< Back How Can States Make School Voucher Systems More Accountable, Accessible, and Transparent? Summary In a new NEPC policy brief, How Can States Make School Voucher Systems More Accountable, Accessible, and Transparent?, Joshua Cowen and Ryan D. Nowak of Michigan State University summarize the research evidence about vouchers and consider how existing program can be improved. They identify three areas of policy design—accountability, access, and transparency—that are especially important for student success and a good-faith use of public funding. Publication Date October 2, 2024 Authors Joshua Cowen and Ryan D. Nowak, Michigan State University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Bringing More Accountability, Access, and Transparency to School Voucher Systems Key Takeaway: Policy brief examines the research evidence behind vouchers and the current status of voucher legislation in several key states, proposing evidence-based policy recommendations. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (October 3, 2024) - Between 2021 and 2024, more than 20 states passed new laws that created or expanded programs providing taxpayer subsidies for private school tuition. These voucher and voucher-like plans include three main approaches: direct appropriations to voucher programs, "education savings accounts" to pay for tuition and other educational expenses, and tax credits for private donations that fund tuition with diverted state revenue. To date, independent research has documented serious negative outcomes of such programs, yet the prevalence and size of the programs continues to grow. This suggests that evidence alone is insufficient to compel lawmakers to reject voucher schemes, particularly where those systems already exist. In a new NEPC policy brief, How Can States Make School Voucher Systems More Accountable, Accessible, and Transparent? , Joshua Cowen and Ryan D. Nowak of Michigan State University summarize the research evidence about vouchers and consider how existing program can be improved. They identify three areas of policy design-accountability, access, and transparency-that are especially important for student success and a good-faith use of public funding. The brief examines features associated with these three areas of voucher policies across a subset of states. The examined states’ voucher systems vary from brand new (Arkansas and Iowa), to recently expanded (Arizona, Florida, Indiana and Ohio), to older (Wisconsin). The brief also reviews the extent to which legislation in these states provides for new, independent evaluation of their programs. Focusing on the significant differences among these voucher policies allows the authors to identify opportunities for systemic improvement. To move these voucher systems toward evidence-based practice, the authors conclude with several policy recommendations related to the assessment, access, and transparency as well as research and evaluation of school voucher systems. These recommendations detail the steps that should be taken when policymakers design legislation for private schools accepting public monies, calling for legislation that better serves children, parents, and the taxpayers bearing the cost of private voucher school funding. Find H ow Can States Make School Voucher Systems More Accountable, Accessible, and Transparent? , by Joshua Cowen and Ryan D. Nowak, 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 Joshua Cowen: (517) 355-2215 jcowen@msu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Yearning to Break Free: Ohio Superintendents Speak Out Summary This report uses a survey of Ohio school superintendents to argue for an increase in district authority instead of increased school resources. The report suggests that academic achievement would improve if superintendents were freed from state mandates and union contracts. Publication Date May 2, 2011 Authors Catherine Horn and Gary Dworkin, University of Houston Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Ohio Superintendent Survey Doesn't Support Conclusions Ohio Superintendent Survey Doesn't Support Conclusions Fordham Institute report of little value for policymakers, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi. (May 3, 2011) - Based on a survey of school superintendents in Ohio, a recent Fordham Institute report argues for increased district authority instead of increased school resources. It suggests that even with limited resources, academic achievement would improve if superintendents were freed from state mandates and union contracts and had more control over the funding they receive. A new review of the report finds that it relies on a flawed survey and that its conclusions are problematic. The Fordham report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Catherine Horn and Gary Dworkin, education and sociology professors at the University of Houston. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Horn and Dworkin reviewed Yearning to Break Free: Ohio Superintendents Speak Out , a report based on a survey of 246 school superintendents, asking questions focused on reducing costs and expanding superintendents' autonomy. Horn and Dworkin find that the Fordham Institute report's "conclusions are problematic because of the combined effects of non-representative sampling, leading or inappropriately worded items, and the conflating of opinion and fact." The report offered no peer-reviewed literature to substantiate the methods used or the validity of its conclusions. The mail-in survey's weak response rate (40 percent of all invited superintendents), combined with an apparent failure to examination for possible sampling bias, further call its conclusions into question. Moreover, Horn and Dworkin point out multiple shortcomings with the design of the survey questionnaire. Perhaps most importantly to the report's main argument, respondents were forced to choose between "significant increases in school funding" or "significant expansion of management authority over staff." As the reviewers note, the first option is hardly realistic in today's economic climate. And when given the choice in another question, the superintendents offered an answer in some tension with the report's broad conclusion: "Despite the reported finding that superintendents prefer greater autonomy in personnel and school policies over increased funding, the majority of superintendents also contend that they would see a trade-off of more autonomy with a decrease in funding as undesirable," Horn and Dworkin write. Ultimately, the report's argument that granting superintendents greater autonomy, fewer mandates, and the right to hire and fire teachers and other employees at will would lift achievement scores lacks sufficient evidence, the reviewers note. "Merely because the superintendents [who responded] think that getting greater control over the hiring and firing of teachers will raise tests scores is not the same as empirical evidence that such a practice will raise scores." Find Horn's and Dworkin's report and a link to the Fordham Institute report at http://www.greatlakescenter.org The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-ohio-superintendents Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Catherine Horn: (713) 743-5032 clhorn2@uh.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Money for Nothing: The Relationship Between Various Types of School Spending and Academic Outcomes Summary Money for Nothing lacks a theoretical or practical base and uses superficial and inaccurate methods that render it useless for policymaking purposes. Publication Date October 10, 2018 Authors Will Flanders; William J. Mathis Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Review Describes Remarkably Weak Study of School Cost and Productivity EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 11, 2018) — A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty claims that Wisconsin does not get a good return on its educational investment. This study has been found to have overwhelming methodological shortcomings. William J. Mathis, Managing Director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Money for Nothing: The Relationship Between Various Types of School Spending and Academic Outcomes . The original report suggests that districts employ too many non-teachers, that per-pupil spending is not linked to higher outcomes, and that teacher pay makes no difference in test scores. Dr. Mathis’ review points to critical errors in study design that fundamentally negate these conclusions. The report flounders in arguing causality from correlation and misinterpreting statistical significance as representing meaningful policy effects. This leads to false or unsupported conclusions clouded by the omission of critical details that prevent replication or confirmation. Rife with undocumented policy claims, the results run contrary to the literature on spending, administrator effects, and teacher effects. In fact, no literature review is provided at all, and the report fails to address the efficacy of interventions such as class size and early high-quality childhood education. The off-point theoretical base, flawed assumptions and meager findings lead Mathis to conclude that the report earned its title, “money for nothing,” which could leave unsuspecting policymakers in dire straits if they were to use these findings to guide policy. Find the review, by William J. Mathis, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Money for Nothing: The Relationship Between Various Types of School Spending and Academic Outcomes , written by Will Flanders and published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, at: http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mfn-final.pdf About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Ten Years in New Orleans: Public School Resurgence and the Path Ahead Summary A report published by Public Impact and New Schools for New Orleans attempted to review 10 years of education reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans, and the creation of a “portfolio model.” The report argued that the reform experiment has been an unquestioned success, and other cities should duplicate efforts. Overall, the report lays out a grand vision for the future of public education in New Orleans, which was described by the authors as “America’s first great urban public school system.” It is organized into six themes: governance, schools, talent, equity, community, and funders. Publication Date October 20, 2015 Authors Christen Holly, Tim Field, Juli Kim, Bryan C. Hassel, Maggie Runyan-Shefa, Michael Stone, and Davis Zaunbrecher; Adrienne D. Dixson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NOLA report does little to accurately inform, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 21, 2015) – A report published by Public Impact and New Schools for New Orleans attempted to review 10 years of education reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans, and the creation of a "portfolio model." The report argued that the reform experiment has been an unquestioned success, and other cities should duplicate efforts. However, an academic review of the report finds that the report does little to accurately inform policymakers or practitioners about the current state of public education in New Orleans or the viability of "portfolio" districts. Adrienne D. Dixson, associate professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, reviewed Ten Years in New Orleans: Public School Resurgence and the Path Ahead 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. Overall, the report lays out a grand vision for the future of public education in New Orleans, which was described by the authors as "America’s first great urban public school system." It is organized into six themes: governance, schools, talent, equity, community, and funders. Dixson, whose research focuses on how issues of race, class, and gender intersect and impact educational equity in urban school contexts, found multiple weaknesses that limit the usefulness of the report. In her review, Dixson highlights that the report exaggerates improvements, while downplaying the ways in which the enacted reforms exacerbated inequities in New Orleans. She also notes that the report erroneously presents the reforms as a result of a logical and apolitical process. In reviewing the validity of the findings, Dixson says, "The report does not present original or empirical research but bases its claims on advocacy publications that have not been peer-reviewed, and newspaper articles that primarily accept the claims made by vested interest reformers." Dixson further finds fault with the data referenced in the report, which has not been made readily available to researchers, community members, or the press, making the claims difficult to verify. In her conclusion, Dixson highlights the omission of research from the report as a serious concern, "The research that the report excludes tells a different and far more troubling story about the reforms in New Orleans." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report on the web: http://www.newschoolsforneworleans.org/education-in-nola/10-years-of-reform/ 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: Adrienne D. Dixson, (217) 244-4741, addixson@illinois.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 Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment Summary A report from the Brookings Institution uses international examples to make the case for the importance of “21st century skills” as goals for education systems. It focuses specifically on the development of new assessment methods as a primary means to help countries integrate these 21st century skills – such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and communication – into curricular reforms. Publication Date April 1, 2019 Authors Lorrie Shepard, of the University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Curriculum & Instruction; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Release: Otherwise Valuable Report about Assessment of 21st Century Skills Neglects Discipline-Specific Considerations An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report highlights the importance of 21st century skills internationally but presumes a domain-general approach to teaching and assessment of those skills. EAST LANSING, MI (April 2, 2019) - A report from the Brookings Institution uses international examples to make the case for the importance of “21st century skills” as goals for education systems. It focuses specifically on the development of new assessment methods as a primary means to help countries integrate these 21st century skills – such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and communication – into curricular reforms. Lorrie Shepard, of the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment . Professor Shepard found the report very useful if the reader understands that it tells only part of the story. The report is a review of research and a policy analysis rather than an empirical study. Its main contributions are (a) the identification of three challenges to implementing a 21st century skills agenda, and (b) the organization of key ideas and research to possibly address these challenges. A major limitation of the report, however, is its presumption of a domain-general approach to teaching and assessment of 21st century skills. The report does not acknowledge the possibility of, nor does it consider supporting evidence for, adopting discipline-specific contexts for the development of 21st century capabilities. Yet extensive reviews of research from the cognitive and learning sciences explain the benefit of jointly developing deep understandings of content along with participatory and thinking competencies. Although such discipline-specific curricula and learning progressions create problems for large-scale comparative assessments that cross curricular jurisdictions, policymakers need help addressing this dilemma explicitly. This is because discipline-specific approaches are better for teaching and deep learning but problematic when attempting to develop large-scale international assessments, and possibly even national assessments. Find the review, by Lorrie Shepard, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Shepard-Assessment.htm Find Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment , written by Esther Care, Helyn Kim, Alvin Vista, & Kate Anderson, and published by The Brookings Institution, at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Education-system-alignment-for-21st-century-skills-012819.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Lorrie Shepard: (303) 492-2711, Lorrie.Shepard@Colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service Summary This report urges American educators to look to an English system of school inspections as a means of assessing schools and as a tool for better understanding and improving student achievement. Publication Date February 27, 2012 Authors Steven Jay Gross, Temple University Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Education Sector report promoting U.K. school inspections not useful for crafting policy in the United States EAST LANSING, Mich (February 28, 2012) – A recent report from Education Sector urges American educators to look to an English system of school inspections as a means of assessing schools and as a tool for better understanding and improving student achievement. A new review of that report finds that it lacks any research base and has little to offer any discussions of education reform in the United States. The report, On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service , by Craig D. Jerald, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Steven Jay Gross of Temple University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Jerald's report offers an outline of the English inspection system, the rubrics it uses to judge teaching, the characteristics of inspectors, and the potential costs of implementing such a system in this country. These descriptions may be useful to many readers in introducing the approach. What the report doesn't offer, according to Gross, is any research to support the efficacy of the approach – or, for that matter, to demonstrate any faults it might have. He writes: No research questions are posed and few examples from the extensive literature on English school inspections are offered, thereby excluding scholarship that is critical of the inspection process or of the concept of the inspection service itself. Lacking any research questions or research-based evidence to analyze, Gross points out that the report is ineffective in three key areas: Building the case for the English inspection system Alerting readers to challenges to that system Illuminating the evaluation of quality teaching under the system In the end, Gross writes, the report leaves many relevant questions unasked and unanswered. Find Steven Gross's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service , by Craig D. Jerald, on the web at: http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/UKInspections-RELEASED.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 by support provided by 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-on-her-majestys . --###-- 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: Steven Jay Gross, (215) 204-8064, sgross02@temple.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 A Guide to Contracting Out School Support Services: Good for the School? Good for the Community? Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date March 30, 2008 Authors William J. Mathis, Ph.D., Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union Lorna Jimerson, Ed. D., Champlain Valley Union High School Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Urges Caution for Schools Contracting Out Support Services Outsourcing could save money, but it often costs more and can have negative effects on schools and communities EAST LANSING, Mich., (March 31, 2008)—Should transportation, food and custodial services be provided by employees of school districts, or should those services by outsourced to private companies? Does contracting out these services save the district money and add flexibility? According to a new report that takes an honest look at the evidence, the answer to each of these questions is, “sometimes, but many times not.” The report, A Guide to Contracting Out School Support Services: Good for the School? Good for the Community?, was funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice and was written by Drs. William J. Mathis and Lorna Jimerson. The authors are both experienced school administrators. Mathis, an adjunct associate professor of school finance at the University of Vermont, is superintendent of schools for the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union in Brandon, Vermont, and Jimerson, a former policy analyst with the Rural School and Community Trust, is a member of the school board for Vermont’s Champlain Valley Union High School and previous president of the Vermont School Boards Association. The policy brief is based on a review of research and commentary on the practice of contracting out support services and includes a series of recommendations directed at school administrators and school board members. Arguments for contracting out such services are many. Advocates view outside contractors as more likely to deliver their services at lower cost due to competition. Firms that specialize in a particular service, such as transportation or food, might enjoy economies of scale, with after-profit savings passed on to the school district and its taxpayers. Additionally, contractors might provide high-quality services as experts in their field. Mathis and Jimerson do not issue blanket praise or a blanket condemnation of contracting out. Instead, they point out that evidence is decidedly mixed on whether the practice necessarily saves schools money or otherwise offers improvements over having support services performed in house. For example, Mathis and Jimerson write, “Cost cutting is not a certain outcome,” pointing to case studies of contracting out vehicle or highway maintenance in Albany, N.Y., and in Massachusetts found costs increased by as much as 20 percent. Moreover, they contend, even when schools and school districts can save money by contracting out services, the practice can have mixed effects. These ramifications may complicate the decision of whether contracting out is the best solution for any particular school or district. Contracting out can result in hidden costs that reduce or eliminate whatever savings are promised. The practice can also result in problems with quality control, in greater demands on administrators who face the task of monitoring contracts, in the loss of control and restricted flexibility an outside contract may impose, and in social costs to communities in which schools operate, such as lower wages and reduced or eliminated benefits when contractors take over certain services. Mathis and Jimerson offer a series of recommendations aimed at schools and districts that are still deciding whether to contract out services. Other recommendations are aimed at schools and districts that have already decided to do so. Among other things the recommendations call on school officials to closely examine contracting out decisions and the details of proposed contracts. They conclude, “It is the requirement of school leaders to take a broad, expansive and careful look when considering these decisions.” The full policy brief is available 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 website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: William J. Mathis (802) 247-5757; (email) WMathis@sover.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 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 17, 2009 Authors Bruce D. Baker Rutgers University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding 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 Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? Summary This report concludes that since the implementation of NCLB in 2002, on average, student test scores have increased, the achievement gap has narrowed, and achievement gains post-NCLB have increased faster than before NCLB. Publication Date July 1, 2007 Authors John T. Yun, University of California at Santa Barbara Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORT TOUTING NCLB SUCCESS CANNOT SUPPORT OVERSTATED CLAIMS Methodology is too weak to support finding that student achievement has increased since passage of NCLB EAST LANSING, Mich. — A report released last month by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) is being used to argue that student achievement has increased since the implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind law. A review of this report finds that it suffers from important weaknesses and that the wording of numerous findings and key conclusions imply a much stronger connection between NCLB and increased achievement than can be substantiated by the data. The report, Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by John T.Yun, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The CEP’s report has already received widespread attention from the news media, including front-page coverage in the Washington Post . The U.S. Secretary of Education immediately pointed to the report as confirming NCLB’s success. As reviewer Yun notes, the report “is likely to be cited often in the upcoming debate on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).” While Yun credits the report with attempting “to carefully analyze the complex issue of test score improvement before and after the implementation of NCLB in 2002,” he describes how shortcomings in the data and analyses may have “resulted in a much more optimistic picture of the impact of the legislation than the data warrant.” Additionally, Yun says, while the report’s title may convey the impression that it seeks to examine the direct impact of NCLB on student achievement, the report itself acknowledges that an analysis accomplishing this goal may be impossible. The possible effects of NCLB cannot be disentangled from the possible effects of the large number of other state and local policies aimed at raising achievement during the same period of time. The review from Professor Yun contends that the most useful and important finding in the new report is its explanation of current weaknesses in state data availability. The authors had great difficulty in obtaining and analyzing state-level achievement data that should be readily available; until this situation is improved, researchers such as those at CEP will be faced with many of the same obstacles encountered here. But Yun stresses that this finding was given far too little attention and should not have been overshadowed by the problematic analyses of student achievement. Regarding the student achievement analyses, Yun does credit the report with offering thoughtful approaches and concludes that the report does represent progress toward more comprehensive examination of the outcomes of the law. He also commends the report for cautionary notes that help readers understand some of its limitations—yet not the three that he identifies as most serious: The report’s look at whether achievement scores have increased since 2002 (its ‘trend analysis’) used an approach that had a likely unintended effect of analyzing a sub-sample of states that was biased toward those that were most likely to have inflated test scores. The report’s finding of narrowing achievement gaps between groups of students suffered from the same weaknesses as its trend analysis, and also suffered from the problem of small sample sizes among some of the studied racial and ethnic groups, meaning that each of the percent-proficient estimates were effectively unreliable. Selection bias is also likely to have “seriously damaged” the value of the report’s analysis of pre- and post-NCLB outcomes, which found yearly gains in test scores greater after NCLB took effect rather than before. In fact, Yun points out that the authors selected for “exactly the wrong group” of states to consider if the goal of the analysis was to examine the impact of NCLB, because the approach used had the effect of screening out those states that changed their approaches following NCLB’s passage. These limitations seem particularly salient given the report’s prompt interjection into the public debate. U.S. Secretary of Education of Education Margaret Spellings, for instance, used the report to argue for NCLB reauthorization. Her official statement said, “This study confirms that [NCLB] has struck a chord of success with our nation’s schools and students. … We know the law is working, so now is the time to reauthorize [it].” Commenting on this new review in light of such reaction the report, Professor Kevin Welner of the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-director of the Think Twice project, focused on the issue of publicity. “The methodological problems pointed out by Professor Yun are important and should be carefully considered by any policy maker or researcher who makes use of the study. But the bigger problem here seems to be in the packaging and subsequent publicity. Neither the data nor the analyses in the report are anywhere near strong enough to meaningfully support the report’s title, ‘Answering the question that matters most,’ nor can the report support the sort of puffery we see from Secretary Spellings.” Find the complete review by John Yun as well as a link to the Center on Education Policy report 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: John T. Yun (805) 893-2342 (email) jyun@education.ucsb.edu Kevin Welner (303) 492-8370 (email) kevin.welner@gmail.com 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 15, 2013 Authors Andrew Maul, University of Colorado Boulder Abby McClelland, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Charter Schools 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 Summit Charter Organization Continues to Make Unjustified Claims Summary Summit Public Schools, a charter school organization operating schools in California and Oregon, published Pathways to Success: Exploring the Long-Term Outcomes of Alumni from Summit Public Schools in September 2021, detailing the success of its graduates. A review by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley of Arizona State University examines these questionable assertions made about the performance and life satisfaction of Summit graduates. The report claims that Summit alumni graduated from college at nearly double the national average and self-reported high levels of well-being, fulfillment, and workplace satisfaction. It also reports that alumni from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds now make more than $60,000 per year on average working full time. Publication Date May 9, 2022 Authors Anum Ali Mohammed and Adam Black; Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Summit Charter Organization Continues to Make Unjustified Claims An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: A variety of methodological issues undermines the validity of report's findings. EAST LANSING, MI (May 10, 2022) - Summit Public Schools, a charter school organization operating schools in California and Oregon, published Pathways to Success: Exploring the Long-Term Outcomes of Alumni from Summit Public Schools in September 2021, detailing the success of its graduates. A review by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley of Arizona State University examines these questionable assertions made about the performance and life satisfaction of Summit graduates. The report claims that Summit alumni graduated from college at nearly double the national average and self-reported high levels of well-being, fulfillment, and workplace satisfaction. It also reports that alumni from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds now make more than $60,000 per year on average working full time. However, Professor Amrein-Beardsley explains, low survey response rates and incomplete or inaccurate methodology prevent these claims from being justified. Although the report professes to be conducted for internal purposes, Summit also distributed an accompanying press release that announced its findings to a broader audience, making the report's claims of potential interest to policymakers, practitioners, and the public. However, Professor Amrein-Beardsley concludes that although the study may provide some information useful to Summit's internal decision-making, its serious methodological issues (e.g., survey research methods, response rates, sample bias, sample representativeness, and uses of comparative data) prevent it from having any implications for practice or policymaking in general. For further information about Summit Public Schools, please refer to the NEPC's June 2020 research brief, Big Claims, Little Evidence, Lots of Money: The Reality Behind the Summit Learning Program and the Push to Adopt Digital Personalized Learning Platforms . Find the review, by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Pathways to Success: Exploring the Long-Term Outcomes of Alumni from Summit Public Schools , written by Anum Ali Mohammed and Adam Black and published by Summit Public Schools, at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LU81FTmr4ZkZzkAzCPZrVurjfmpJcgHn/view NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Audrey Amrein-Beardsley : (602) 561-4731, audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education Summary Kenneth Howe and David Meens, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, examine the suppression of local control by policymakers and what it means for our democracy. A new report presents a comprehensive review of research on two key elements—democratic policymaking and democratic education. The evidence surveyed in this report suggests that contemporary reforms “run afoul of democratic principles in several critical ways.” Publication Date October 15, 2012 Authors Kenneth Howe, University of Colorado-Boulder David Meens, University of Colorado- Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Report Cautions Against Federal Education Policies that Undermine Democracy and Local Control EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 16, 2012)—While transmission of educational services happens at the local level, increasingly the power has shifted to state or national control. With the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) the politics of education have been nationalized to an unprecedented degree. A new report out today concludes the concept of local control "has all but disappeared" in discussions of education policy. The report, Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education , by Kenneth Howe and David Meens of the University of Colorado Boulder, examines the impact on democratic ideals of vanishing local control over education. The report examines the making of education policy as well as the decisions about what schools teach and how they teach it. The authors review suggests that many contemporary reforms "run afoul of democratic principles in several critical ways." While local discretion is allowed for how to comply with state and federal mandates, the constraints imposed by those mandates have been enormous. Consequently, Howe and Meens contend, NCLB and its progeny have been fundamentally anti-democratic. The same is true of the reform policies that have been advanced by President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan. The authors warn that current reform approaches are marginalizing community involvement. "Democratic reform should involve local stakeholders, especially marginalized members of society, because inclusion is a democratic value that increases not only the likelihood that policies will be just, but also the likelihood that reform will succeed," Howe and Meens write. "Such inclusion also helps create the conditions in which all students can attain the democratic threshold." They conclude with a series of recommendations, urging schools and education policymakers to take three key steps. First, move away from a punitive model based on threats to withhold funding. This should be replaced by a participatory model – such as support and incentives for school employees, parents and community members to collaborate together on resolving educational problems. Second, encourage states and local communities to adopt curriculum standards "that include a conscious and substantive focus on developing the deliberative skill and dispositions required of democratic citizenship." Third, curtail the privatization of public education resources. Instead, build up democratic values by holding schools receiving public funds accountable to the public through democratically elected school boards and other democratic institutions. Moreover, "If the future reauthorization of ESEA is to safeguard and strengthen democracy, it should make education for democracy a fundamental aim of public education." Find Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education , by Kenneth Howe and David Meens, on the web at http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, produced the policy brief. The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Kenneth Howe, (303) 492-7229, Ken.Howe@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