< Back Separate But Superior? A Review Of Issues And Data Bearing On Single-Sex Education Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date December 31, 1969 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich., Nov. 13, 2006 —Policymakers’ recently rekindled romance with single-sex education is a superficial attraction based more on feelings and preferences than evidence the programs actually work to remedy a variety of educational problems according to a review of the research on single-sex schooling released today by The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice. In the report, Separate but Superior? A Review of Issues and Data Bearing on Single-Sex Education, author Gerald Bracey reveals that much of the research on single-sex schooling is flawed and rife with conflicts and contradictions. A federal government effort to review existing research found 2,221 studies initially, but when federal criteria for scientifically based research were applied to them, all but 40 studies were eliminated. Of these, Bracey writes that, “the largest numbers of studies by far find no differences between single-sex education and co-education.” Bracey goes on to recommend that prior to undertaking any experiments in single-sex education, policy makers should ask a series of specific questions that seek to impose more structure and rigor to such efforts. “Because there is no compelling evidence that single-sex education will improve student learning or test scores,” said Teri Battaglieri, executive director of The Great Lakes Center, “we should put our energy and resources into the reforms that research tells us will impact achievement for all students, such as lower class sizes, hiring and retaining quality teachers and early childhood education.” Single-sex education has long been a part of private, particularly Catholic, schooling. It was rekindled as a possible public school reform in 2001 when funding for single-gender schools and classes was embedded in the No Child Left Behind law. Last month, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings issued new Title IX regulations, which clear the way for implementing such programs. NCLB requires that anyone considering offering a single-sex option must provide a rationale, such as a historic failure of girls to enroll in certain classes offered for both genders and that periodic reviews be conducted to justify an ongoing need for the option. It also mandates that the same course be offered to the other gender or provided to the rest of the students on a coed basis. Summing up the challenges ahead, Bracey quoted researcher Rosemary Salomone, who said, “The paradox of single-sex and co-education is that the beliefs are so strong and the evidence is so weak.” The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Gerald Bracey (703)317-1716 (e-mail) gbracey1@verizon.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind Summary The report, from a noted conservative think tank, attempts to isolate the effects of NCLB’s threat of sanctions on underperforming schools. The authors infer that federal pressure and punishment are promising policy avenues. Publication Date August 26, 2013 Authors Bruce Fuller, University of California Berkeley Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release AEI Report Beneficial, Offers Little Guidance For Policymakers Relies on faith of government pressure and top-down accountability EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 27, 2013) – In June, the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released a report which investigates the effects of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) on North Carolina achievement scores. The report attempts to isolate the effects of NCLB's threat of sanctions on underperforming schools, while inferring that federal pressure and punishment are promising policy avenues. Yet, little can be determined about whether NCLB or any of the touted reforms caused the very small score increases reported. Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California Berkeley, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report, Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind , by Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor, praises accountability systems (NCLB included) as having beneficial systematic effects on standardized test scores. However, very little evidence was presented regarding how local educators comprehended or responded to these pressures. In his review, Fuller notes that the report feels out of date because, due to congressional inaction – education secretary Arne Duncan's agenda, pursued through waivers, has largely bypassed NCLB. The report does highlight how complicated NCLB once was, but this very complexity makes drawing inferences about what works virtually impossible amidst this policy noise. The authors do note that collateral damage was done by unbalanced high-stakes testing, specifically inattention in non-tested content areas. However, no evidence was provided of the negative effects of high-stakes accountability inside classrooms. Fuller's review further finds that the literature review fails to include the large body of literature that details the downside costs of high-stakes accountability tied to standardized testing. In regards to the methods, Fuller found a "naïve design assumption" which surfaces throughout the report – "that achievement trends can be attributed to a complicated bundle of policy tools implemented simultaneously across the country." He concludes, "Readers of the AEI report will benefit from the information provided, but they will remain uninformed as to how the search for an effective federal role can be informed by scarce evidence on the effects of various elements of NCLB." Find Bruce Fuller's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind, by Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor, on the web at: http://www.aei.org/papers/education/k-12/accountability/were-all-those-standardized-tests-for-nothing-the-lessons-of-no-child-left-behind/ 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 -###- 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 Fuller, (510) 642-9163, b_fuller@berkeley.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 The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra Summary This report argues that as a misguided national push a subgroup of students enrolled in eighth grade algebra lack the basic mathematical skills they need to succeed. It further argues that this unpreparedness harms those students as well as the highly proficient students in the class. Publication Date October 13, 2008 Authors Carol Corbett Burris Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Reviewer finds Brookings report overreaches for its conclusions EAST LANSING, Mi. (Oct. 14, 2008)—A recent Brookings Institution report concludes that as more students are placed in 8th-grade algebra classes, too many are ill-prepared and are dragging down their higher-achieving peers. A new review of the report, however, finds that its analysis provides little or no support for its headline-making conclusions. The report “The Misplaced Math Student: Lost in Eighth-Grade Algebra” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, who is a researcher and the principal of a New York school with a successful accelerated mathematics program. At the time of its publication, the Brookings report received positive press coverage in multiple media outlets, including USA Today , The Washington Post , The Los Angeles Times , Education Week , and the Associated Press . None of these newspapers probed the report’s weaknesses, as set forth in the new Burris review. Enrollment in 8th-grade algebra is on the rise. Based on analysis of math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the Brookings report contends that, as a result of a misguided national push, as many as 28% of such algebra students are low achievers, lacking prerequisite skills in arithmetic. It further contends that well-prepared students learn less due to the presence of low achievers in class. The report recommends that algebra placement be based on student readiness, not grade level. Specifically, the Brookings report finds no relationship between the percentage of students taking algebra in eighth grade and that state’s scores on the NAEP and therefore no pattern of higher scores in states where a higher proportion of students take advanced math in eighth grade. Because no correlation exists, the report reasons that there is no benefit to the policy. Similarly, the report finds that as the proportion of students taking algebra in eighth grade has increased, there has been a slight decrease in the average NAEP scores of students in those advanced math classes. The conclusion drawn from this is that well-prepared students in advanced math classes learn less due to the presence of lower achievers in the class. In her review, Burris faults the report for scanty reference to prior research and the omission of “the key empirical studies that prompted the call for algebra for all students in the 8th grade” as well any reference to the existing, peer-reviewed studies “that indicate that lower achievers in mathematics learn more when they are in challenging classes with higher achieving peers.” Moreover, she writes, the report ignores plausible alternative interpretations of the data. But the biggest flaw, according to Burris, is the report’s methodology. Although the report itself acknowledges that its correlational findings should not be used to argue that causal relationships have been found, it then continues on to do just that. In reality, the data analyses presented in the report simply cannot support its policy conclusions. The correlations tell us almost nothing about the policy questions the report attempts to answer. Burris concludes her review with a short summary of a peer-reviewed, longitudinal study examining the effects of an accelerated middle-school mathematics curriculum enrolling all 8th grade students in algebra in the diverse suburban district where she now serves as a principal. The study, which she helped conduct, found that students of all races and income groups enrolled in the accelerated program demonstrated greater success on a variety of achievement measures. While Burris commends the Brookings report’s call for more research and for doing more to adequately prepare students to learn algebra, she criticizes its final conclusion—that universal 8th grade algebra is ill-advised—as “not substantiated by the data presented.” Declining NAEP math scores that provide the impetus for the Brookings recommendations may have several explanations, including poverty and inexperienced teachers, Burris observes. But, she concludes, “These problems will not be solved, however, by undermining the goal of algebra for 8th graders, but rather by focusing on how to best prepare all students to succeed at that goal. The focus should be on how we improve learning in grades K-7.” Find Carol Burris’s review as well as a link to the Brookings Institution report 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: Carol Corbett Burris, (516) 599-0839; (email) burriscarol@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices Summary New America recently published a report, Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices, that champions ways that micro-credentials have been used to allow teachers to move up the career ladder, receive higher pay, or renew their licenses. The report, along with an accompanying implementation guide, offers recommendations for how to implement and integrate micro-credentials into states’ human resources systems. Publication Date April 7, 2021 Authors Melissa Tooley and Joseph Hood; Elena Aydarova, Auburn University Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Overpromises in Its Advocacy for Teacher Micro-Credentials An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New America report lacks validity and reliability in promoting the benefits of micro-credentials in place of traditional professional development. EAST LANSING, MI (April 8, 2021) - New America recently published a report, Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices , that champions ways that micro-credentials have been used to allow teachers to move up the career ladder, receive higher pay, or renew their licenses. Elena Aydarova of Auburn University reviewed the report and found scarce evidence to support its ambitious claims of how micro-credentials could remedy the shortfalls of traditional professional development for teachers. The report, along with an accompanying implementation guide, offers recommendations for how to implement and integrate micro-credentials into states' human resources systems. However, Professor Aydarova explains, without incorporating any of the extensive research-based knowledge on teaching, effective professional development, and teacher effectiveness policies, the report fails to recognize that micro-credential use alone does not improve teaching or student learning. This can create problems rather than provide solutions. Moreover, the report's implementation guide starts with the idealistic assumption that states, districts, and school leaders have the capacity to select and ensure the high quality of micro-credentials before they are offered to teachers. Professor Aydarova also points out that the primary role of micro-credentials is to assess whether teachers have acquired a particular skill, so they require additional resources to provide teachers with opportunities to develop that skill. Since micro-credentials on their own cannot provide opportunities for teacher growth and require the existence of effective professional development systems to work, the report's title and guidelines are misleading. Even if implemented, Professor Aydarova concludes, the report's plan for expanding the use of micro-credentials could not deliver on its promises. Find the review, by Elena Aydarova, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Harnessing Micro-credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices , written by Melissa Tooley and Joseph Hood and published by New America, at: https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/Harnessing_Micro-credentials_for_Teacher_Growth_.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 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 Elena Aydarova: (334) 844-7784, eza0029@auburn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Spending by the Major Charter Management Organizations: Comparing Charter School and Local Public District Financial Resources in New York, Ohio, and Texas. Summary New Report Analyzes Charter School Finances in New York, Ohio and Texas to Determine How Much Is Spent By Prominent Charter School Operators Bruce Baker of Rutgers University, along with Ken Libby and Katy Wiley of the University of Colorado, prepared the research brief for the National Education Policy Center. The brief was funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice and the Albert Shanker Institute. Publication Date May 2, 2012 Authors Bruce D. Baker Rutgers University Ken Libby and Kathryn Wiley, University of Colorado Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Charter Schools: Successful Academic Outcomes Difficult to Link to Spending New Report Analyzes Charter School Finances in New York, Ohio and Texas to Determine How Much Is Spent By Prominent Charter School Operators EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 3, 2012) – Charter school advocates often claim that charter schools deliver higher performance at a lower cost. But do they? A new study out today highlights the need to better accurately compare similar schools – making more relevant comparisons. Spending by the Major Charter Management Organizations: Comparing Charter School and Local Public District Financial Resources in New York, Ohio, and Texas was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice and the Albert Shanker Institute. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University, along with Ken Libby and Katy Wiley of the University of Colorado, found that current data fail to capture the entire financial structure of programs run by major charter management organizations – there is more information needed to better inform policy. The goal of the study was to generate comparisons of revenues and expenditures per pupil for a subset of privately managed charter schools and traditional public schools operating within the same cities and states. After reviewing the financial information currently available, the authors wrote, "it remains difficult to characterize fully the expenditures of charter schools and the financial relationships between CMOs and their schools." "Data quality and financial reporting remain significant barriers to conducting accurate and precise comparative expenditure analyses across traditional public and charter school sites." The report found that the cost effectiveness of charter schools compared to traditional public schools is "plagued" by inconsistent and incomplete financial disclosures and the fact charter schools operate differently than traditional schools in many ways. Spending by the Major Charter Management Organizations explains that most studies highlighting or documenting a successful charter school have sidestepped or downplayed cost implications while focusing on specific programs and strategies in those schools. The researchers recommend looking beyond average expenditure differences, "We must also begin to dig deeper into understanding the cost structure of providing specific programs and services — most notably, those programs and services that work , or that make successful charter schools tick." Researchers concluded that better charter school financial disclosure and additional research delving deeper into which programs produce better academic outcomes and how much those programs cost is needed. "We need such measures in order to make more accurate judgments about the relative efficiency of charter schools and about the relative equity of their available resources." Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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. This brief was made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice and the Albert Shanker Institute. It also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu http://www.shankerinstitute.org --###-- 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 ext. 8232, 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 Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts Summary At the heart of this study of charter management organizations (CMOs), is an impact analysis which found that a small number of CMOs boosted middle-school student achievement. Publication Date January 18, 2012 Authors Bruce Fuller, University of California-Berkley Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Mathematica Report on Charter School Managers Offers Insights on What Works -- but Downplays Disappointing Results Study's findings cannot be applied to charter schools overall, according to independent review EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 19, 2012) – A recent study by Mathematica Policy Research Inc. and the Center on Reinventing Public Education on the benefits stemming from private, nonprofit charter school management operators highlighted interesting trends in the U.S. charter movement, but overreached when interpreting key findings, according to a new review. The report, Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts, was reviewed for the Think Twice review project by Professor Bruce Fuller of the University of California-Berkley. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Charter management organizations (CMOs) are nonprofit firms that operate multiple charter schools either directly or through management contracts. CMO-operated schools account for about one-fifth of the nation's more than 5,000 public charter schools. Fuller's review praised the report for offering an objective assessment of the comparative benefits for middle-school teachers and students. But the review also noted that the report's analytic approach relied on a highly select slice of all CMOs operating nationwide, moving from about 130 CMOs to just 22 that qualified for the study sample. The review questioned the generalizability of the findings arising from these select CMOs, and it criticized the report's "tortured" attempts to find achievement advantages in the CMO-run schools.. Most CMOs, the report's authors found, serve urban students from low-income families. Survey data and site visits show that CMO-operated schools are typically smaller; offer longer school days, school years, or both; and recruit teachers who are loyal to their respective school's mission. The principals of CMO-run schools reported more frequent coaching and mentoring of teachers and more intensive use of student test results and other achievement data to evaluate teachers than did nearby traditional public schools. Fuller's review found the report to be solid and useful regarding these findings. At the heart of the report is an impact analysis focusing on middle school grades. The analysis began with the more than 130 CMOs operating nationwide and then engaged in the successive narrowing of the CMOs to be included in the study down to just 22 that met several inclusion criteria. From those 22, the report found that a small number of CMOs boosted middle-school student achievement growth at discernible levels. "Once thus narrowed, the study presents impressive results for between 4 (reading outcome) and 7 (math outcome) of the 22 CMOs," Fuller observes. "So, to whom or what can we generalize these results?" Moreover, the overall effects of CMOs on student achievement were largely flat when compared with both traditional public schools and with a comparison sample of independent charter schools not affiliated with a CMO. "What's disappointing for charter-school adherents is the bottom line that the average effects of attending a CMO-run charter school are not significantly different from those of attending a regular public school," Fuller notes. He criticizes the report for what he calls its "unrelenting search for achievement effects in a small, selective subset of sampled CMOs," which he states "erodes its credibility." Fuller concludes that the report does offer illuminating insights into features of successful CMOs that appear to have a modest association with student achievement growth in middle school. "This report gets us a bit closer toward pinpointing highly effective CMOs and the practices or resources that may help to explain their efficacy," he writes. "What is not known is whether these practices or resources can be exported with integrity to other charter companies or to the wider public school system. These questions should be squarely addressed in future research." Find Bruce Fuller's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts on the web at: http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/pdfs/education/cmo_final_updated.pdf . Think Twice, a project of the NEPC, 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. The review is also available on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-charter-school-management --###-- 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: Bruce Fuller, 510-642-9163; b_fuller@berkeley.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 Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success 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 8, 2009 Authors David C. Berliner, Regents’ Professor Arizona State University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New report urges policymakers to address poverty in order to increase student learning EAST LANSING, Mich., (March 9, 2009) – A new report argues that out-of-school factors related to poverty are the major cause of the achievement gap that exists between poor and minority students and the rest of the student population. This is in direct contrast to current federal education policies that are based on the belief that public schools should shoulder the blame for lack of achievement on the part of impoverished students. “Schools are told to fix problems that largely lie outside their zone of influence,” says David Berliner, Regents Professor of Education at Arizona State University and author of the report Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, which was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Berliner’s report comes as debate continues over the renewal of the No Child Left Behind Act, which imposes stiff accountability measures on schools in return for federal aid. NCLB requires public schools to demonstrate “adequate yearly progress” toward the eventual elimination of gaps in achievement among all demographic groups of students and imposes a variety of sanctions if they fall short. Berliner says that NCLB’s accountability system is “fatally flawed” because it holds schools accountable for student achievement without regard for the out-of-school factors that affect it. “This report provides exactly the type of information that should guide education policy,” says Teri Battaglieri, Director of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. “It clearly explains why poverty must be directly addressed by those interested in closing the achievement gap, and it makes the case for spending our resources on strategies that will significantly impact student learning.” Berliner’s report reviews six out-of-school factors that have been clearly linked to lower achievement among poor and minority-group students: birth weight and non-genetic parental influences; medical care; food insecurity; environmental pollution; family breakdown and stress; and neighborhood norms and conditions. In addition, he notes a seventh factor: extended learning opportunities in the form of summer programs, after-school programs, and preschool programs. Access to these resources by poor and minority students could help mitigate the effects of the other six factors. Because of the extraordinary influence of the six factors identified in the report, Berliner cautions that “increased spending on schools, as beneficial as that might be, will probably come up short in closing the gaps.” Instead, he calls for an approach to school improvement that would demand “a reasonable level of societal accountability for children’s physical and mental health and safety.” “At that point,” he concludes, “maybe we can sensibly and productively demand that schools be accountable for comparable levels of academic achievement for all America’s children.” Find David Berliner’s report, Poverty and Potential: Out-of-School Factors and School Success, 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: David Berliner – (480) 861-0484; berliner@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Measuring Student Poverty: Developing Accurate Counts for School Funding, Accountability, and Research Summary A recent Urban Institute report highlights how legislative changes have led to the steady decline of the usefulness, as a measure of student poverty, of participation in the free- and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program. The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act mandates that schools enrolled in CEP have at least 40% of their students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch in the year before enrolling. CEP schools provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students regardless of any given student’s household income or enrollment in safety net programs. Thus FRPL participation is 100% in a school and can no longer be sensibly used as a poverty measure. Publication Date March 2, 2020 Authors Erica Greenberg, Kristin Blagg, and Macy Rainer; Michael Harwell of the University of Minnesota Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Student Poverty Measures Provides Important Snapshot but Not the Whole Picture An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New report is useful, but misses an opportunity to explore the need for a standardized measure of student poverty. EAST LANSING, MI (March 3, 2020) - A recent Urban Institute report highlights how legislative changes have led to the steady decline of the usefulness, as a measure of student poverty, of participation in the free- and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) program. The Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) of the federal Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act mandates that schools enrolled in CEP have at least 40% of their students eligible for a free or reduced-price lunch in the year before enrolling. CEP schools provide free breakfasts and lunches to all students regardless of any given student’s household income or enrollment in safety net programs. Thus FRPL participation is 100% in a school and can no longer be sensibly used as a poverty measure. Michael Harwell of the University of Minnesota reviewed Measuring Student Poverty: Developing Accurate Counts for School Funding, Accountability, and Research . The report looks at how states now make poverty-related determinations for school funding and accountability purposes. Professor Harwell found the report to be useful in providing an important snapshot of the crazy quilt pattern of enrollment in safety net programs. The report, however, does not fully address a question that should significantly influence its methods, conclusions, and impact: Is it sufficient to rely on enrollment in safety net programs to define and measure student poverty, or is a change needed in its definition and measurement? The report seems to lean towards the latter, but no definition (new or otherwise) of student poverty is provided, and alternative measures of poverty are presented without critique. The report is also silent on whether a poverty measure should be related to important student outcomes such as achievement. As such, the report is very useful in describing the current dilemma, but it offers little specific guidance on how to move forward. Find the review, by Michael Harwell, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Measuring Student Poverty: Developing Accurate Counts for School Funding, Accountability, and Research, written by Erica Greenberg, Kristin Blagg, and Macy Rainer and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/101430/measuring_student_poverty.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 research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Michael Harwell: (612) 625-0196, harwe001@umn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effects of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program on College Enrollment and Graduation: An Update Summary A recent report from Urban Institute has been widely trumpeted as documenting college attainment benefits for students receiving a neovoucher through the Florida Tax Credit scholarship program. Publication Date March 27, 2019 Authors Matthew Chingos, Tomas Monarrez, and Daniel Kuehn; Jaekyung Lee, of the University at Buffalo, SUNY Research Areas General / Needs Review; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release What's the College Impact of Florida's Tax Credit Scholarship Program? Key Takeaway: Urban Institute report raises more questions than answers about voucher policy impact due to its shortcomings. EAST LANSING, MI (March 28, 2019) - A recent report from Urban Institute has been widely trumpeted as documenting college attainment benefits for students receiving a neovoucher through the Florida Tax Credit scholarship program. But a new review raises concerns and cautions that proper use of the study begins with an understanding of its limitations. Jaekyung Lee, of the University at Buffalo, SUNY, reviewed The Effects of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program on College Enrollment and Graduation: An Update . Professor Lee found that the report, while making timely and relevant contribution to the research base, provides little guidance for policy and practice. The report finds neovoucher students were 6-10 percentage points more likely to enroll in some type of college and were one to two percentage points more likely to earn a bachelor's degree. The study uses expanded data tracking and appropriate research methods that attempt to match neovoucher students to non-neovoucher students with similar baseline characteristics. However, Professor Lee raises three critical questions about methods, findings and conclusions. First is the problem of selection bias. The study's attempt to match students resulted in the comparison group having two to three times more students receiving reduced-price lunch. This is on top of the problem of possible unmeasured differences, which the report's authors briefly acknowledge. Professor Lee notes that choosers tend to be more advantaged in unmeasured aspects than nonchoosers, which tends to result in an upward bias (positive effects on achievement). Second, the study skips over the question of whether neovoucher students have any measured achievement benefits, at a time when research has raised serious questions about whether students do less well academically when they receive vouchers. Without real achievement benefits, the estimated impact of Florida neovouchers on college enrollment may reflect college matching effects rather than true program effects on students' college readiness. Third, the neovoucher program's reporting of much greater apparent effects on college enrollment than on graduation suggests that the conditional neovoucher effect on college completion (i.e., conditional on college entry) could be null or even negative. Even while many more neovoucher students are heading to college, their likelihood of doing well once they get there is much lower. These concerns call into question the use and misuse of this study by voucher advocates. The study was used by Florida Governor DeSantis in his State of the State address to advocate for vouchers, and it was dutifully covered by The 74 and The National Review , and even as part of voucher debates in Kentucky ( The Courier-Journal ) and Nebraska ( The Omaha World-Herald ). Proper use of the study begins with an understanding of its limitations and sees the need for confirmatory research and future exploration of potential mechanisms driving any increased college attainment. Find the review, by Jaekyung Lee, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Lee-Florida-Tax-Credit.pdf Find The Effects of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program on College Enrollment and Graduation: An Update , written by Matthew Chingos, Tomas Monarrez, and Daniel Kuehn, and published by Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/99728/the_effects_of_the_florida_tax_credit_scholarship_program_on_college_enrollment_and_graduation_2.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 Jaekyung Lee: (716) 645-1132, JL224@buffalo.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The six research summaries supporting the "Blueprint for Reform" Summary Released by the DOE in May, these six research summaries support the education reform proposals included in the Obama administration's "Blueprint for Reform" for ESEA reauthorization. Publication Date October 4, 2010 Authors Clive Belfield, Gene V Glass, W.Steven Barnett, Kevin G. Welner, Paul Shaker, Beth Warren, Janette Klingner, William J. Mathis, Diane Ravitch Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Regulating Charter Schools Summary As part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues, William J. Mathis examines charter school accountability. Mathis finds that despite the premise of market-based accountability, charter schools are not sufficiently being held accountable or regulated. Publication Date August 22, 2016 Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Exploring the Research Behind Charter School Accountability EAST LANSING, Mich. (Aug. 23, 2016) — A new concise brief released today explores the research behind the elements of charter school accountability, including: (1) academic performance; (2) equal opportunity and non-discrimination; (3) financial solvency and stability; (4) and safety. In Regulating Charter Schools , William J. Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, examines tensions found within the charter school debate. Despite the premise of market-based accountability, charter schools are not sufficiently being held accountable or regulated. Mathis explains, “There is no perfect amount of regulation or deregulation, but we need to be regularly reassessing the situation and responding to clear problems.” In this brief, the tenth in a series of concise research summaries, Mathis raises concern for the rapid growth of charter schools, which has been accompanied by charges of corruption, fiscal exploitation, weak academic performance, and increased segregation. Mathis says that charter schools should not be excepted from the requirement that public money comes with reporting, transparency, and guidelines for spending and business practices. Regulating Charter Schools is part of Research-Based Options for Policymaking , a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Find the concise brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The brief 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: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Are Charter Schools Safer Than District-Run Schools? Evidence from Pennsylvania | Review of Effects of Charter School Competition on District School Budgeting Decisions: Experimental Evidence from Texas Summary The first study describes how rates of reported low-incidence student infractions are lower in charters, on average. Analyses that include some statistical controls continue to yield results favorable to charters. The author concludes, “The public charter school sector advantages suggest that increasing access to public charter schools in Pennsylvania could improve school climate outcomes for students.” The second report aims to show that competition from the opening of an imagined nearby charter school can increase principals’ preference for budget autonomy and change how they allocate campus budgets to differing positions and instructional resources. The authors assert that their study offers “experimental evidence” that “anticipated charter school competition has large negative effects on school leaders’ reported spending on certain categories of support staff.” Publication Date June 8, 2020 Authors Corey A. DeAngelis | Corey A. DeAngelis and Christian Barnard; Bruce Fuller, University of California, Berkeley Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release *|MC:SUBJECT|* *|MC_PREVIEW_TEXT|* Inside Look Great Lakes Center's exclusive subscriber email featuring key points, information and social media content about reviews and research July 7, 2020 READ IN BROWSER Hello, Great Lakes Center subscriber: Two reports written by Reason Foundation authors examine different aspects of the impacts of charter schools. The first report asks whether the frequency of student misbehavior is lower in Pennsylvania charter schools compared to public schools. The second report asks whether principals of public schools in Texas change budget allocations when faced with the threat of charter school competition. The authors pose interesting questions regarding the advantages of charter schools, but do not provide adequate evidence to back their claims. Read on to learn more. Dr. Gretchen Dziadosz Executive Director Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice REPORT REVIEWED Think Twice Reviewer Bruce Fuller, a professor of education and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, reviewed “ Are Charter Schools Safer than District-Run Schools? Evidence from Pennsylvania ” and “ Effects of Charter School Competition on District School Budgeting Decisions: Experimental Evidence from Texas .” The two reports look at impacts of charter schools that are studied less frequently. WHAT THE REVIEWERS FOUND Fuller found the two reports fall short in providing evidence to back their claims. The first report on Pennsylvania’s schools shows rates of student infractions on average are lower in charter schools. Using that data, the author states outcomes for students would improve if access to public charter schools in the state were increased. The author also states the methods of compiling the data are limited and the results can be defined as correlational instead of causal. Fuller stated it is unclear whether differences in the data are due to the selection of “certain kinds of families” in charter schools, or from the organizational practices of charter schools. He noted the lower rate of student infractions comes from data in Philadelphia County, which serves large populations of disadvantaged students. However, it does not cover other parts of the state. The second report makes the claim that principals in Texas will change how they allocate school budgets if faced with the threat of competition from the opening of a hypothetical charter school. The report claims principals change budget allocations for different positions and instructional resources and claims anticipated charter school competition has “large negative effects” on reported spending in certain categories of support staff. Fuller determined the report provides little significant statistical information because it was informed by just 8% of Texas principals who participated in a statewide survey. As a result, it would be difficult to generalize the report's findings, he concluded. Neither report should be used to help determine education policy due to their lack of evidence to support their wide-ranging claims. Read the full review on the Great Lakes Center website or on the National Education Policy Center website . WHY YOU SHOULD CARE The two reports do not offer enough evidence to support their claims and are flawed in their methodology. Due to their limited scope, the reports should not inform education policy decisions. TALKING POINTS TO REMEMBER New reports by Reason Foundation authors do not offer enough evidence to support their claims about certain impacts of charter schools in Pennsylvania and Texas. The review found the reports do not use enough evidence or correct methodology in examining the impacts of charter schools on student behavior and budget allocations. The reports are of little practical use to policymakers due to their lack of evidence. SOCIAL SHARES Want to share this Think Twice Review with your social networks? We drafted some sample social media posts for your use. New reports by the Reason Foundation do not offer enough evidence about certain impacts of charter schools in Pennsylvania and Texas. A new review by @NEPCtweet found recent Reason Foundation reports do not provide enough evidence or correct methodology in determining impacts of charter schools on student behavior and budget allocations A new review by @NEPCtweet found a Reason Foundation report fails to provide adequate evidence to support its claims about student behavior and budget allocations. Follow Us 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 . Copyright © 2019 Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice, All rights reserved. You are receiving this email because you opted in via our website. Our mailing address is: Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice PO Box 1263 East Lansing, MI 48826-1263 Add us to your address book Want to change how you receive these emails? You can update your preferences or unsubscribe from this list . Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More