Although largely descriptive, this report seeks to provide relevant evidence to inform and guide options that policy makers should consider as they work to address prevalent concerns about the country's virtual school and growing blended school sectors." Find the report on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the report with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965, gary.miron@wmich.edu Great Lakes Center, (517) 203-2940, 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 Charter School Funding: Inequity in New York City Summary A report from the Department of Education Reform (EDRE) at the University of Arkansas claimed that charter schools in NYC were not being fairly funded because of a funding gap favoring district schools. The authors of the report also asserted that certain co-located schools had fiscal advantages over other charters. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report finds it to be dated and of little use for policymakers or researchers. Publication Date October 11, 2017 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Larry D. Maloney and Patrick J. Wolf; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY) Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NYC charter school funding report not useful, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 11, 2017) — A report from the Department of Education Reform (EDRE) at the University of Arkansas (UARK) claimed that charter schools in NYC were not being fairly funded because of a funding gap favoring district schools. The authors of the report also asserted that certain co-located schools had fiscal advantages over other charters. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report finds it to be dated and of little use for policymakers or researchers. Dr. Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY), reviewed the report, Charter School Funding: Inequity in New York City , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . In his review, Belfield raises some concerns about the report, including: The report does not attempt a rigorous comparison of charters to non-charter schools; It assumes that any differences in student characteristics across charter and district schools were trivial; and It concludes that raw, unadjusted funding amounts were sufficient for assessing fairness. Additionally, Belfield identifies that the data are based on 2014 figures, which fails to capture funding reforms and regulations enacted in NYC charter schools since that time. In response, Belfield writes: "In light of these reforms, this report has been superseded by events." Belfield finds the report is no longer policy-relevant and that it is unlikely to be very useful for policymakers or the research community. Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the UARK EDRE report at: http://www.uaedreform.org/charter-school-funding-inequity-in-new-york-city/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219, Clive.Belfield@gmail.com Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Conflict Over Parents' Rights Summary A vocal minority of parents has, over the past couple years, invoked the idea of "parents rights" to demand curricular and policy changes that affect not only their own children, but all children within reach of those changes. These parents have, for example, sought to alter history curricula on slavery and race, to dictate how (and whether) schools teach about sexual orientation and gender identity, to remove books in school library collections, and to set school policies relating to transgender students. Interestingly, the most vocal parents taking part in campaigns for parents’ rights tend to see themselves as standing against the state and its schools, instead of standing inside a democratic community that strives for inclusive participation, informed inquiry, and respectful deliberation among the members of the community. In a new NEPC policy brief, The Conflict Over Parents' Rights, Professor Vivian Hamilton of William & Mary Law School details the politicization of parents’ rights and specific rights and responsibilities of various stakeholders, and she explains how competing rights of parents and schools can be reasonably aligned in practice. Publication Date January 16, 2024 Research Areas Technology & AI; Equity & Civil Rights; Curriculum & Instruction; Governance & Public Education Authors Vivian Hamilton, William & Mary Law School Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Policymakers must strive to strike a balance between different stakeholder interests while upholding the core societal goal and essential government role of educating the public. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 16, 2024) - A vocal minority of parents has, over the past couple years, invoked the idea of "parents' rights" to demand curricular and policy changes that affect not only their own children, but all children within reach of those changes. These parents have, for example, sought to alter history curricula on slavery and race, to dictate how (and whether) schools teach about sexual orientation and gender identity, to remove books in school library collections, and to set school policies relating to transgender students. Interestingly, the most vocal parents taking part in campaigns for parents' rights tend to see themselves as standing against the state and its schools, instead of standing inside a democratic community that strives for inclusive participation, informed inquiry, and respectful deliberation among the members of the community. In a new NEPC policy brief, The Conflict Over Parents' Rights , Professor Vivian Hamilton of William & Mary Law School details the politicization of parents' rights and specific rights and responsibilities of various stakeholders, and she explains how competing rights of parents and schools can be reasonably aligned in practice. While the U.S. Supreme Court has held that the Constitution protects parents' right to choose educational settings, allowing them to enroll children in religious or other private schools, it has never held that the Constitution gives parents the right to dictate public school curricula or demand individualized exemptions. While many states have enacted policies that do allow parents to exempt their children from specific requirements such as health or sex education, courts have consistently found there is no constitutional entitlement to such exemptions. Further, lower federal courts have consistently denied parents' claims of greater control. In the overwhelming majority of cases, these lower courts have rejected parents' challenges to school curricula and policies, including religiously grounded challenges. Instead, they have reasoned that to give parents such broad authority would result in an unworkable burden on school systems. During the COVID-19 pandemic and emerging as a backlash to racial-justice initiatives, groups of parents such as the conservative group Moms for Liberty organized to campaign against a variety of perceived overreaches-from mask mandates to use of preferred pronouns. Republican politicians aligned with these groups and began introducing legislation prohibiting, for instance, the discussion of topics and the use of books that (primarily) conservative parents found objectionable. Proponents of such legislation invoked a purported need to prevent schools from indoctrinating children with progressive political messages. What has been obscured in recent controversies, however, is that public schools are funded by the government to support broad societal goals, such as educating our entire multicultural, diverse population to participate fully in our democratic civic culture. Indeed, the Supreme Court has found not only that states have primary control of public education, but also that they bear the responsibility for teaching the nation's youth the knowledge and skills necessary to understand and participate in such important government activities as voting and jury duty. Additionally, public schools have a responsibility to cultivate understanding of and respect for individual differences necessary to allow tomorrow's adults to engage productively in the increasingly diverse workplace and in society. Because parents do presumably have the welfare of children in mind when they lobby for or against elements of public schooling, policymakers should listen to their concerns to make the most considered decisions possible. They should not, however, craft policy that undermines broad societal goals in order to appease a subset of parents. Instead, policymakers should work to find balance among competing stakeholder interests as productively as possible-without slighting the core societal interest in education. In this new policy brief, Professor Hamilton provides recommendations to assist policymakers as they work toward that end. Find The Conflict Over Parents' Rights , by Vivian E. Hamilton, at: https://greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( https://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 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 Vivian E. Hamilton 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 Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence Summary The Manhattan Institute recently published a brief, The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence, which reviews evidence relating to both means-tested and universal early childhood care and education programs. Publication Date April 20, 2021 Research Areas Early Childhood Authors Max Eden Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brief's Findings About Early Child Care and Education Are Only Partially Supported by Research An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Research omissions and unjustified assumptions make Manhattan Institute brief an unreliable policy guide. EAST LANSING, MI (April 20, 2021) - The Manhattan Institute recently published a brief, The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence , which reviews evidence relating to both means-tested and universal early childhood care and education programs. W. Steven Barnett, Professor and Senior Co-Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University, reviewed the report. He concludes that while increased scrutiny of universal pre-K and child care proposals is useful, the complexity of the issues surrounding them does not lend itself to the sorts of simple policy prescriptions found in the new brief. Although the scope of the brief is broad, Professor Barnett explains, it is insufficiently deep. In particular, while the brief raises warranted warnings about potential unintended negative consequences, omissions of research and unjustified assumptions make it a misleading and inadequate policy guide. The brief relies on a highly selective narrative review of a small number of studies, he continues, omitting important studies and giving undue weight to specific interpretations of a few studies that skew its findings. Its failure to cite meta-analyses (including some of universal programs) is especially noteworthy. Professor Barnett concludes that a more meticulous review of the literature relying on fewer preconceptions might have resulted in more nuanced conclusions regarding universal pre-K and child care. Find the review, by W. Steven Barnett, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Drawbacks of Universal Pre-K: A Review of the Evidence , written by Max Eden and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/drawbacks-universal-pre-k-review-evidence-ME.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu W. Steven Barnett: (732) 221-8002, sbarnett@nieer.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Teacher Differences Summary This report describes serious problems with teacher evaluation systems based on surveys conducted in 12 school districts in four states. The report urges changes to establish more effective evaluation systems that will be able to discern the highest and lowest quality teachers. Publication Date August 5, 2009 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Teacher Workforce Authors Raymond Pecheone and Ruth Chung Wei, Stanford University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ‘Widget Effect’ Report Draws Praise for Analysis of Teacher Evaluation Systems August 5, 2009 Critique of evaluation systems is strong, but omissions in methodology and failure to report on promising strategies are weaknesses, according to reviewers EAST LANSING, Mi., Aug. 5, 2009 – A recent report from the New Teacher Project describes serious problems with teacher evaluation systems. The report, based on survey results from 12 school districts in four states, urges changes to establish more effective systems that will be able to discern the highest (and lowest) quality teachers. A new review of that report finds it well grounded and praises the report’s policy recommendations as sound and consistent with prior research. The review does, however, note that the report lacks important details about its own methods and fails to consider or to draw upon any promising teacher evaluation strategies in current use. The report, The Widget Effect: Our National Failure to Acknowledge and Act on Teacher Differences , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Raymond Pecheone, Co-Executive Director of the Stanford University School Redesign Network and Director of the Performance Assessment for California Teachers, and Ruth Chung Wei, Director of Assessment Research and Development at the Stanford University School Redesign Network. Pecheone and Wei credit The Widget Effect with presenting an extensive analysis of teacher evaluation systems in 12 districts across four states. The report is based on surveys of current and former teachers as well as administrators; on an examination of teacher evaluation records in the districts surveyed; and on interviews with school district leaders, school board officials, labor relations and human resources experts, and union leaders. Its extensive reporting of the data collected enables the authors “to build a compelling case for the inadequacy of the current teacher evaluation processes, uses, and policies in the four states,” Pecheone and Wei write. The report falls short, however, in its omission of key details that might help readers to understand the sampling choices. The reviewers write: “it is unclear … how and why particular districts were selected, and whether they represent the range of teacher evaluation practices being implemented in school districts and states across the United States.” Omissions in the report’s description of its methodology (e.g., sampling strategy and survey response rates) and its sample lead to questions about the generalizability of the findings. Pecheone and Wei also point out that the report does not consider important prior research in two areas: (1) why many evaluation systems don’t work well (for example, because they rely on administrators with limited time and pedagogical expertise, tools and processes that have a limited relationship with effective teaching); and (2) how some innovative and effective evaluation systems do work. The latter omission is particularly important, because considering these evaluation systems and research about those systems would have allowed the authors to draw upon current successes in designing their recommendations. Transforming the system rather than tinkering around the edges, Pecheone and Wei conclude, will require broader thinking and a commitment to provide much greater investments and support for innovation to build, test, and audit evaluation systems that can stand up to public scrutiny and be practically feasible. Find the review by Raymond Pecheone and Ruth Chung Wei and a link to The Widget Report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Raymond L. Pecheone (650) 723-4106; pecheone@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More