< Back Review of School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education Summary A recent report from the Manhattan Institute presents results of a survey of U.S. adults aged 18-20 to determine the extent to which eight concepts the report equates with what it calls "critical social justice" (CSJ) theory-which the report frowns upon-are taught in schools. The first of the eight concepts, for instance, is, "America is a systemically racist society." Publication Date May 2, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann; Christine Sleeter, California State University Monterey Bay; David Garcia, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Warning About the Teaching of "Critical Social Justice" Wanders Far Beyond Its Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's methodological structure is insufficient to measure causality between the teaching of "CSJ theory" and the political indoctrination of students. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (May 2, 2023) - A recent report from the Manhattan Institute presents results of a survey of U.S. adults aged 18-20 to determine the extent to which eight concepts the report equates with what it calls "critical social justice" (CSJ) theory-which the report frowns upon-are taught in schools. The first of the eight concepts, for instance, is, "America is a systemically racist society." The report finds the concepts to be pervasive. Faulty assumptions and methodology cast doubt on the report's conclusions, however, according to Christine Sleeter of California State University Monterey Bay and David Garcia of Arizona State University, who reviewed School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education . The report finds that the eight concepts are widely taught, even in private schools and homeschooling. Because these CSJ concepts are being taught beyond public schools, the report argues that school choice is an ineffective option for shielding children from this presumed peril. Further, Sleeter and Garcia note, the report puts forward several conclusions that do not find support from the survey: (a) teachers rather than others outside the classroom are the primary source of exposure, (b) CSJ concepts are being indoctrinated as "truth," and (c) policy attitudes and political party affiliation are influenced by exposure to CSJ concepts. Given that the methods do not adequately isolate exposure in school from the many other sources in which young people encounter these eight concepts, and given that no causal relationships are established, Sleeter and Garcia conclude that there is no support for the report's highly intrusive policy recommendations – even setting aside the underlying ideological assumptions. Find the review, by Christine Sleeter and David R. Garcia, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3134&type=think_twice Find School Choice Is Not Enough: The Impact of Critical Social Justice Ideology in American Education , written by Zach Goldberg and Eric Kaufmann and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://manhattan.institute/article/school-choice-is-not-enough-the-impact-of-critical-social-justice-ideology-in-american-education NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Christine Sleeter: (831) 915-3876, csleeter@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back How Legislation and Litigation Shape School Choice 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 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA Summary Brief presents a framework for federal policymakers to ground the law in an evidence-based, equitable, and ecological approach centered on sustained educational equality of opportunity. Publication Date October 11, 2022 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Authors Elizabeth DeBray, University of Georgia; Kara S. Finnigan, University of Michigan; Janel George, Georgetown University Law Center; and Janelle Scott, University of California-Berkeley. Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release What Might a Civil Rights-Focused ESEA Reauthorization Look Like? Key Takeaway : Brief presents a framework for federal policymakers to ground the law in an evidence-based, equitable, and ecological approach centered on sustained educational equality of opportunity. EAST LANSING, MI (October 11, 2022) - The last several years have been trying for students, communities, and schools. States and local educational agencies have been working to meet the significant health and educational needs of students and to address the vast racial and socioeconomic inequities that have been heightened by the pandemic. Success in the efforts depends on a responsive, strong, and effective federal role in education. The federal government’s significant, albeit limited, role in education remains vital nearly 60 years after the initial passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), the nation’s fundamental legislation concerning K-12 schooling. This is particularly true as the U.S. grapples with a global pandemic, enduring racial and socioeconomic inequality, entrenched educational disparities, and attacks on democracy. The ESEA was most recently reauthorized in 2015 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which itself was due for reauthorization after the 2020-21 school year. Congress may not act any time soon on that reauthorization, but when it does it can improve the law in key ways. Over the past several years, vibrant, intersectional social movements have taken up and expanded the policy demands for equitable, excellent, and just schooling. Because ESEA remains the government’s most consequential mechanism to promote equity in public education, its reauthorization presents an opportunity to re-envision this federal role in promoting access to quality educational opportunities by fostering racial and socioeconomic equity in alignment with the original intent of ESEA. To that end, NEPC today released a policy brief, A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA , authored by Elizabeth DeBray of the University of Georgia, Kara S. Finnigan of the University of Michigan, Janel George of Georgetown University Law Center, and Janelle Scott of the University of California-Berkeley. The authors have developed a civil rights framework to guide the redesign of ESSA. This equitable, evidence-based, and ecological framework places students, staff, school systems, and cross-sector collaboration at the center of ESEA and considers the complexity of racial, socioeconomic, and other inequities along with the strengths nested within communities. Their approach centers the health and the socioemotional well-being of students, families, and staff and accounts for the historical, structural, and environmental factors that have made educational inequity seemingly intractable. The brief offers recommendations that build upon ESSA’s core purpose and its critical history as being, first and foremost, a civil rights law. As such, the recommendations are designed to ensure it is responsive to racial and social inequities across systems that affect students’ educational experiences and outcomes. Find A Civil Rights Framework for the Reauthorization of ESEA , by Elizabeth DeBray, Kara S. Finnigan, Janel George, and Janelle Scott, 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 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 Elizabeth DeBray : (706) 542-2214, edebray@uga.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Urban School Decentralization and the Growth of "Portfolio Districts:" Summary This policy brief focuses on the portfolio approach to school reform being used in an increasing number of large urban districts including New York, Chicago, New Orleans and Washington, D.C. This approach has been promoted by education reform theorists and some in the Obama administration as a vital and necessary solution to the problems, especially, of urban districts despite the fact that it has unclear advantages, no proof of past success and known high costs. Publication Date June 2, 2010 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Authors Kenneth J. Saltman, DePaul University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (June 2, 2010) –A new reform approach, whereby school district leaders compile and run a "portfolio" of independently operated schools, is being used in New York, Chicago, New Orleans, and Washington D.C., and it is being considered by other districts. Yet little or no evidence supports the expansion of such radical experimentation, a new Policy Brief reports. The brief, written by professor Kenneth Saltman of DePaul University in Chicago was funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The portfolio approach has unclear advantages, no proof of past success, and known high costs, according to Saltman. Yet it's been promoted by some education reform theorists as a vital and necessary solution to the problems especially of urban public education, and the Obama administration has signaled its support. Explaining the concept, Saltman writes: "The district superintendent is imagined as a stock investor who has a portfolio of investments (schools)." These schools are run by different contractors, generally as charter schools. The superintendent "holds the investments that 'perform' (in terms of student achievement) and ends the contracts for (sells) those investments that 'don't perform.'" Accordingly, Saltman continues, "the portfolio concept puts into place what has been increasingly discussed in educational policy literature as market-based 'creative destruction' or ‘churn.'" It's an idea that appeals to those who see market principles as useful to adopt within public schools. But Saltman's brief contends that the reform's advocates employ a double standard: they insist that test-based accountability measures show city schools have "failed," and yet they want the portfolio approach to move forward without being subjected to comparable scrutiny. "No expectation exists for the development of analytic tools capable of measuring the portfolio approach's effect on achievement, its central promise. This situation presents administrators and legislators with the difficult task of justifying ‘reform' with no supporting achievement evidence and no foreseeable possibility of such evidence." And indeed, Saltman writes, there simply is no evidence to support the idea. Moreover, elements of the model, such as charter schools, have been found to be ineffective in raising achievement. In sum, the portfolio district approach looks like a recipe for high risk and no clear reward. To date, there is little evidence to either support or reject it. Instead, Saltman recommends that policymakers considering the reform not do so without closely questioning its rationale, costs, potential unintended consequences, and likely resulting social conflicts. Find Kenneth Saltman's report, Urban School Decentralization and the Growth of "Portfolio Districts" 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: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know Summary As part of a series of reports chronicling teacher education, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) attempted to investigate the textbooks used in teacher prep coursework. The report contended that textbooks assigned in methods coursework fail to provide teacher candidates with proper preparation. The NCTQ report is based on six strategies adapted from a practice guide provided by the What Works Clearinghouse, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The report offers recommendations for textbook publishers, teacher education programs, and state departments of education. Publication Date March 24, 2016 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Teacher Workforce Authors Laura Pomerance, Julie Greenberg and Kate Walsh; P.L. Thomas, Furman University; and Christian Z. Goering, University of Arkansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NCTQ report makes broad claims, but fails to provide acceptable evidence, academic review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 24, 2016) – As part of a series of reports chronicling teacher education, the National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) attempted to investigate the textbooks used in teacher prep coursework. The report contended that textbooks assigned in methods coursework fail to provide teacher candidates with proper preparation. However, an academic review finds that the report is of little value in improving teacher preparation, selecting textbooks, or for guiding educational policy. P.L. Thomas, Furman University, and Christian Z. Goering, University of Arkansas reviewed the report , Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know , 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. The NCTQ report is based on six strategies adapted from a practice guide provided by the What Works Clearinghouse , which is funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The report offers recommendations for textbook publishers, teacher education programs, and state departments of education. However, Thomas and Goering find, in their review, that the report is not grounded in a comprehensive examination of the literature on teaching methods. Moreover, the report relies on a single source, which itself was based on a narrow set of research studies. The reviewers note that, despite posing an interesting question, NCTQ's report falls short because it uses a narrow set of criteria and applies it in a misleading and superficial way. Thomas and Goering, both respected teacher educators, agree with the report's authors that teacher education programs, textbooks used in methods courses, and candidate preparedness are all important topics for further analysis. Nevertheless, they conclude: "this report in no way justifies taking the conclusions or recommendations seriously when determining policy or practice." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Learning about Learning: What Every New Teacher Needs to Know on the web: http://www.nctq.org/dmsView/Learning_About_Learning_Report 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: P.L. Thomas , (864) 294-3386, paul.thomas@furman.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 NCLB's Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do they Improve the Quality of 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 August 8, 2009 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; General / Needs Review Authors William J. Mathis, Associate Professor (adj), University of Vermont Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Research predicts failure for NCLB’s ultimate sanctions, concludes new report EAST LANSING, MI, (April 8, 2009)—A new policy brief finds little evidence that sweeping school restructuring—mandated by the federal government for so-called failing schools—will raise student achievement. The report is titled NCLB’s Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do They Improve the Quality of Education? It was written by William J. Mathis, adjunct associate professor of school finance at the University of Vermont and a superintendent of schools. The report was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Mathis’s brief examines the impact of the specific school restructuring approaches required under the federal No Child Left Behind law. Under the law, enacted in 2001, schools are required to be restructured if they fail to make “adequate yearly progress” (measured by meeting test score targets) for six consecutive years. NCLB school restructuring can take one of the following forms: takeover of the school by the state; turning management of the school over to a private firm; shutting down and reopening as a charter school; or reconstitution of the school by replacing some or all administrators, staff, or faculty. A fifth option provided under the law endorses “any other major restructuring of a school’s governance arrangement.” The brief reviews the existing body of research on each of the five restructuring options and finds that “there is little or no evidence to suggest that any of these options delivers the promised improvements in academic achievement” but notes that “negative side effects are frequently recorded including increased segregation, substantial, short-term drops in achievement scores and organizational instability.” Mathis concludes: “Given that these approaches are being proposed for the nation’s most troubled schools, the solutions [currently set forth by NCLB] are likely to be woefully inadequate” and that “reliance on these restructuring options could actually deter schools from exploring more promising approaches of achieving the goal of a sound basic education for every child.” In light of such findings, Mathis recommends against relying on restructuring sanctions to promote school improvement and encourages the support of research on the effectiveness of other school improvement strategies. He also recommends support for strategies that have been shown to increase school improvement including early education, small school communities, and strong counseling and social support systems for students. Find William Mathis’s report, NCLB’s Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do They Improve the Quality of Education? 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: William J. Mathis – (802) 247-5757; WMathis@sover.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: 2009 Update Summary This report examines issues concerning the funding formula used for the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program and finds that it generates a net savings to taxpayers in Wisconsin but imposes a large fiscal burden on taxpayers in Milwaukee. Publication Date April 27, 2009 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Voucher Cost Report Provides Useful Starting Point April 29, 2009 While report on Milwaukee program sheds light on vouchers' fiscal impact, it omits discussion of important factors EAST LANSING, MI (April 29, 2009)—A recent report finds that the Milwaukee voucher program offers a net savings to taxpayers in the state of Wisconsin but places a disproportionate financial burden on taxpayers in the city of Milwaukee. A new review concludes that the report offers valuable insights on the fiscal impact of voucher programs. However, it also questions the fiscal benefits and notes that the report omits some important factors essential to a more complete analysis. The report, The Fiscal Impact of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program , was written by Robert Costrell for the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Dr. Clive Belfield of Queens College/City University of New York. Dr. Belfield is also co-director of the Center for Benefit-Cost Studies in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University. Costrell’s report is an update of earlier work examining the funding formula of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), which provides vouchers to low-income families in the Milwaukee Public School system to attend private schools. Since its inception in 1990, MPCP has grown into the largest district voucher program in the U.S., enrolling upwards of 20,000 students in private secular and religious schools in the current academic year, at a cost to taxpayers of $6,607 per student in 2009. By comparing that cost to the projected cost of teaching those students in public schools—$9,462 for 2009—the report estimates a net public-sector savings of $37 million a year from the program. But, as Belfield notes, “the report also concludes that this net fiscal benefit is not allocated evenly.” Milwaukee taxpayers lose $45 million a year, while other property taxpayers save $52 million and state taxpayers save $30 million. So, while the end result is calculated as a $37 million gain, there are big winners and losers. Recent attempts to rectify the disparity by refining the state’s formulas for aid to the city school district have failed, the report concludes. The new report “is a useful guide to the financing of the MPCP,” Belfield writes in his review. “It makes clear how the funding systems in Milwaukee and Wisconsin operate and how they interact to yield a net resource transfer from the city to the state.” Despite this strength, Belfield writes in his review, the report falls short in some key areas. Its calculation of net taxpayer savings from vouchers assumes, based on only minimal evidence, that 90 percent of voucher students would have attended public schools without the voucher. Change that to 80 percent, however, and the savings fall, and if only 70 percent of voucher students switch from public schools—an assumption that isn’t unreasonable, Belfield notes—there are no net savings whatsoever. Thus, the report offers the precise number of $37 million in savings, but the true figure could be very different. Furthermore, Belfield writes, the Arkansas report does not take into account two other factors: 1) school districts costs incurred in the service of voucher students, such as transportation and administrative expenses, which would further reduce any voucher savings; and 2) the question of whether the education of voucher students costs less on average than that of the public school students who stay behind -- because, for example, the students who apply for vouchers are less likely to require special education services. “It is to the credit of this report that it makes clear the importance of analyzing the funding formula for vouchers in Milwaukee,” Belfield concludes. “However, it does not consider many of the possible policy ramifications for efficient and equitable implementation of voucher programs.” Find Clive Belfield’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 Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Clive Belfield (718) 997-5448; Belfield@qc.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States Summary This report involved a large scale analysis of 65-70% of the nation’s charter schools and found that average charter performance is equal to, or perhaps lower than, the performance of traditional public schools. Miron¡Çs and Applegate¡Çs review of the report finds that the solid analytic approach employed and the comprehensive data set used make the report a valuable addition to the body of charter school research. Publication Date June 24, 2009 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Gary Miron and Brooks Applegate, Western Michigan University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release High-Quality Charter School Report Confirms Past Research June 24, 2009 CREDO study reinforces evidence showing no overall impact of charters on student achievement, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi., June 24, 2009 – A new report on the impact of charter schools on student performance finds that, on average, charter schools perform no better than traditional public schools. A review of the report finds that the solid analytic approach employed and the comprehensive data set used make the report a valuable addition to the body of charter school research. The report, Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States , is from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Gary Miron and Brooks Applegate of Western Michigan University who have extensive experience studying and evaluating charter school performance. Multiple Choice draws its conclusions from the researchers’ examination of longitudinal, student-level data compiled from 15 or 16 states (the reviewers note some lack of clarity on this point), covering 65-70% of the nation’s charter schools. The report analyzes the achievement of students in these charter schools compared to that of matched students in traditional public schools. The primary findings of the CREDO report show that charter school students’ test performance is basically the same as the performance of students enrolled in traditional public school. Because of their very large data base, the authors were able to tease out statistically significant differences in 54% of the charter schools studied, with the following results: “17 percent [of charters] provide superior education opportunities for their students. … 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.” In their review, Miron and Applegate summarize past research examining charter school performance and indicate that the CREDO findings strengthen the broader body of evidence which shows average charter performance to be equal to, or perhaps lower than, the performance of traditional public schools. The CREDO report also attempts to draw some state-level conclusions from their results, looking at three policies associated with more or less restrictiveness in the state charter laws: caps on the number of allowed charters in the state, restrictions on who can authorize the creation of a charter, and the allowance of appeals by charter applicants from a denial of authorization. The results were mixed, and the reviewers conclude that the analytic approach was undermined by the divergent manner in which these policies are implemented. The reviewers do, however, present their own secondary look at the state-level data (presented in their review) and uncover a pattern showing states doing better when they have fewer charters and when fewer of those charters are run by for-profit corporations. Although too complex to be easily summarized, the review from Miron and Applegate also raises a series of technical questions regarding the report’s analyses. Because of the potential value of the CREDO work, the reviewers urge the authors to answer those questions in technical follow-up papers to the report and in later work with their data base. Find Gary Miron’s and Brooks Applegate’s review as well as a link to the Stanford CREDO report on the web at: www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.edu Brooks Applegate, (269) 387-3886; brooks.applegate@wmich.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A New Agenda: Research to Build a Better Teacher Preparation Program Summary Bellwether Education Partners (BEP) released a report calling into question the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs in the U.S. The report proposed that improving teacher quality could be accomplished through teacher preparation program redesign. Further, it asserted that teacher preparation programs are “blindly swinging from one popular reform to the next” and decades of input- and outcome-based research have failed to improve teacher education. Publication Date March 28, 2017 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Ashley LiBetti Mitchel & Melissa Steel King; Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Stephani Burton, Molly Cummings Carney, Juan Gabriel Sánchez, and Andrew F. Miller; Boston College Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Teacher education report represents a missed opportunity, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 28, 2017) — In October, Bellwether Education Partners (BEP) released a report calling into question the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs in the U.S. The report proposed that improving teacher quality could be accomplished through teacher preparation program redesign. However, an academic review of the report finds that it ignores past research as well as the present context of teacher education. The report, A New Agenda: Research to Build a Better Teacher Preparation Program , was reviewed by Dr. Marilyn Cochran-Smith, Boston College, and a team of scholars and practitioners. The review was produced for the Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center. Think Twice is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. A New Agenda asserted that teacher preparation programs are "blindly swinging from one popular reform to the next" and decades of input- and outcome-based research have failed to improve teacher education. Despite a reasonable assumption that teacher quality can be improved through redesigned teacher preparation programs, the reviewers find that the report includes mischaracterizations of teacher education research and omits relevant literature. The reviewers identified three primary problems of the report: It leaves practical questions unanswered; Muddies the waters about promising research avenues; and Ignores important bodies of literature in teacher education. In conclusion, the reviewers find that the report "represents a missed opportunity to offer guidance to [either] policymakers or institutions." Find the report on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report on the web: http://bellwethereducation.org/publication/new-agenda-research-build-better-teacher-preparation-program 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 The reviewers were part of Project TEER (Teacher Education and Education Reform), which is a collaborative research group interested in the intersection of teacher education policy and practice, on one hand, and neoliberal education reform, on the other. Reviewers included: Stephani Burton, Molly Cummings Carney, Juan Gabriel Sánchez, and Andrew F. Miller. Dr. Cochran-Smith is the Cawthorne Professor of Teacher Education for Urban Schools and Director of the Doctoral Program in Curriculum and Instruction at the Lynch School of Education, Boston College. 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 Data-driven Improvement and Accountability Summary In a report released today, Andy Hargreaves and Henry Braun of Boston College describe how data-driven accountability initiatives have created “perverse” incentives for educators. The legislative brief highlights the flawed use of DDIA in much, though not all, of the U.S. education system. To restore focus on improvement, schools should consider systematic reforms that capture the full range of learning and assess educational values holistically, instead of relying on narrow metrics to define success that punish teachers and students. The brief includes twelve recommendations for establishing more effective systems and processes of Data-Driven or Evidence-Informed Improvement and Accountability. Model legislation by attorney Kathy Gebhardt accompanies Data-Driven Improvement and Accountability. Publication Date October 22, 2013 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors ndy Hargreaves, Boston College Henry Braun, Boston College Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes Summary A large and growing body of high-quality research shows that increased school funding positively affects student outcomes. Yet, as compared to the effect of school funding reported in an authoritative meta-analysis, a new Brookings Institution report examining this relationship finds a much smaller (although still positive) effect. Publication Date December 11, 2025 Research Areas School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Authors Sarah Reber and Gabriela Goodman; Mark Weber, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Recent Brookings Report Misrepresents Research Consensus on School Funding DECEMBER 11, 2025 Recent Brookings Report Misrepresents Research Consensus on School Funding An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Despite strong research evidence that increased school funding improves student outcomes, report relies on simplistic statewide comparisons that obscure the true effects of investment in education. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (DECEMBER 11, 2025) - A large and growing body of high-quality research shows that increased school funding positively affects student outcomes. Yet, as compared to the effect of school funding reported in an authoritative meta-analysis, a new Brookings Institution report examining this relationship finds a much smaller (although still positive) effect. In his review of A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes , Rutgers University lecturer and school finance expert Mark Weber explains how the report's reliance on overly simplistic methods prevents it from credibly estimating the true relationship between funding and student outcomes. As Dr. Weber shows, the report uses comparisons of statewide averages for spending and outcomes (comparing states to states), which masks substantial variations within states that are central to understanding how school resources affect students. The consensus that more funding leads to better outcomes for students is built on a foundation of high-quality, rigorous evidence. That consensus can and should be tested regularly by ongoing research, using appropriate data and methodologies. It cannot, however, be credibly challenged by a few simplistic correlational analyses, like those applied in the Brookings report. Consequently, Dr. Weber concludes, little meaningful guidance is offered by the recent report for policymakers seeking to reform school funding policies. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes , authored by Sarah Reber and Gabriela Goodman and published by The Brookings Institution, at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-state-level-perspective-on-school-spending-and-educational-outcomes/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Mark Weber 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 8, 2021 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Melissa Tooley and Joseph Hood; Elena Aydarova, Auburn University 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