< Back Public Charter Schools: A Great Value for Ohio’s Public Education System Summary This report purports to show that charter schools in Ohio are unfairly underfunded relative to traditional public schools. It also claims that districts gain revenue for each student who attends a charter school and that there would be a net loss of revenues for districts if charter schools were closed. Publication Date December 9, 2008 Authors Gary Miron, Western Michigan University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Ohio Charter Schools Report False and Deceitful Review finds financial analysis and claims are only shoddy propaganda EAST LANSING, Mi. (Dec. 10, 2008)—A recent report from the Buckeye Institute claims to show that charter schools in Ohio are unfairly underfunded when compared to traditional public schools. A new review of the report, however, finds it is misleading and, in some instances, false and deceitful. The report, Public Charter Schools: A Great Value for Ohio’s Public Education System , was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Dr. Gary Miron of Western Michigan University, a leading evaluator of states’ charter school programs. Miron begins his review by noting that the financing of charter schools has long been controversial. Supporters of traditional public schools contend that charters receive too much money based on the students they educate and the services they provide. Charter school proponents claim that they receive less money than they should. But fair analyses of school finance issues must seriously address the complexities of school funding formulas and of the many sources of possible school revenues. Meaningful research would also include the caveats, nuances and exceptions which would help readers to fully understand the issues. In contrast, Miron says, “the analysis from the Buckeye Institute does not list a single limitation in the data or provide a single cautionary note for readers.” Even more troubling, however, are the outright errors in the report’s analysis. Miron demonstrates in his review that all of the report’s main contentions are wrong or misleading, but one claim drew particular criticism. The Buckeye report contends that the state’s largest school districts receive a net gain in revenue on average for each student attending a charter school—and that returning those charter students to the regular schools would actually cost the districts in revenue per pupil. This contention, Miron says, is “ridiculously false, deceitful, and patently misrepresent[s] how the funding of public schools works.” In reality, Miron explains, “If charter schools closed and a large portion of students returned to district schools, [the district] would still receive the same amount of revenues per pupil. The only difference is that the state share of the overall district costs would increase—with a shift in public funding from the charters to the school districts.” Overall, Miron finds the Buckeye report to be of the type that presents “only selected data or partial evidence that supports a particular position.” It is, he writes, “intended to advocate, obscure, and redirect attention rather than deepen understanding and insight” and consequently offers little to recommend it as useful to policymakers. Find Gary Miron’s review 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 website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Contact: Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Paying the Best Teachers More to Teach More Students Summary A recent report from the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University proposed that school districts pay top performing teachers a bonus for accepting additional students into their existing classes. The report claimed that larger classes and reductions to the teaching force would create significant savings. According to the report, districts should pay teachers in the top quartile a bonus for increasing their class size by up to three students. The report considers that students working with more effective teachers would offset any potential sacrifice in student learning. Publication Date April 12, 2015 Authors Marguerite Roza and Amanda Warco; Patricia H. Hinchey, Penn State University Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Paying the best teachers to teach more students is unsubstantiated, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 13, 2015) – A recent report from the Edunomics Lab at Georgetown University proposed that school districts pay top performing teachers a bonus for accepting additional students into their existing classes. The report claimed that larger classes and reductions to the teaching force would create significant savings. However, an academic review of the report finds that the report is largely unsubstantiated, ignores what is known about teacher pay, and fails to offer guidance for policymaking. Patricia Hinchey, professor of education at Penn State University, reviewed Paying the Best Teachers More to Teach More Students for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to the report, districts should pay teachers in the top quartile a bonus for increasing their class size by up to three students. The report considers that students working with more effective teachers would offset any potential sacrifice in student learning. In her review, Hinchey finds that the report: (1) ignores the technical problem of how the best teachers might be reliably identified; (2) neglects a strong research base that has established a link between class size and student learning; and (3) misrepresents what is known about teacher pay, teacher attitudes, and teacher job satisfaction. Specifically, Hinchey notes that the report's assumptions regarding identifying the "best" teachers rest on using increases in standardized test scores using Value Added Models (VAM). Value-added modeling has been shown to be an unreliable measure of teaching ability. She continues, "With no reliable way to identify the 'most effective' teachers, the proposed plan is untenable." Regarding the overall merits of the report, Hinchey says, "On the whole the plan is misleading because the averages used to project practical outcomes are not representative of diverse schools and districts across states." In her conclusion, Hinchey restates that the plan is unsupported by either original research or existing research. "Finding better strategies to pay teachers fairly and adequately for their work will require far more rigorous and nuanced thinking and research than reflected in this report." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Paying the Best Teachers More to Teach More Students on the web: http://edunomicslab.org/paying-the-best-teachers-more-to-teach-more-students/ 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: Patricia H. Hinchey, (570) 479-1794, phinchey@psu.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Weighted Student funding for California Summary The Reason Foundation, a Libertarian think tank, recently issued a brief on California Gov. Jerry Brown’s school finance reform plan, which endorses Brown’s proposal and then uses it to advance its own ideas for reducing the role of school districts and for giving school principals greater autonomy over spending. Publication Date June 17, 2013 Authors Dr. Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Weighing in on California School Finance Reform Recent Brief's Argument for ‘Weighted Funding' is Lacking in Evidentiary Support EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 18, 2013) – The Reason Foundation recently issued a brief on California Gov. Jerry Brown's school finance reform plan, which endorses Brown's proposal and then uses it to advance additional preferences. Yet, neither the endorsement of Brown's plan, nor the call for revising it are grounded in any data. Bruce Baker, a school finance expert at Rutgers University, reviewed the brief for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Weighted Student Funding for California , by Lisa Snell of the Reason Foundation, praises Gov. Brown's school finance reform plan, which would replace the state's current school funding system of restricted categorical grants with a system that uses cost adjustment factors tied primarily to students' income and English learner (ELL) status. The report also advocates modifying Brown's proposal, to link the state funds to individual children, so that "money follows the child" regardless of which school he or she is enrolled in. Among other things, this removes spending discretion from school districts and grants a great deal more autonomy to school principals. The report argues that revising Brown's plan in accord with the Reason Foundation's recommendations has the potential to more equitably distribute funding across local public school districts. "Yet no data are presented or evaluated to support these claims," according to Baker, and the report provides little to support its assertions that such system is more equitable, more efficient, or more transparent. "The report instead offers a highly filtered summary of existing literature on the efficacy of weighted student funding for improving educational equity or school quality," Baker writes. "While many would concur that California's funding system is in disrepair, the Reason report offers little precise or valuable guidance for policymakers." Find Bruce Baker's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Weighted Student Funding for California , by Lisa Snell, on the web: http://reason.org/news/show/weighted-student-funding-for-califo 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 with support from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-weighted-student-funding-calif -###- 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: Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.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 Review of Special Education and Distance Learning: Supporting Students Through the Pandemic Summary A brief published earlier this summer by ExcelinEd provides recommendations to education policy leaders for the delivery of special education services during the COVID-19 school closures. Publication Date September 16, 2020 Authors Patricia Levesque; Elizabeth B. Kozleski, Stanford University Research Areas Technology & AI; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Students with Disabilities Facing Remote Learning During COVID-19 Need Help, But the Recommendations in a Recent Brief Fall Short An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Brief lacks the policy guidance necessary to address inequality and complex issues of curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities. EAST LANSING, MI (September 17, 2020) - A brief published earlier this summer by Excel in Ed provides recommendations to education policy leaders for the delivery of special education services during the COVID-19 school closures. Professor Elizabeth Kozleski of Stanford University reviewed Special Education and Distance Learning: Supporting Students Through the Pandemic . She concludes that it offers only minimal support for policymakers in funding the research and development work that lies ahead as remove education continues for students with disabilities. The brief notes Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos' statement that the core features of implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act must remain in place and that no waivers for the delivery of special education services are allowable. It also notes that families and advocates are deeply worried about learning progress and loss of learning because of the national pandemic. In response, the brief provides four sets of what it labels “best practices” for school and district leadership. Professor Kozleski explains that these recommendations come up short, in part because they assume that current knowledge among school professionals is sufficient to make the desired special education and technological leaps. In fact, the necessary knowledge and capacity are barely emerging. Further, the recommendations do little to address the unequal distribution of resources in schools, which include access to well-prepared teachers and related services personnel qualified to teach students with disabilities, particularly using distance learning approaches. Given these concerns, coupled with the lack of research anchoring its recommendations, the brief offers little to policymakers or practitioners currently struggling to make distance learning work during the pandemic. Find the review, by Elizabeth B. Kozleski, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Special Education and Distance Learning: Supporting Students Through the Pandemic , written by Patricia Levesque and published by Excel in Ed, at: https://www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ExcelinEd.COVID19.SpecialEducationDistanceLearning.June2020.pdf NEPC Reviews (http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Elizabeth B. Kozleski: (303) 884-8482, kozleski@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date December 5, 2018 Authors Julie F. Mead, University of Wisconsin Suzanne E. Eckes, Indiana University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding; Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 6, 2018) – In Indiana, a private religious school receiving over $6.5 million in public funds via the state's voucher program placed an LGBT counselor on leave because she had married her same-sex partner. In Milwaukee, where students with disabilities constitute 12-20% of public school enrollments, they constitute only 2% of enrollments in private schools participating in the city's voucher program. Similarly, charter schools enroll a lower percentage of students with disabilities (particularly more severe disabilities) when compared to traditional public schools. In response to these and other issues of access and discrimination, some defenders of these schools have argued that the schools have broken no laws—and they are often correct. How can this be? To answer that question, professors Julie F. Mead of the University of Wisconsin and Suzanne E. Eckes of Indiana University authored a policy brief, titled How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination , which analyzes discrimination in an era of education privatization. The brief's review of relevant laws reveals that voucher and charter school programs open the door to discrimination because of three phenomena. First, federal law defines discrimination differently in public and private spaces. Second, state legislatures have largely neglected issues of discrimination while constructing voucher laws; charter laws are better, but they fail to comprehensively address these issues. Third, because private and charter schools are free to determine what programs to offer, they can attract some populations while excluding others. After briefly examining the history of discrimination in schools, the brief analyzes each of these three enabling factors and then outlines recent developments. Finally, based on its analyses, the brief offers the following recommendations to help address the issue of publicly funded programs currently failing to serve all segments of the public: Congress should amend federal anti-discrimination laws to clarify that states supporting charter schools and states directly or indirectly channeling public funds to private schools must ensure that those programs operate in non-discriminatory ways. Federal agencies should explore whether governmental benefits should be withheld from private schools failing to meet non-discrimination standards. State legislatures should include explicit anti-discrimination language in their state voucher laws to ensure that participating private schools do not discriminate against students and staff on the basis of race, color, sex, race, class, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, national origin, or primary language. State legislatures should adopt or amend charter school laws to ensure that policies and practices are reviewed throughout the process of approval and renewal. Schools failing to attract and retain reasonably heterogeneous student populations should be directed to address the problem and should be considered for non-renewal if the problem is not corrected. Find How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination , by Julie F. Mead and Suzanne E. Eckes, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( http://greatlakescenter.org/ ). 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 Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education Summary The brief examines the tension that has often arisen between the desire to link learning to post-high-school work and the desire to avoid low academic expectations for students perceived as unlikely to attend college. The brief’s authors explore the question of how schools might meaningfully support career exploration and preparation, while avoiding the tendency of prior vocational education to disproportionately sort students into distinct tracks by ethnic, racial, and/or socioeconomic characteristics. Publication Date February 23, 2020 Authors Emily Hodge, Montclair State University; Shaun Dougherty, Vanderbilt University; Dr. Carol Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Emily Hodge : (973) 655-3698, hodgee@montclair.edu Shaun Dougherty : (615) 322-1894, shaun.dougherty@vanderbilt.edu Evolution of Career and Technical Education: How to Connect School to Work but Avoid Past Mistakes A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: As the popularity of CTE grows, so does the need to ensure that it avoids stratification of the past. EAST LANSING, Mich. (February 25, 2020) — In one of the few bipartisan applause lines of his January State of the Union address, President Trump asked Congress to support his “plan to offer vocational and technical education in every single high school in America.” This bipartisan support for Career and Technical Education (CTE) is also seen in state houses and school districts throughout the US. But despite the popularity of CTE, concerns remain about the availability of resources for different CTE pathways, their relative status, and the degree to which adults working within schools are problematically sorting students explicitly or implicitly into different course-taking pathways. February is Career and Technical Education Month, a time to better understand CTE education. Accordingly, NEPC today is releasing a policy brief, Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education , authored by Professors Emily Hodge of Montclair State University and Shaun Dougherty of Vanderbilt University, and Dr. Carol Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education. The brief examines the tension that has often arisen between the desire to link learning to post-high-school work and the desire to avoid low academic expectations for students perceived as unlikely to attend college. The brief’s authors explore the question of how schools might meaningfully support career exploration and preparation, while avoiding the tendency of prior vocational education to disproportionately sort students into distinct tracks by ethnic, racial, and/or socioeconomic characteristics. After summarizing the history of vocational education and its relation to tracking, the brief describes how vocational education evolved into CTE, which has emerged as a variety of school-based efforts as also described in the brief. The authors conclude with recommendations for enacting CTE in ways that support the equitable distribution of educational opportunity: In whole-school models of CTE, school and district leaders should monitor enrollment at the school and program levels by student subgroups to ensure equitable access. In comprehensive high schools, administrators should build a schedule that allows for participation in CTE electives without de facto tracking of students. Students should have access to a broad variety of coursework with minimal or no levels within subjects. School district and state policymakers must ensure equitable distribution of resources across schools and for students across districts to avoid de facto tracking of specific subgroups of students into specific careers. To avoid mistakes of the past that replicated social stratification, researchers should carefully monitor the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic patterns of CTE in all of its forms. Find Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education, by Emily Hodge, Shaun Dougherty, and Carol Burris, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (greatlakescenter.org). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Immersion Not Submersion: Can a New Strategy for Teaching English Outperform Old Excuses? Summary This report claims that the Structured English Immersion technique mandated by California's Proposition 227 is responsible for a "significant improvement in English proficiency across the state" among English Language Learners. The report goes also asserts that SEI strategies can overcome the effects of poverty and lower per-pupil funding. Publication Date December 13, 2006 Authors Jeff MacSwan, Arizona State University Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Lexington Institute report fails to support claims that restricting bilingual education improved test scores in California December 14, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Flaws Render Education Report Useless for Guiding Policy/Practice Lexington Institute report fails to support claims that restricting bilingual education improved test scores in California CONTACT : Teri Battaglieri (517) 203-2940 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Jeff MacSwan (805) 893-2250 (email) macswan@asu.edu EAST LANSING, Mich. – A new report which concludes that English Language Learners (ELL) are improving under a California law which severely limits bilingual education is riddled with flaws and offers no useful evidence on the subject, according to a Think Twice review of the report. The original report is a policy brief, Immersion Not Submersion, Vol. III , written by David White and published by the Lexington Institute. It is presented as an evaluation of the outcome of Proposition 227, a ballot measure Californians passed in 1998 that mandated the use of Structured English Immersion (SEI) instead of bilingual education. The report was reviewed by Jeff MacSwan, an associate professor in the College of Education at Arizona State University whose research focuses on the linguistic study of bilingualism. MacSwan is currently serving as a Visiting Scholar at the Language Minority Research Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Immersion Not Submersion claims that the Structured English Immersion technique mandated by the proposition is responsible for a “significant improvement in English proficiency across the state” among English Language learners (ELL). Proceeding from this assumption, the report then asserts that SEI strategies can overcome the effects of poverty and lower per-pupil funding. MacSwan points out that neither the data presented nor could the author’s analysis of that data possibly support these conclusions. “The Lexington Institute’s report suffers from poorly sampled data, inaccurate descriptions of district-level policies, failure to account for alternative explanations for observed changes in district testing data, and lack of any serious analysis of the data presented,” MacSwan writes. “The report also fails to acknowledge or address recently published research studies whose conclusions are dramatically different from those presented in the report.” MacSwan cites seven such studies, three of them commissioned by independent federal or state education agencies and the other three published in peer-reviewed journals. “The report’s poorly sampled data, compounded by its inaccurate descriptions of district-level language program orientations, leads us to abandon all hopes that it might usefully inform education policy,” MacSwan writes. Find the complete review by Jeff MacSwan as well as a link to the Lexington Institute 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 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders Summary This report from the Center on American Progress, proposes a range of state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. This report from the Center on American Progress, proposes a range of state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. Publication Date January 9, 2012 Authors Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Center for American Progress Report on School Leadership is Poorly Researched and Misleading, says New Review Report on improving school principals' preparation ignores data, common practices, and common policies EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 10, 2012) – A new review of a recent report that proposes a range of state policies designed to make school principals more effective ignores existing research on the subject, lacks evidence for the approaches it advocates, and sidesteps both state and professional policies that directly address the sorts of problems it purports to remedy. The Center for American Progress (CAP) report, Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Margaret Terry Orr, a professor at Bank Street College of Education and director of the College's Future School Leaders Academy. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Gateways to the Principalship focuses on policies concerning the preparation, licensure and retention of school principals. The report identifies eight states it considers "lagging" and eight it considers "leading," asserting that the "leading" states employ practices that the "lagging" states and others like them should adopt in order to improve the performance of school principals. The lagging states are Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. The leading states are Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. Professor Orr's review finds that the report makes assertions without evidence and arguments without foundation. Further, she writes, the report appears to be unaware of scholarship and common practices on the subject it seeks to address. Particularly glaring omissions include not using policy-related reports from the Wallace Foundation (not referenced), the Education Commission of the States (not referenced), and the National Conference of State Legislators (referenced but never used), each of which have in various ways addressed how to improve school leadership. Each of these has also taken note of what policymakers are actually doing to improve the education of principals. Further, the report's identification of 16 focus states is never adequately explained. It does not define what it means when it labels eight states as "lagging" in their eligibility requirements for candidates admitted to principal-preparation programs. Similarly, it selects eight "leading" states in this area for their adoption of other policies the report's authors favor, yet it never compares the two groups of states on similar types of policies. "Very little in the way of supporting data is presented to justify [the report's] claims," Orr writes. For example, of the sources cited, only one is from a peer-reviewed journal; the rest are from organizations and foundations whose claims and assertions are often weakly supported and poorly argued—yet are accepted uncritically in the CAP report. "The report has little utility for policy or practice," Orr concludes. Instead, she writes, it merely "distracts from more relevant and potent policy strategies to improve leadership preparation." Find Margaret Terry Orr's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders by Gretchen Rhines Cheney and Jacquelyn Davis on the web at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/principalship.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 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-gateways-principalship . --###-- 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 . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Margaret Terry Orr, 212-875-4546, morr@bankstreet.edu Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071; 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 Review of Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts Summary The report relies primarily on school district annual capital outlay data reported in the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data. It also examines which state policies may promote more progressive investment patterns. Confirming other studies, the report finds that school district capital expenditures vary from year to year and from state to state, that each state has a unique approach and mix of policies governing state support for local capital outlay, and that capital outlay is rarely equal or progressive. The report also finds that states with policies that aim to equalize capital spending are more likely to provide capital outlays for students from low-income backgrounds that are equal to or greater than outlays in wealthier communities. Publication Date April 19, 2023 Authors Kristin Blagg, Fanny Terrones, and Victoria Nelson; Jeffrey M. Vincent, University of California, Berkeley Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Solid Report Examines Expansion of Federal Facilities Funding for Public School Equity An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The Urban Institute report's recommendations provide useful insights for how state and federal policy can move toward more progressive capital funding approaches. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 20, 2023) - State and local governments invest a great deal in the infrastructure of the nearly 100,000 schools across the U.S., encompassing about 8.1 billion gross square feet of buildings. Yet recent years have seen a recognition that expanded federal funding will be needed to address shortfalls and inequities. To that end, the Urban Institute recently released Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts , which analyzes equity patterns of school capital investment. In a review , Jeffrey M. Vincent of the University of California, Berkeley concludes that the report's findings and recommendations are strong and well-supported. The report relies primarily on school district annual capital outlay data reported in the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data. It also examines which state policies may promote more progressive investment patterns. Confirming other studies, the report finds that school district capital expenditures vary from year to year and from state to state, that each state has a unique approach and mix of policies governing state support for local capital outlay, and that capital outlay is rarely equal or progressive. The report also finds that states with policies that aim to equalize capital spending are more likely to provide capital outlays for students from low-income backgrounds that are equal to or greater than outlays in wealthier communities. These findings are all well-supported, and the report's recommendations, including increasing funding, accounting for student economic need, and continuing assessment on building quality, provide useful insights for state and federal policy that will promote more progressive capital spending. Find the review, by Jeffrey M. Vincent, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3133&type=think_twice Find Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts , written by Kristin Blagg, Fanny Terrones, and Victoria Nelson and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/assessing-national-landscape-capital-expenditures-public-school-districts NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank-reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Jeffrey M. Vincent: (510) 593-3067, jvincent@berkeley.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< 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