< Back Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn from Research Summary This policy brief outlines authoritative research documenting a wide range of useful criteria that should be used together to form the foundation for high quality assessment of teacher quality and effectiveness. These criteria include: classroom observations and evaluations, portfolios prepared by teachers, peer review and value-added models based on student standardized testing. The brief cautions against relying solely or in large part on student test scores for teacher assessment as they are unreliable and encourages policymakers to adopt assessment systems that rely on multiple sources of information. Publication Date December 7, 2010 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Patricia H. Hinchey, Penn State University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New report offers clear guidance for policymakers December 7, 2010 Research supports using multiple measures to evaluate teacher effectiveness FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE EAST LANSING, Mich., (December 7, 2010)—As New York City awaits a court ruling on whether its school system can legally release to the public the value-added performance ratings for New York City teachers, the education field still awaits proof that those test-score numbers are really the best way to evaluate teachers. As shown in a new policy brief released today, teachers' effectiveness and quality can and should be evaluated, but sensible and useful evaluation depends on a balanced system where value-added models using student standardized test scores play only a limited role. The brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to the NEPC research review prepared by Pennsylvania State University professor of education Patricia Hinchey, supporting and sustaining high-quality teaching depends on combining many sources of valuable information. The brief describes several different teacher evaluation methods and explains that no single method of teacher evaluation is sufficient by itself. Each has weaknesses that can be compensated for when combined with others. These methods include: Classroom observations and evaluations by administrators Portfolios prepared by teachers that document a range of teaching behaviors and responsibilities; and Peer review The brief, Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn from Research , notes that most current discussions about improving teacher quality tend to be imbalanced, focusing disproportionately on student test scores. "While there are important questions about what exactly achievement scores can—and cannot—indicate about individual teachers, there is no question that placing extreme emphasis on test scores alone can have unintended and undesirable consequences that undermine the goal of developing an excellent teaching force," says Hinchey. The brief highlights research findings arguing that effective teacher evaluation should ensure that: All participants in an assessment are involved in its design, and have an opportunity to learn and to fully understand the system that is implemented; Assessments are informed by a full spectrum of tools, rather than a single measurement, such as test scores; and The design of the assessment system is based on high-quality research and supported by adequate resources. The brief concludes with a recommendation that policymakers carefully think through the purposes and available methods of teacher assessment before embracing one particular solution to the exclusion of others. As Hinchey observes, "Since any teacher assessment system must address multiple goals, it should rely on multiple sources of information." Find Patricia Hinchey's report, Getting Teacher Assessment Right: What Policymakers Can Learn from Research on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Hinchey_TeacherEval.pdf . The report is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/getting-teacher-assessment-right/ . ### 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: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Private Schooling in the U.S.: Expenditures, Supply, and Policy Implications Summary This policy brief makes the case for schools across the country to put an end to policies that cast off students into unchallenging, low-track classrooms. The authors recommend a clear process for the phasing out of curricular stratification in grades K-10, beginning with the lowest track and granting meaningful access to AP and IB courses to all students. The brief includes model statutory language to implement its recommendations. Publication Date August 18, 2009 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Bruce D. Baker Rutgers University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., December 14, 2009 – Students will achieve what you expect of them. That's what a new policy brief on "ability grouping" shows in a groundbreaking analysis of three case studies. In each, schools saw significant strides in student achievement by eliminating tracks, which pigeonholed certain students into less challenging classes. Researchers have long denounced the practice of "ability grouping," but until recently, little research had documented the elements of successful reform. Authored by Dr. Carol Corbett Burris and Professor Kevin Welner and released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, the brief draws on three case studies: a school (a San Diego charter), a school district (in Long Island, NY), and a nation (Finland) that have promoted high levels of student achievement by abolishing curricular stratification. The brief also provides concrete recommendations for reform, followed by model statutory language to implement the report's recommendations, written by attorney Jennifer Weiser Bezoza, the Director of Legal and Policy Analysis at Children's Voices. "The educational leaders described in this brief rejected curricular stratification because it has been shown to exacerbate the societal or natural disadvantages suffered by many children," Burris and Welner say. "These leaders realized that when students who experience difficulty are provided with an inferior curriculum, they are certain to fall farther behind. In contrast, the high-quality heterogeneously grouped schools they created give all students access to the best curriculum and an academic support system that helps ensure that they take advantage of it. These schools hold clear lessons for leaders of other schools, where students are still stratified into tracks. Detracking provides a realistic and proven pathway to academic excellence grounded in true equity." Burris and Welner recommend a clear process for the phasing out of curricular stratification from grades K through 10, beginning with the lowest track and granting meaningful access to Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses to all students throughout the reform process. They also describe the supports needed for schools, educators, and students as they create non-tracked schools. The recommendations are spelled out in specific model legislative provisions. Find the brief, "Universal Access to a Quality Education: Research and Recommendations for the Elimination of Curricular Stratification" on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Carol Corbett Burris – (516) 599-0839; burriscarol@gmail.com Kevin Welner – (303) 492-8370; kevin.welner@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools Summary The report claims Texas had formerly been a leader in creating high-performing charter schools. It further claims that Texas’ past low barriers for entry into the market (i.e., ease of having an application approved by an authorizer) was a contributing factor to this success. Publication Date September 11, 2018 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Adam Jones and Amanda List; Edward J. Fuller Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (September 11, 2018) — A recent report from Excel in Ed and Texas Public Policy Foundation examines the charter-school authorizing process in Texas and contends that a 2013 legislative policy change made the authorization process too restrictive, thus reducing the number of applicants and stifling innovation. Professor Edward J. Fuller of Penn State University reviewed T ime to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools and found that its findings and conclusions are not supported by research or other compelling evidence and thus do not provide useful guidance for policymakers. The report is part of Think Twice Review, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Fuller's key finding is that although the report is billed as a case study, it fails to supply solid evidence. The report's lack of research and analysis results in an unsupported advocacy paper instead. After surveying current and past Texas authorizing policies, the report claims Texas had formerly been a leader in creating high-performing charter schools. It further claims that Texas' past low barriers for entry into the market (i.e., ease of having an application approved by an authorizer) was a contributing factor to this success. The report then provides recommendations for creating an easier authorization process. While the report contends it is a case study, Professor Fuller notes that it does not employ case study methodology. Moreover, the report fails to review or cite relevant research; it instead relies on unsubstantiated claims, anecdotes, misleading statements, and even demonstrably false statements to promote the development of more charter schools in Texas. In short, Fuller concludes, this report is an advocacy paper masquerading as a case study. Policymakers would be well advised to skip the report and look for evidence-based reviews of the Texas charter authorizing process. Find the Think Twice Review by Fuller on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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. Find Time to Change Course: Reclaiming the Potential of Texas Charter Schools , written by Adam Jones and Amanda List and published by Excel in Ed and the Texas Public Policy Foundation, at https://www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/ExcelinEd.TexasCharterSchoolPaper.TimeToChangeCourse.June2018.pdf You can also find the review by Edward Fuller on the NEPC website: https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-texas-charters Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back SchoolGrades.org Summary The Manhattan Institute for Policy Research launched a website, SchoolGrades.org, which aimed to provide a means to compare how well America’s schools prepare students in core subjects. The website attempts to evaluate and assign letter grades to schools using reading and math test scores. The website claims that the school grades found on the site allow parents to compare local schools against schools in other countries using a four-step process. Publication Date March 10, 2016 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Jacob L. Vigdor and Josh B. McGee; Jaime L. Del Razo, Annenberg Institute for School Reform & Brown University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Website claiming to grade schools fails on technical and philosophical grounds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 10, 2016) – In the fall of 2015, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research launched a new website, SchoolGrades.org , which aimed to provide a means to compare how well America's schools prepare students in core subjects. The website attempts to evaluate and assign letter grades to schools using reading and math test scores. Unfortunately, an academic review released today finds technical and logistical shortcomings associated with the website. Jaime L. Del Razo, Annenberg Institute for School Reform and Brown University, reviewed the website SchoolGrades.org for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The website claims that the school grades found on the site allow parents to compare local schools against schools across the nation and in other countries using a four-step process. Del Razo, in his review, notes that the process used to evaluate and assign grades is never fully explained. An investigation of the methods used found that the process apparently: (1) averages two state test scores; (2) "norms" the results to the NAEP exam; (3) makes an adjustment to this nationally normed measure using free and reduced lunch data to account at least partially for differences in socioeconomic status; and then (4) "norms" the results to the international PISA exam. Ultimately, the review finds that the unsubstantiated norming chain is too tenuous and the results are overly extrapolated, which diminishes their value. Del Razo's technical analysis also finds that the website fails to explain how: International scores are equated to a national standard created by the website; Letter grades are determined; and Free and reduced lunch counts were used to make socioeconomic adjustments. In his conclusion, Del Razo indicates that the site fails on two grounds; technical and philosophical. He says, "the Manhattan Institute's website fails to advance policy not only on the technical shortcomings of its efforts but most importantly, for not appreciating the purposes of education." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find more information about the website at: http://schoolgrades.org Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Jaime L. Del Razo, (213) 447-3448, Jaime_Del_Razo@brown.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking Summary The research behind such "hot button" educational issues as Common Core State Standards, teacher evaluations, ability grouping and LGBT safety in schools is examined in a compendium of ten short briefs written by Dr. William Mathis of the University of Colorado Boulder. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship Publication Date June 13, 2013 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back High Stakes for High Achievers / High Stakes for High Schoolers Summary Two recent think tank reports from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute called into question the impact of accountability systems on “high achievers.” The reports claimed that states have failed to address the needs of higher-scoring students, and that state accountability systems should be redesigned under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with those students in mind. Publication Date January 26, 2017 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Michael J. Petrilli, David Griffith, Brandon L. Wright, and Audrey Kim / Michael J. Petrilli, David Griffith, and Brandon L. Wright; Beth C. Rubin, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Recommendations from two accountability reports on "high achievers" could further educational inequities, academic review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 26, 2017) — State accountability systems have several purposes, most of which include improving teaching and learning to ensure all students receive quality instruction and opportunities to learn. Two recent think tank reports from the Fordham Institute called into question the impact of accountability systems on "high achievers." The reports claimed that states have failed to address the needs of higher-scoring students, and that state accountability systems should be redesigned under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) with those students in mind. Though, an academic review of the reports finds that the recommendations could result in a furthering of the inequitable educational opportunities that ESSA was designed to reduce. Beth Rubin, Rutgers University, reviewed the reports, High Stakes for High Achievers and High Stakes for High Schoolers , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Despite arguing that "high achievers" are being neglected educationally, Rubin's review finds that both reports fail to address the concerns productively. Rubin identifies four key areas that need strengthening: The reports' central assumptions about higher-achieving students are problematic; Growth measures are not an effective means for directing attention to higher-achieving students; Narrow, high-stakes forms of assessment may negatively impact the education provided to these students; and Further stratifying educational settings and reallocation of resources to these students has troublesome implications for the democratic goals of education. Rubin concludes that these reports contribute to the collective discussion regarding the federal role in education, but they must be approached with caution. She says, "the policy changes recommended by the reports are overly simplistic and do not take into account the complexities of evaluating student growth, the impact of high-stakes testing on the quality of students' educational experiences, and the needs of the underserved students who are the focus of [the] ESSA." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find both reports on the Fordham Institute website: https://edexcellence.net/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Beth C. Rubin, (848) 932-0677, beth.rubin@gse.rutgers.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Our Immense Achievement Gap: Embracing Proven Remedies While Avoiding a Race-Based Recipe for Disaster Summary This report claims that desegregation has failed and criticizes efforts to reduce concentrated poverty and achieve racial and socioeconomic integration in schools and housing in Minnesota. Publication Date March 29, 2012 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Susan Eaton, Harvard University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review Debunks Desegregation Claims Center for the American Experiment report ignores contradictory research EAST LANSING, Mich (March 29, 2012) – A recent report from the Center for the American Experiment in Minneapolis claims school desegregation has failed. A new review of the report found that it misrepresented proposals criticized and ignored an extensive body of research literature whose findings did not support the report's conclusions. The report, Our Immense Achievement Gap: Embracing Proven Remedies While Avoiding a Race-Based Recipe for Disaster, written by Katherine Kersten , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Susan Eaton, Research Director, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute at Harvard University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Eaton, in her review, found that the report misrepresented and then criticized recommendations from the Minnesota Department of Education, a think tank and two independent study groups, each of which recently encouraged particular voluntary efforts to reduce concentrated poverty and achieve racial and socioeconomic integration in schools and housing in Minnesota. In building its case against the recommendations of these bodies, Eaton writes, the report sets up and attacks two straw men— "busing" and "lawsuits" – neither of which was recommended by the organizations. The author relies heavily on selected research literature to make its arguments but ignores dozens of the most important peer-reviewed research studies that suggest strong relationships between racial, ethnic, economic diversity/desegregation and academic gains, Eaton finds. The report also relies heavily on anecdotes about desegregation policies and funding-equalization efforts in several states. While endorsing accountability-based reforms of the sort implemented in Florida, the report fails to fully explore what is actually known about the results of such policies. Investigations into the programs in Florida strongly suggest that claims of success about the state's accountability measures and teacher-accreditation practices are often unsubstantiated or exaggerated. In attacking the wrong targets, Eaton concludes, the report distracts rather than focuses the attention of policymakers seeking to close the achievement gap. Find Susan Eaton's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Our Immense Achievement Gap: Embracing Proven Remedies While Avoiding a Race-Based Recipe for Disaster , by Katherine Kersten, on the web at: http://www.amexp.org/sites/default/files/article_pdf/Our%20Immense%20Achievement%20Gap%20WEB.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part from funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-immense-achievement-gap --###-- 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 . Contact: Susan Eaton, (617) 216-6388, seaton@law.harvard.edu Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning Summary This report provides steps to move the governance of K-12 online learning from the local level to the less restrictive state level and to create a free market for corporate innovation in K-12 online learning. Publication Date March 22, 2012 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Michael K. Barbour, Wayne State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review finds Fordham's latest digital learning report makes unproven claims No evidence exists to support proposed steps to lessen restrictions at the state level for a free market for K-12 online learning. EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 22, 2012) –A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute provided steps to move the governance of K-12 online learning from the local district level to the less restrictive state level and to create a free market for corporate innovation in K-12 online learning. A new review of that report found no evidence to support proposed changes in K-12 online learning policy. The report, Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning , the fifth and final paper in the Fordham Institute's series examining digital learning policy, was reviewed for the Think Twice think thank review project by Michael K. Barbour, a Wayne State University (Michigan) professor who specializes in digital learning. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Barbour found that its central premise—that K-12 online learning will lead to increased student achievement—lacks support. Further, Barbour observed that the body of research to date suggests that there is no learning advantage for virtual schools. Additionally, Barbour found no evidence was presented to support the wisdom or efficacy of centralizing governance at the state level or that moving to a market model would be a superior, productive or economical practice. He concludes, "It is an advocacy document largely supported by like-minded, opinion-based literature, designed to advance an ideological agenda." Find Michael Barbour's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning , by John E. Chubb on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/overcoming-the-governance-challenge-in-k-12-online-learning.html Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-overcoming-governance --###-- 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 . Contact: Michael Barbour, (313) 577-8349, mkbarbour@gmail.com Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back High Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB Summary This two-part report suggests that high achieving students may be losing out under the No Child Left Behind Law due to the fact that more attention and resources are being focused on lower achieving students Publication Date July 29, 2008 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Gregory Camilli, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on High Achievers Offers Useful Analyses but Overstates Policy Implications EAST LANSING, Mi. (July 29, 2008)—A recent report suggests that high-achieving students are losing out under the No Child Left Behind Act and recommends incentives for schools to better serve such students. A Think Twice review of the report praises its focus on high achievers, especially those from resource-poor schools, but concludes that the report’s presentations of findings and policy implications inappropriately overreach. The two-part report, High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB was published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and was reviewed by Professor Gregory Camilli of Rutgers University. The report comes as Congress considers a redesign of NCLB, and Camilli notes it is framed to influence that discussion. The report consists of 1) an analysis of mathematics and reading achievement among higher- and lower-achieving students as measured by a national standardized test, and 2) the results of a survey of teachers about how schools serve high achievers while meeting NCLB’s requirements. Analyzing results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in reading and mathematics for students at the 10th (lower-achieving) and 90th (higher-achieving) percentiles on those exams, the report concludes that the gap between the two groups has narrowed since NCLB took effect. This result was due to achievement gains by low rather than higher achievers. The report then suggests that lower-income and minority high achievers may be at risk for losing out on opportunities under NCLB. The second part of the report highlights findings concerning teachers’ perceptions and beliefs regarding the education of higher achievers. For instance, 86% of the teachers responding indicated that it is more important to focus on achievement among all students, regardless of their advantages, rather than to focus primarily on struggling, disadvantaged students. Camilli applauds the spotlight placed by the report on Black, Hispanic, and poor high achievers, and he concludes that it provides a “meaningful statistical description of these student populations.” But he also offers several criticisms of the report: While the report includes acknowledgements that its correlational analyses cannot be used to draw causal inferences, such inferences nonetheless are used pervasively to bolster policy recommendations. Camilli is particularly critical of such over-reaching in the report’s foreword, written by Fordham’s Chester Finn and Michael Petrelli, as well as in the executive summary. There are in fact two NAEP data sets from which gap statistics can be calculated. The report’s analysis of the gap between high and low achievers uses only one. Camilli shows that with the other data set, much less convincing results are obtained, thus limiting the generalizability of the gap trends presented in the report. The report suggests policies that would increase stratification of educational opportunities, contradicting “a large body of research” that questions the efficacy of tracking students by perceived ability. This research is not discussed in the report. Response bias to the survey of teachers may be a problem. It received only a 15% return rate and did not provide appropriate breakdowns by such characteristics as grade level and urbanicity that might have better informed readers. The wording of certain questions may have inadvertently led to response bias. Camilli concludes that the report’s two studies inappropriately “attempt to inform broad policies on the strength of two fairly narrow analyses.” Find Gregory Camilli’s review and the The Fordham Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review 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: Gregory Camilli, (732) 932-7496; camilli@rutgers.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement: the Research on School Turnaround Summary The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released a report advocating for implementation of evidence-based best practices for turning around low-performing schools through the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. It concluded that five dramatic actions are necessary to bring about dramatic school improvement. An academic review finds the rationale for its assertions to be narrow, incoherent, and misleading. Publication Date May 11, 2015 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released a report advocating for implementation of evidence-based best practices for turning around low-performing schools through the federal School Im; Tina Trujillo, University of California Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release CAP turnaround report bold, seductive on the surface, lacks evidence-based foundation EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 11, 2015) – A recently released report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) advocated for implementation of evidence-based best practices for turning around low-performing schools through the federal School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. It concluded that five dramatic actions are necessary to bring about dramatic school improvement. Unfortunately, an academic review finds the rationale for its assertions to be narrow, incoherent, and misleading. Tina Trujillo, assistant professor at the University of California Berkeley, reviewed Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement: the Research on School Turnaround for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report asserts that it offers clear lessons about the most effective, research-based methods for turning around low-performing schools through the federal SIG program. In her review, Trujillo notes that the analysis is primarily limited to the findings of twelve documentary sources, and four anecdotal snapshots from schools identified as successful turnaround models. Trujillo further finds that the report essentially ignores large bodies of research on high-stakes accountability, school improvement, and emerging evidence on school closures and federally funded turnarounds. Specifically, Trujillo cautions that a more inclusive review of extant research "reveals that the federal SIG program's turnaround policies are based on unwarranted claims and are contradicted by the empirical evidence." Trujillo's review identifies that the report failed to meet standards for evidence and analytic transparency, and is of little use to policymakers or practitioners. According to Trujillo, "In the end, schools, district, and states that follow the report's advice stand only to reproduce the unequal conditions that have led, in part, to their need for dramatic turnaround in the first place." Read his full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Dramatic Action, Dramatic Improvement on the web: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2015/03/31/110142/dramatic-action-dramatic-improvement/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Tina Trujillo, (510) 642-6272, trujillo@berkeley.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools Summary This report contends that the figures most commonly associated with spending on K-12 public education do not include all relevant expenditures, and that the real costs are much higher than reported. Publication Date May 5, 2010 Research Areas School Funding Authors Vaughn Altemus, University of Vermont Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cato report inflates school spending by double-counting capital costs EAST LANSING, Mi., (May 5, 2010) – A review released today of They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools finds that this Cato Institute report's claim that public education is overpriced strongly overstates those costs by counting capital expenditures twice. Vaughn Altemus, an adjunct professor of the University of Vermont Graduate College, reviewed the Cato report for the Think Twice think tank review project. Altemus is the education finance manager for the Vermont Department of Education and has spent the last 13 years collecting, reporting and analyzing school district financial data. They Spend WHAT? , purports to offer a "real" per-pupil cost for public education after examining figures provided by school districts as well as by the National Center on Education Statistics. Because neither source is designed to be truly comprehensive, the report includes its own calculations. For 18 school districts in six urban areas, the report finds a "real" per-pupil cost exceeding that reported by the respective district by anywhere from 3 percent to 151 percent. The report pairs its calculations with survey data showing that members of the public guess that education spending is lower than actual figures and thus concludes that voters approve "overspending" because they are ignorant of "actual spending levels." The Cato report has several flaws, however, says Altemus. In assuming that voters could press for cost-cutting, it ignores the fact that many expenditures, such as debt service, pension contributions and federally mandated special education costs, "are beyond the ability of local districts and voters to change." Further, it doesn't engage the fundamental debate over what constitutes "adequate" spending on public education. And it provides only weak data purporting to show private-school, per-pupil spending is lower—while ignoring a recent comprehensive examination of private school spending. But the report's most egregious error is the double-counting of capital costs and debt service. As Altemus explains: "Most capital construction expenditures are not paid with taxpayer dollars. They are paid with proceeds from bonds. Taxpayer dollars then service the debt. This is key. The cost of a house bought with a loan is not the purchase price plus the cost of the loan. For a school district, what taxpayers are paying for in any year is debt service in that year." When that error is eliminated, the report's argument collapses. "The result is a double counting that substantially distorts the total for districts engaged in capital construction projects," Altemus writes. The report's usefulness is, accordingly, limited at best, the reviewer concludes. "In the end, we are left with a manufactured controversy arising from a misunderstanding of the relationship between capital construction and debt service, amplified by the report's unwillingness to consider the reasoning underlying more traditionally disseminated numbers." Find Vaughn Altemus's review and a link to They Spend WHAT? on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: William J. Mathis (802) 383-0058; William.Mathis@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Reversing the Deprofessionalization of Teaching Summary As part of a series of briefs being released by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss three forces impacting teachers: (a) alternative (fast-track or no-track) teacher preparation and licensure; (b) teacher evaluation approaches that are largely focused on students’ test scores; and (c) scripted, narrow curriculum that can be constricting and demoralizing for high-quality teachers. Publication Date December 8, 2015 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Authors William Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Second concise brief considers deprofessionalization of teaching EAST LANSING, MI (Dec. 8, 2015) – A new concise brief released today describes the forces driving teacher deprofessionalization and the resulting easy-entry, easy-exit approach to the hiring and firing of teachers. It also offers policy options to address some of the damage currently being done. As a part of a new series of briefs released by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss three forces impacting teachers: (a) alternative (fast-track or no-track) teacher preparation and licensure; (b) teacher evaluation approaches that are largely focused on students' test scores; and (c) scripted, narrow curriculum that can be constricting and demoralizing for high-quality teachers. In Reversing the Deprofessionalization of Teaching , Mathis and Welner describe the impact of teacher-level reforms and offer a path to restoring teaching as a profession. The authors make five recommendations for policymakers: Strengthening teacher education programs, with increased focus on developing pedagogical content knowledge and expertise; State education agencies should not recognize or approve teacher education programs or accreditation agencies that fail to provide a full teacher preparation program with appropriate field experience; Teacher evaluations should also be strengthened, making use of established approaches, such as peer assistance and review; A moratorium should be placed on test-based policies such as value-added teacher assessment; and A broadening of the curriculum, with a partial or complete decoupling of test scores from high-stakes consequences. This is the second part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. This brief updates the research from a previous policy brief by Professor Richard Milner, the Helen Faison Endowed Chair of Urban Education at the University of Pittsburgh. Find the brief on the GLC website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options_2015.php This concise brief is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, and is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Daniel 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