< Back “Building the Possible: The Achievement School District’s Presentation in Milwaukee” & “The Recovery School District’s Presentation in Milwaukee” Summary Portfolio districts, such as the Recovery School District (RSD) and the Achievement School District (ASD), remove schools from the governance of locally elected school boards and superintendents and place them into districts that answer to a state authority. The presenters aimed to encourage other districts to adopt such governance structures although no rigorous research has yet examined their effectiveness. Publication Date October 8, 2013 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Elliot Smalley, Chief of Staff for Achievement School District Patrick Dobard, Superintendent of the Recovery School District; Elizabeth DeBray, University of Georgia Huriya Jabbar, University of California Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice Review Finds Need for Further Study of Portfolio Districts EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 8, 2013) – Recent presentations by representatives from alternative, state-run school districts in New Orleans and Memphis to the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce described the successes and challenges of implementing a portfolio governance model for local schools. The presenters aimed to encourage other districts to adopt such governance structures although no rigorous research has yet examined their effectiveness. A review released today finds that the presentations fail to provide the research base to be of any use to policymakers. The review focuses on two PowerPoint presentation slide sets: Building the Possible: The Achievement School District's Presentation in Milwaukee , presented by Elliot Smalley, chief of staff for the Achievement School District in Memphis, and The Recovery School District's Presentation in Milwaukee , by Patrick Dobard, superintendent of the Recovery School District in New Orleans. The presentations were reviewed by Elizabeth DeBray, an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Georgia, and Huriya Jabbar, a doctoral candidate at the University of California Berkeley. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Portfolio districts, such as the Recovery School District (RSD) and Achievement School District (ASD) remove schools from the governance of the locally elected school boards and superintendents and place them into districts that answer to a state authority. The presentations touted New Orleans and Memphis performance under state-takeover district laws as evidence that this reform should be scaled up to urban systems nationally. A third state takeover district exists in Michigan under the control of the Education Achievement Authority (EAA) in Detroit. "Although no rigorous research has yet examined the effectiveness of portfolio governance structures, the presentations are aimed at encouraging their adoption," DeBray and Jabbar write in their review. Policymakers, they caution, should not attempt to implement such significant changes to the structure and governance of school systems "without a comprehensive and nuanced discussion of relevant evidence." The presentations' "strong assertion of positive results"—namely, improved student achievement—omits any acknowledgement of "the thin evidence base on portfolio governance," the reviewers add. Both presentations report "teacher and administrator human-capital improvements," but fail to provide any specifics about the kinds of improvements, their cost, or how widespread they were across the district. Just as importantly, the cost of the portfolio model as it was carried out in each district is possibly underestimated, because both districts benefited from additional federal and philanthropic funds, which were not included in the PowerPoint analyses. DeBray and Jabbar conclude that the presentations lack the research base policymakers require to make sound decisions about implementing the portfolio model, and therefore do not serve the interests of taxpayers, communities, or schoolchildren. Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can find the presentations on the web: http://www.publicschoolshakedown.org/review-portfolio-districts/ 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 is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-portfolio-districts -###- 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: Elizabeth DeBray, (706) 542-6249, edebray@uga.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 Consolidation of Schools and Districts What the Research Says and What It Means Summary This policy brief provides a review of the research that has been done on school and district consolidation and finds that consolidation will generally not save money nor will it improve education outcomes particularly for minority and poor students. Policymakers are urged to make decisions about consolidation on a case-by-case basis with local input. Further, for very large school districts, deconsolidation may be a means of improving fiscal efficiency and learning outcomes. Publication Date February 1, 2011 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Craig Howley, Jerry Johnson, and Jennifer Petrie, Ohio University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release School consolidation could increase costs and lower education quality, new report finds February 1, 2011 Sweeping state-level consolidation policies have unintended consequences Craig Howley Teri Battaglieri EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 1, 2011) — School consolidation could actually cost taxpayers more money while harming student performance, according to a new policy brief released today. Consolidation will generally not save taxpayers' money, and could actually increase taxpayers' financial burden through added administrative and transportation costs, according to the brief's authors, Craig Howley, Jerry Johnson and Jennifer Petrie of Ohio University. "While state-level consolidation proposals may serve a public relations purpose in times of crisis, they are unlikely to be a reliable way to obtain substantive fiscal or educational improvement," the authors state in their report, Consolidation of Schools and Districts: What the Research Says and What It Means. The policy brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Larger school districts are more likely to be fiscally inefficient than smaller districts, according to the brief. And while some policymakers think school district consolidation will save money through fewer superintendents, they don't take into account that larger school districts require more mid-level administrators, the new report states. Furthermore, consolidation has not been shown to improve student achievement, but instead can result in diminished academic and social performance, according to the brief. Studies show that bigger districts and larger schools are associated with reduced rates of student participation in extracurricular activities, less safe schools, lower graduation rates, lower achievement levels for poor students, and wider achievement gaps, particularly among low-income and minority populations. Based on their research, Howley, Johnson and Petrie recommend that policymakers approach school consolidation cautiously and make decisions about it on a case-by-case basis, and not through sweeping state policy changes. They added that deconsolidating larger schools and districts is much more likely to achieve the goal of improving student achievement and making school operations more efficient. Deconsolidation would particularly benefit many impoverished schools and districts, where students and teachers would gain from more individual attention, according to the report. To read Howley, Johnson and Petrie's full report, go to: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The brief is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/consolidation-schools-districts --###-- 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 Hard Work and Soft Skills: The Attitudes, Abilities, and Character of Students in Career and Technical Education Summary A new report from the American Enterprise Institute shows that students in Career and Technical Education programs demonstrate better outcomes than students with similar test scores in academic programs. Publication Date June 14, 2018 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Albert Cheng and Collin Hitt; James Rosenbaum Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Hard Work and Soft Skills: The Attitudes, Abilities, and Character of Students in Career and Technical Education EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 14, 2018) — Research has shown that, after controlling for the lower test scores on average of students who take Career and Technical Education (CTE) courses, high school CTE programs are associated with higher high school graduation rates, and overall educational attainment and earnings than students in academic programs whose previous test scores were similar. But the reasons for this relationship are not clear. A new report from the American Enterprise Institute hypothesizes that noncognitive skills, such as work habits and effort, affect this relationship, and the report provides a sound test of this hypothesis. The report suggests that CTE may improve attainments by improving noncognitive skills. The key implication is that, instead of a narrow focus on academic skills, schools need to consider how to improve students' other skills to improve attainment and job outcomes. While the reviewer agrees that this implication is reasonably drawn from the report, he cautions that educators need a clearer interpretation of these "noncognitive skills" and whether they are persistent attributes or highly changeable behaviors. Professor James Rosenbaum of Northwestern University reviewed Work and Soft Skills: The Attitudes, Abilities, and Character of Students in Career and Technical Education , and found it to be a strong, careful, and thoughtful empirical analysis of a strong dataset. The report is part of Think Twice Review, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Rosenbaum's key finding is that the report presents a strong empirical analysis illuminating how students in CTE programs demonstrate better outcomes than students with similar test scores in traditional academic programs. The review notes that the most remarkable feature of this report is the broad array of indicators it compiles, including how much effort students exhibit on a routine task (e.g., a long and boring survey in school), and teacher reports of student effort. Professor Rosenbaum concludes that, despite a few limitations, the report has constructed "innovative and impressive new indicators of noncognitive behaviors." More clarity is needed, however, in defining the differences between "noncognitive skills" and "noncognitive behaviors." Is "effort," for example, a function of human behavior, or is it a learned skill? In conclusion , the reviewer holds that this report was successful in constructing "innovative and impressive new indicators of noncognitive behaviors," which should inform policy decisions about how nonacademic skills can help overall student achievement. Find the Think Twice Review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Hard Work and Soft Skills: The Attitudes, Abilities, and Character of Students in Career and Technical Education , written by Albert Cheng and Collin Hitt and published by American Enterprise Institute, at: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Hard-Work-and-Soft-Skills.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. You can also find the review 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of NEPC Review: Estimating the LongRun Impact of a Universal ESA Program in Mississippi Summary A recent report from EdChoice estimates the long-term economic returns of a universal education savings account (ESA) policy in Mississippi. ESA policies provide taxpayer dollars to households that decline to send their children to public schools, allowing those funds to be used for private school tuition or other educational expenses. As ESAs and similar school choice programs expand rapidly across the country, rigorous research is essential to inform sound, evidence-based policymaking. Publication Date February 24, 2026 Research Areas School Funding; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Martin Lueken and Michael Q. McShan; David S. Knight, University of Washington Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Methodological errors and flawed assumptions undermine claims by EdChoice about the long-term economic benefits of Education Savings Accounts. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (FEBRUARY 24, 2026) - A recent report from EdChoice estimates the long-term economic returns of a universal education savings account (ESA) policy in Mississippi. ESA policies provide taxpayer dollars to households that decline to send their children to public schools, allowing those funds to be used for private school tuition or other educational expenses. As ESAs and similar school choice programs expand rapidly across the country, rigorous research is essential to inform sound, evidence-based policymaking. Although the EdChoice report attempts to measure the long-term economic benefits of a universal ESA, it contains significant methodological errors, questionable assumptions, and misleading conclusions. University of Washington professor David S. Knight reviewed Estimating the Long-Run Impact of a Universal ESA Program in Mississippi and found it offers limited value for informing sound public policy. The report bases its projections on evaluations of programs that are not universal ESA models; the programs included in the analyses have substantially different fiscal approaches, including conventional vouchers and approaches that use tax-credits to fund the private-school subsidies. The report also overstates projected benefits while omitting a meaningful analysis of program costs, despite extensive evidence that such initiatives require significant state expenditures. By omitting these costs and relying on dissimilar policy models, the report presents an incomplete and potentially distorted view of the policy’s fiscal and economic impact. As a result, Professor Knight concludes, the report risks misleading state leaders about how best to invest limited education dollars. Any lawmaker treating this report as definitive evidence for advancing a universal ESA proposal risks undermining what should be an informed, evidence-based debate. Legislators should instead examine the broader body of independent research. Find the review, written by David S. Knight, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find Estimating the Long-Run Impact of a Universal ESA Program in Mississippi , authored by Martin Lueken and Michael Q. McShane and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org 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 David S. Knight Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Equal or Fair? A Study of Revenues and Expenditures in American Charter Schools Summary This report is the most comprehensive to date on the question of whether charter schools are inadequately funded compared with traditional public schools. Miron and Urschel find that though charter schools typically do get less funding than traditional public schools, this is primarily because traditional schools have additional obligations including special education, student support services, food and transportation services which charter schools do not provide (or spend less on). Publication Date June 29, 2010 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Gary Miron and Jessica L. Urschel Western Michigan University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich., June 29, 2010 – A new study finds that charter schools typically get less funding than traditional public schools. And it also reveals that the primary reason charters tend to get less funding is because traditional public schools must offer far more special education, transportation and student support services. Spending on those programs and services—often not available in charter schools—accounts for much or all of the difference in funding each receives. This finding is one of several that Professor Gary Miron and his co-author Jessica Urschel make in Equal or Fair? A Study of Revenues and Expenditures in American Charter Schools , released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The study comes amid a growing debate over the question of whether charter schools are inadequately funded compared with traditional public schools. In recent years, numerous charter school advocates have cited the purported funding gap to help explain charter schools' achievement results compared with traditional public schools. Miron and Urshel point out that, compared with traditional public schools, charter schools spend proportionally more on administration – in the percentage of overall spending that goes to administrative costs, as well as in the salaries they pay administrative personnel. Overall, however, charter schools spend less than traditional public schools: less on instruction, less on student support services and less on teacher salaries and benefits. Equal or Fair? is the most comprehensive study to date on the question. It uses data from the U.S. Department of Education on revenue sources and spending patterns of charter schools and traditional public schools and districts across the nation. It also examines patterns across nine different comparison groups, ranging from traditional public schools to various sub-groups of charter schools. "On first appearance, charter schools receive less revenue per pupil ($9,883) than traditional public schools ($12,863)," Miron and Urschel find. Yet, they add, this direct comparison "may be misleading." States vary considerably in the way they channel funds to charter schools. Moreover, public schools provide – and receive funds for – certain services that most charter schools do not provide (or spend far less on) including special education, student support services and transportation and food services. This largely explains the differences in revenues and expenditures for charters compared with traditional schools. "When charter schools and traditional public schools have similar programs and services and when they serve similar students, funding levels should be equal in order to be considered fair," they write. "However, as long as traditional public schools are delivering more programs, serving wider ranges of grades, and enrolling a higher proportion of students with special needs, they will require relatively higher levels of financial support. Under these circumstances, differences or inequality in funding can be seen as reasonable and fair." Find Equal or Fair? A Study of Revenues and Expenditures in American Charter Schools by Gary Miron and Jessica Urschel on the web at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Miron_CharterFunding.htm This policy brief was produced by the Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado and the Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at Arizona State University with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. About The Great Lakes Center 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 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 January 1, 1970 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors 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 School Choice Advocacy Report Plays Regression Modeling Games to Make Its Case Against Public Schools Summary A recent report jointly published by the Reason Foundation and Cato Institute argues that private and charter schools have a strong positive effect on parents’ reported satisfaction with their children's education. Publication Date January 21, 2020 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Corey A. DeAngelis; Steven V. Miller, Clemson University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release School Choice Advocacy Report Plays Regression Modeling Games to Make Its Case Against Public Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report is of little use to policymakers and others with an interest in understanding parent satisfaction associated with school choice. EAST LANSING, MI (January 21, 2020) - A recent report published by Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University, argues that private and charter schools have a strong positive effect on parents' reported satisfaction with their children's education. Steven V. Miller of Clemson University reviewed School Sector and Satisfaction: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Sample , and found critical errors that limit its value to those weighing its policy proposals. The report presents regression analyses purporting to show that choice parents are more satisfied with their schools than are parents whose children attend their local public schools. It then explains this increased parental satisfaction by pointing to competitive pressures and the importance of reducing the monopoly power of the traditional public school system. Its analyses are based on a nationally representative sample from the National Household Education Surveys Program (NHES). However, Professor Miller explains, the report suffers from two major flaws. First, it saturates the important analyses with over 230 covariates. This amounts to a "garbage can" regression modeling approach that obscures more than it illuminates; variables are misspecified and results are sensitive to the oversaturation of the regression model. A reader versed in statistical modeling will have no confidence in the substance of the findings. Second, and even more importantly, the report's decision to focus on just the "very satisfied" overstates the comparative effect of private and charter schools on parent satisfaction. Almost 90% of public school parents are satisfied with their child's education, and the report's decision to focus on just the "very satisfied" appears to be a deliberate modeling choice to overstate the purported effects of private and charter schools on parent satisfaction. This appearance is confirmed by the report's selective use of past research literature, again suggesting an interest in findings that will support advocacy for curtailing the supply of public education. For each of these reasons, the report is of little or no use to policymakers and others with an interest in understanding parent satisfaction associated with school choice. Find the review, by Steven V. Miller, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find School Sector and Satisfaction: Evidence from a Nationally Representative Sample, written by Corey A. DeAngelis and published by the Reason Foundation & Cato Institute, at: https://edworkingpapers.com/sites/default/files/ai19-147.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Steven V. Miller: (864) 656-3233, svmille@clemson.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree and Civic Learning on American Beliefs Summary This report argues that colleges are failing to provide and adequate education in civic knowledge and is also influencing graduates to become less supportive of American values. Publication Date March 17, 2010 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review Authors Gregory J. Marchant, Ball State University 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 Review of Let's Get Ready! Educating All Americans for Success Summary In late July, the National Governors Association released a report urging states to transform schools into stronger drivers of economic competitiveness. The report recommends that governors build public dashboards to track outcomes, align schools with workforce needs, and evaluate programs based on graduates' earnings potential. Publication Date October 14, 2025 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Curriculum & Instruction; School Funding; General / Needs Review; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Ryan Pfleger Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Poorly Reasoned Report Calls for Schools to Drive Economic Competitiveness OCTOBER 14, 2025 Poorly Reasoned Report Calls for Schools to Drive Economic Competitiveness An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: National Governors Association report relies on faulty assumptions, undermining its call for schools to prioritize economic outcomes. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (OCTOBER 14, 2025) - In late July, the National Governors Association released a report urging states to transform schools into stronger drivers of economic competitiveness. The report recommends that governors build public dashboards to track outcomes, align schools with workforce needs, and evaluate programs based on graduates' earnings potential. Education policy researcher Ryan Pfleger reviewed Let's Get Ready! Educating All Americans for Success and found the report's usefulness to be undermined by its unsupported focus on economic competitiveness as the central measure of educational endeavors. The report identifies four "readiness" areas-academic skills, job preparation, civic participation, and lifelong well-being-each justified in terms of future earnings and employer value. While acknowledging the need to move beyond a narrow focus on test scores, the recommendations consistently frame fundamental educational goals, including civic engagement and student well-being, primarily through an economic lens. Dr. Pfleger cautions that this dashboard-governance model could weaken local democratic control, prioritizing workforce training over democratic citizenship, broad human development, and the present well-being of children. Moreover, the report's claims and recommendations are poorly grounded, relying heavily on CEO testimonials and elite convenings, while ignoring a robust body of research showing that high-stakes reward-and-punish accountability schemes fail to meaningfully improve outcomes. Such systems, research warns, often narrow the curriculum and harm teaching. By treating children and teachers as the cause of economic inequality rather than as its victims, the report risks diverting attention from the structural reforms needed to address poverty and wage stagnation. As a result, Let's Get Ready! offers little in the way of useful guidance for genuinely improving schools. Find the review, by Ryan Pfleger, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Let's Get Ready! Educating All Americans for Success, from the National Governors Association, at: https://www.nga.org/letsgetready/ 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 Ryan Pfleger (202) 270-0028 rhpfleger@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Weighted Student funding for California Summary The Reason Foundation, a Libertarian think tank, recently issued a brief on California Gov. Jerry Brown’s school finance reform plan, which endorses Brown’s proposal and then uses it to advance its own ideas for reducing the role of school districts and for giving school principals greater autonomy over spending. Publication Date June 18, 2013 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Authors Dr. Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Weighing in on California School Finance Reform Recent Brief's Argument for ‘Weighted Funding' is Lacking in Evidentiary Support EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 18, 2013) – The Reason Foundation recently issued a brief on California Gov. Jerry Brown's school finance reform plan, which endorses Brown's proposal and then uses it to advance additional preferences. Yet, neither the endorsement of Brown's plan, nor the call for revising it are grounded in any data. Bruce Baker, a school finance expert at Rutgers University, reviewed the brief for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Weighted Student Funding for California , by Lisa Snell of the Reason Foundation, praises Gov. Brown's school finance reform plan, which would replace the state's current school funding system of restricted categorical grants with a system that uses cost adjustment factors tied primarily to students' income and English learner (ELL) status. The report also advocates modifying Brown's proposal, to link the state funds to individual children, so that "money follows the child" regardless of which school he or she is enrolled in. Among other things, this removes spending discretion from school districts and grants a great deal more autonomy to school principals. The report argues that revising Brown's plan in accord with the Reason Foundation's recommendations has the potential to more equitably distribute funding across local public school districts. "Yet no data are presented or evaluated to support these claims," according to Baker, and the report provides little to support its assertions that such system is more equitable, more efficient, or more transparent. "The report instead offers a highly filtered summary of existing literature on the efficacy of weighted student funding for improving educational equity or school quality," Baker writes. "While many would concur that California's funding system is in disrepair, the Reason report offers little precise or valuable guidance for policymakers." Find Bruce Baker's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Weighted Student Funding for California , by Lisa Snell, on the web: http://reason.org/news/show/weighted-student-funding-for-califo Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible with support from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-weighted-student-funding-calif -###- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools: Will the Past be Prologue? Summary Whitehurst and Whitfield attempt to use aggregate findings to make the case that expansion of school choice and school competition in NYC schools is a major factor in increased graduation rates and enhanced performance on state tests of academic achievement. The authors’ recommendations also include calls for more general improvements in instruction, teacher quality, and accountability systems. Publication Date November 19, 2013 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability Authors Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst and Sarah Whitfield; Patricia Burch, University of Southern California Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brookings NYC Choice Study Reviewed The report offers little in the way of useful guidance for policymakers EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 19, 2013) – The New York City public schools demonstrate a valuable source of information to study the impact of recent school reforms and choice policies. A recent study from the Brown Center on Education Policy at Brookings claims that school choice and competition contributed to improved student outcomes on test scores and graduation rates in New York City since 2004. An academic review released today finds that the paper lacks the research evidence to support the claims made. School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools: Will the Past be Prologue , authored by Grover J. Whitehurst and Sarah Whitfield, uses findings from several recent studies to make a case for expansion of school choice and competition in NYC schools. Dr. Patricia Burch of the University of Southern California reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Because of the explosion of charter schools, the closing of schools due to low performance, and other related policy changes that increase competition, NYC's choice and competition initiative is of national significance. New York City saw the number of charter schools increase from 22 in 2003-4 to 159 in 2012-13. Burch finds that the paper is more of an advocacy piece to support school choice rather than research. The review also notes that the original report states that causality cannot be established by existing studies – yet the report's causal inferences make up much of rationale for the expansion of current choice policies. The conclusions of the report are based in part on a pro-choice rating scale also authored by Whitehurst and Whitfield. The report ignores relevant research and selectively presents the data, which has the effect of creating an overly positive picture of the reports referenced. The review notes that discussing the rationale for selecting certain studies over others could strengthen the report. Burch says "The report does not present or evaluate the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the research used to support their arguments, and therefore the report's readers cannot understand the credibility of the evidence without doing further research." The review also finds that many of the report's recommendations are not linked in any way to the analyses presented in the paper. Burch concludes, "The usefulness of this report for both policy and practical purposes is limited by the lack of support provided for the recommendations." The report offers little in the way of useful guidance for policymakers. Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools: Will the Past be Prologue ? http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/10/08-school-choice-and-performance-new-york-city-whitehurst 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 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: Patricia Burch, (213) 740-5946, pburch@usc.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 Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, Final Reports No. 29, 30 & 32 Summary The three reports are among more than 30 produced by the School Choice Demonstration Project, which has conducted a five-year longitudinal growth study of the Milwaukee voucher program. Publication Date April 19, 2012 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Casey Cobb, University of Connecticut 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