< Back Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education Summary The brief examines the tension that has often arisen between the desire to link learning to post-high-school work and the desire to avoid low academic expectations for students perceived as unlikely to attend college. The brief’s authors explore the question of how schools might meaningfully support career exploration and preparation, while avoiding the tendency of prior vocational education to disproportionately sort students into distinct tracks by ethnic, racial, and/or socioeconomic characteristics. Publication Date February 23, 2020 Authors Emily Hodge, Montclair State University; Shaun Dougherty, Vanderbilt University; Dr. Carol Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Emily Hodge : (973) 655-3698, hodgee@montclair.edu Shaun Dougherty : (615) 322-1894, shaun.dougherty@vanderbilt.edu Evolution of Career and Technical Education: How to Connect School to Work but Avoid Past Mistakes A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: As the popularity of CTE grows, so does the need to ensure that it avoids stratification of the past. EAST LANSING, Mich. (February 25, 2020) — In one of the few bipartisan applause lines of his January State of the Union address, President Trump asked Congress to support his “plan to offer vocational and technical education in every single high school in America.” This bipartisan support for Career and Technical Education (CTE) is also seen in state houses and school districts throughout the US. But despite the popularity of CTE, concerns remain about the availability of resources for different CTE pathways, their relative status, and the degree to which adults working within schools are problematically sorting students explicitly or implicitly into different course-taking pathways. February is Career and Technical Education Month, a time to better understand CTE education. Accordingly, NEPC today is releasing a policy brief, Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education , authored by Professors Emily Hodge of Montclair State University and Shaun Dougherty of Vanderbilt University, and Dr. Carol Burris, Executive Director of the Network for Public Education. The brief examines the tension that has often arisen between the desire to link learning to post-high-school work and the desire to avoid low academic expectations for students perceived as unlikely to attend college. The brief’s authors explore the question of how schools might meaningfully support career exploration and preparation, while avoiding the tendency of prior vocational education to disproportionately sort students into distinct tracks by ethnic, racial, and/or socioeconomic characteristics. After summarizing the history of vocational education and its relation to tracking, the brief describes how vocational education evolved into CTE, which has emerged as a variety of school-based efforts as also described in the brief. The authors conclude with recommendations for enacting CTE in ways that support the equitable distribution of educational opportunity: In whole-school models of CTE, school and district leaders should monitor enrollment at the school and program levels by student subgroups to ensure equitable access. In comprehensive high schools, administrators should build a schedule that allows for participation in CTE electives without de facto tracking of students. Students should have access to a broad variety of coursework with minimal or no levels within subjects. School district and state policymakers must ensure equitable distribution of resources across schools and for students across districts to avoid de facto tracking of specific subgroups of students into specific careers. To avoid mistakes of the past that replicated social stratification, researchers should carefully monitor the racial, ethnic, and socioeconomic patterns of CTE in all of its forms. Find Tracking and the Future of Career and Technical Education: How Efforts to Connect School and Work Can Avoid the Past Mistakes of Vocational Education, by Emily Hodge, Shaun Dougherty, and Carol Burris, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice (greatlakescenter.org). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

< Back Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders Summary This report from the Center on American Progress, proposes a range of state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. This report from the Center on American Progress, proposes a range of state policies for improving principal effectiveness and student achievement. Publication Date January 9, 2012 Authors Margaret Terry Orr, Bank Street College of Education Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Center for American Progress Report on School Leadership is Poorly Researched and Misleading, says New Review Report on improving school principals' preparation ignores data, common practices, and common policies EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 10, 2012) – A new review of a recent report that proposes a range of state policies designed to make school principals more effective ignores existing research on the subject, lacks evidence for the approaches it advocates, and sidesteps both state and professional policies that directly address the sorts of problems it purports to remedy. The Center for American Progress (CAP) report, Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Margaret Terry Orr, a professor at Bank Street College of Education and director of the College's Future School Leaders Academy. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Gateways to the Principalship focuses on policies concerning the preparation, licensure and retention of school principals. The report identifies eight states it considers "lagging" and eight it considers "leading," asserting that the "leading" states employ practices that the "lagging" states and others like them should adopt in order to improve the performance of school principals. The lagging states are Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Texas, and Washington. The leading states are Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Louisiana, New York, Rhode Island, and Tennessee. Professor Orr's review finds that the report makes assertions without evidence and arguments without foundation. Further, she writes, the report appears to be unaware of scholarship and common practices on the subject it seeks to address. Particularly glaring omissions include not using policy-related reports from the Wallace Foundation (not referenced), the Education Commission of the States (not referenced), and the National Conference of State Legislators (referenced but never used), each of which have in various ways addressed how to improve school leadership. Each of these has also taken note of what policymakers are actually doing to improve the education of principals. Further, the report's identification of 16 focus states is never adequately explained. It does not define what it means when it labels eight states as "lagging" in their eligibility requirements for candidates admitted to principal-preparation programs. Similarly, it selects eight "leading" states in this area for their adoption of other policies the report's authors favor, yet it never compares the two groups of states on similar types of policies. "Very little in the way of supporting data is presented to justify [the report's] claims," Orr writes. For example, of the sources cited, only one is from a peer-reviewed journal; the rest are from organizations and foundations whose claims and assertions are often weakly supported and poorly argued—yet are accepted uncritically in the CAP report. "The report has little utility for policy or practice," Orr concludes. Instead, she writes, it merely "distracts from more relevant and potent policy strategies to improve leadership preparation." Find Margaret Terry Orr's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Gateways to the Principalship: State Power to Improve the Quality of School Leaders by Gretchen Rhines Cheney and Jacquelyn Davis on the web at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/10/principalship.html . Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-gateways-principalship . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Margaret Terry Orr, 212-875-4546, morr@bankstreet.edu Teri Battaglieri: (248) 444-7071; tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts Summary The report relies primarily on school district annual capital outlay data reported in the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data. It also examines which state policies may promote more progressive investment patterns. Confirming other studies, the report finds that school district capital expenditures vary from year to year and from state to state, that each state has a unique approach and mix of policies governing state support for local capital outlay, and that capital outlay is rarely equal or progressive. The report also finds that states with policies that aim to equalize capital spending are more likely to provide capital outlays for students from low-income backgrounds that are equal to or greater than outlays in wealthier communities. Publication Date April 19, 2023 Authors Kristin Blagg, Fanny Terrones, and Victoria Nelson; Jeffrey M. Vincent, University of California, Berkeley Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Solid Report Examines Expansion of Federal Facilities Funding for Public School Equity An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The Urban Institute report's recommendations provide useful insights for how state and federal policy can move toward more progressive capital funding approaches. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 20, 2023) - State and local governments invest a great deal in the infrastructure of the nearly 100,000 schools across the U.S., encompassing about 8.1 billion gross square feet of buildings. Yet recent years have seen a recognition that expanded federal funding will be needed to address shortfalls and inequities. To that end, the Urban Institute recently released Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts , which analyzes equity patterns of school capital investment. In a review , Jeffrey M. Vincent of the University of California, Berkeley concludes that the report's findings and recommendations are strong and well-supported. The report relies primarily on school district annual capital outlay data reported in the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data. It also examines which state policies may promote more progressive investment patterns. Confirming other studies, the report finds that school district capital expenditures vary from year to year and from state to state, that each state has a unique approach and mix of policies governing state support for local capital outlay, and that capital outlay is rarely equal or progressive. The report also finds that states with policies that aim to equalize capital spending are more likely to provide capital outlays for students from low-income backgrounds that are equal to or greater than outlays in wealthier communities. These findings are all well-supported, and the report's recommendations, including increasing funding, accounting for student economic need, and continuing assessment on building quality, provide useful insights for state and federal policy that will promote more progressive capital spending. Find the review, by Jeffrey M. Vincent, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3133&type=think_twice Find Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts , written by Kristin Blagg, Fanny Terrones, and Victoria Nelson and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/assessing-national-landscape-capital-expenditures-public-school-districts NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank-reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Jeffrey M. Vincent: (510) 593-3067, jvincent@berkeley.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

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

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

< Back Ten Years in New Orleans: Public School Resurgence and the Path Ahead Summary A report published by Public Impact and New Schools for New Orleans attempted to review 10 years of education reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans, and the creation of a “portfolio model.” The report argued that the reform experiment has been an unquestioned success, and other cities should duplicate efforts. Overall, the report lays out a grand vision for the future of public education in New Orleans, which was described by the authors as “America’s first great urban public school system.” It is organized into six themes: governance, schools, talent, equity, community, and funders. Publication Date October 20, 2015 Authors Christen Holly, Tim Field, Juli Kim, Bryan C. Hassel, Maggie Runyan-Shefa, Michael Stone, and Davis Zaunbrecher; Adrienne D. Dixson, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release NOLA report does little to accurately inform, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Oct. 21, 2015) – A report published by Public Impact and New Schools for New Orleans attempted to review 10 years of education reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans, and the creation of a "portfolio model." The report argued that the reform experiment has been an unquestioned success, and other cities should duplicate efforts. However, an academic review of the report finds that the report does little to accurately inform policymakers or practitioners about the current state of public education in New Orleans or the viability of "portfolio" districts. Adrienne D. Dixson, associate professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, reviewed Ten Years in New Orleans: Public School Resurgence and the Path Ahead for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Overall, the report lays out a grand vision for the future of public education in New Orleans, which was described by the authors as "America’s first great urban public school system." It is organized into six themes: governance, schools, talent, equity, community, and funders. Dixson, whose research focuses on how issues of race, class, and gender intersect and impact educational equity in urban school contexts, found multiple weaknesses that limit the usefulness of the report. In her review, Dixson highlights that the report exaggerates improvements, while downplaying the ways in which the enacted reforms exacerbated inequities in New Orleans. She also notes that the report erroneously presents the reforms as a result of a logical and apolitical process. In reviewing the validity of the findings, Dixson says, "The report does not present original or empirical research but bases its claims on advocacy publications that have not been peer-reviewed, and newspaper articles that primarily accept the claims made by vested interest reformers." Dixson further finds fault with the data referenced in the report, which has not been made readily available to researchers, community members, or the press, making the claims difficult to verify. In her conclusion, Dixson highlights the omission of research from the report as a serious concern, "The research that the report excludes tells a different and far more troubling story about the reforms in New Orleans." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report on the web: http://www.newschoolsforneworleans.org/education-in-nola/10-years-of-reform/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Adrienne D. Dixson, (217) 244-4741, addixson@illinois.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment Summary A report from the Brookings Institution uses international examples to make the case for the importance of “21st century skills” as goals for education systems. It focuses specifically on the development of new assessment methods as a primary means to help countries integrate these 21st century skills – such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and communication – into curricular reforms. Publication Date April 1, 2019 Authors Lorrie Shepard, of the University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Curriculum & Instruction; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Release: Otherwise Valuable Report about Assessment of 21st Century Skills Neglects Discipline-Specific Considerations An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report highlights the importance of 21st century skills internationally but presumes a domain-general approach to teaching and assessment of those skills. EAST LANSING, MI (April 2, 2019) - A report from the Brookings Institution uses international examples to make the case for the importance of “21st century skills” as goals for education systems. It focuses specifically on the development of new assessment methods as a primary means to help countries integrate these 21st century skills – such as critical thinking, problem solving, collaboration, and communication – into curricular reforms. Lorrie Shepard, of the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment . Professor Shepard found the report very useful if the reader understands that it tells only part of the story. The report is a review of research and a policy analysis rather than an empirical study. Its main contributions are (a) the identification of three challenges to implementing a 21st century skills agenda, and (b) the organization of key ideas and research to possibly address these challenges. A major limitation of the report, however, is its presumption of a domain-general approach to teaching and assessment of 21st century skills. The report does not acknowledge the possibility of, nor does it consider supporting evidence for, adopting discipline-specific contexts for the development of 21st century capabilities. Yet extensive reviews of research from the cognitive and learning sciences explain the benefit of jointly developing deep understandings of content along with participatory and thinking competencies. Although such discipline-specific curricula and learning progressions create problems for large-scale comparative assessments that cross curricular jurisdictions, policymakers need help addressing this dilemma explicitly. This is because discipline-specific approaches are better for teaching and deep learning but problematic when attempting to develop large-scale international assessments, and possibly even national assessments. Find the review, by Lorrie Shepard, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Shepard-Assessment.htm Find Education System Alignment for 21st Century Skills: Focus on Assessment , written by Esther Care, Helyn Kim, Alvin Vista, & Kate Anderson, and published by The Brookings Institution, at: https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Education-system-alignment-for-21st-century-skills-012819.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Lorrie Shepard: (303) 492-2711, Lorrie.Shepard@Colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service Summary This report urges American educators to look to an English system of school inspections as a means of assessing schools and as a tool for better understanding and improving student achievement. Publication Date February 27, 2012 Authors Steven Jay Gross, Temple University Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Education Sector report promoting U.K. school inspections not useful for crafting policy in the United States EAST LANSING, Mich (February 28, 2012) – A recent report from Education Sector urges American educators to look to an English system of school inspections as a means of assessing schools and as a tool for better understanding and improving student achievement. A new review of that report finds that it lacks any research base and has little to offer any discussions of education reform in the United States. The report, On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service , by Craig D. Jerald, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Steven Jay Gross of Temple University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Jerald's report offers an outline of the English inspection system, the rubrics it uses to judge teaching, the characteristics of inspectors, and the potential costs of implementing such a system in this country. These descriptions may be useful to many readers in introducing the approach. What the report doesn't offer, according to Gross, is any research to support the efficacy of the approach – or, for that matter, to demonstrate any faults it might have. He writes: No research questions are posed and few examples from the extensive literature on English school inspections are offered, thereby excluding scholarship that is critical of the inspection process or of the concept of the inspection service itself. Lacking any research questions or research-based evidence to analyze, Gross points out that the report is ineffective in three key areas: Building the case for the English inspection system Alerting readers to challenges to that system Illuminating the evaluation of quality teaching under the system In the end, Gross writes, the report leaves many relevant questions unasked and unanswered. Find Steven Gross's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find On Her Majesty's School Inspection Service , by Craig D. Jerald, on the web at: http://www.educationsector.org/sites/default/files/publications/UKInspections-RELEASED.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-on-her-majestys . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Steven Jay Gross, (215) 204-8064, sgross02@temple.edu Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Guide to Contracting Out School Support Services: Good for the School? Good for the Community? Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date March 30, 2008 Authors William J. Mathis, Ph.D., Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union Lorna Jimerson, Ed. D., Champlain Valley Union High School Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Urges Caution for Schools Contracting Out Support Services Outsourcing could save money, but it often costs more and can have negative effects on schools and communities EAST LANSING, Mich., (March 31, 2008)—Should transportation, food and custodial services be provided by employees of school districts, or should those services by outsourced to private companies? Does contracting out these services save the district money and add flexibility? According to a new report that takes an honest look at the evidence, the answer to each of these questions is, “sometimes, but many times not.” The report, A Guide to Contracting Out School Support Services: Good for the School? Good for the Community?, was funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice and was written by Drs. William J. Mathis and Lorna Jimerson. The authors are both experienced school administrators. Mathis, an adjunct associate professor of school finance at the University of Vermont, is superintendent of schools for the Rutland Northeast Supervisory Union in Brandon, Vermont, and Jimerson, a former policy analyst with the Rural School and Community Trust, is a member of the school board for Vermont’s Champlain Valley Union High School and previous president of the Vermont School Boards Association. The policy brief is based on a review of research and commentary on the practice of contracting out support services and includes a series of recommendations directed at school administrators and school board members. Arguments for contracting out such services are many. Advocates view outside contractors as more likely to deliver their services at lower cost due to competition. Firms that specialize in a particular service, such as transportation or food, might enjoy economies of scale, with after-profit savings passed on to the school district and its taxpayers. Additionally, contractors might provide high-quality services as experts in their field. Mathis and Jimerson do not issue blanket praise or a blanket condemnation of contracting out. Instead, they point out that evidence is decidedly mixed on whether the practice necessarily saves schools money or otherwise offers improvements over having support services performed in house. For example, Mathis and Jimerson write, “Cost cutting is not a certain outcome,” pointing to case studies of contracting out vehicle or highway maintenance in Albany, N.Y., and in Massachusetts found costs increased by as much as 20 percent. Moreover, they contend, even when schools and school districts can save money by contracting out services, the practice can have mixed effects. These ramifications may complicate the decision of whether contracting out is the best solution for any particular school or district. Contracting out can result in hidden costs that reduce or eliminate whatever savings are promised. The practice can also result in problems with quality control, in greater demands on administrators who face the task of monitoring contracts, in the loss of control and restricted flexibility an outside contract may impose, and in social costs to communities in which schools operate, such as lower wages and reduced or eliminated benefits when contractors take over certain services. Mathis and Jimerson offer a series of recommendations aimed at schools and districts that are still deciding whether to contract out services. Other recommendations are aimed at schools and districts that have already decided to do so. Among other things the recommendations call on school officials to closely examine contracting out decisions and the details of proposed contracts. They conclude, “It is the requirement of school leaders to take a broad, expansive and careful look when considering these decisions.” The full policy brief is available at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: William J. Mathis (802) 247-5757; (email) WMathis@sover.net Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Private Schooling in the U.S.: Expenditures, Supply, and Policy Implications Summary This policy brief makes the case for schools across the country to put an end to policies that cast off students into unchallenging, low-track classrooms. The authors recommend a clear process for the phasing out of curricular stratification in grades K-10, beginning with the lowest track and granting meaningful access to AP and IB courses to all students. The brief includes model statutory language to implement its recommendations. Publication Date August 17, 2009 Authors Bruce D. Baker Rutgers University Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., December 14, 2009 – Students will achieve what you expect of them. That's what a new policy brief on "ability grouping" shows in a groundbreaking analysis of three case studies. In each, schools saw significant strides in student achievement by eliminating tracks, which pigeonholed certain students into less challenging classes. Researchers have long denounced the practice of "ability grouping," but until recently, little research had documented the elements of successful reform. Authored by Dr. Carol Corbett Burris and Professor Kevin Welner and released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, the brief draws on three case studies: a school (a San Diego charter), a school district (in Long Island, NY), and a nation (Finland) that have promoted high levels of student achievement by abolishing curricular stratification. The brief also provides concrete recommendations for reform, followed by model statutory language to implement the report's recommendations, written by attorney Jennifer Weiser Bezoza, the Director of Legal and Policy Analysis at Children's Voices. "The educational leaders described in this brief rejected curricular stratification because it has been shown to exacerbate the societal or natural disadvantages suffered by many children," Burris and Welner say. "These leaders realized that when students who experience difficulty are provided with an inferior curriculum, they are certain to fall farther behind. In contrast, the high-quality heterogeneously grouped schools they created give all students access to the best curriculum and an academic support system that helps ensure that they take advantage of it. These schools hold clear lessons for leaders of other schools, where students are still stratified into tracks. Detracking provides a realistic and proven pathway to academic excellence grounded in true equity." Burris and Welner recommend a clear process for the phasing out of curricular stratification from grades K through 10, beginning with the lowest track and granting meaningful access to Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) courses to all students throughout the reform process. They also describe the supports needed for schools, educators, and students as they create non-tracked schools. The recommendations are spelled out in specific model legislative provisions. Find the brief, "Universal Access to a Quality Education: Research and Recommendations for the Elimination of Curricular Stratification" on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Carol Corbett Burris – (516) 599-0839; burriscarol@gmail.com Kevin Welner – (303) 492-8370; kevin.welner@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More