< Back The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? Summary This policy brief explores the "common core" standards initiative embraced by the Obama administration as a means for increasing student achievement and ensuring global economic competitiveness. Author William Mathis raises questions about the development of common core standards and provides an overview of the relevant research on this topic. Mathis also includes a series of recommendations for moving forward with the common core standards initiative. Publication Date July 20, 2010 Authors William J. Mathis, Ph.D. University of Colorado at Boulder Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., July 21, 2010—Very little evidence supports the contention that establishing national academic standards for K-12 schools will improve the quality of American public education, and the standards push may distract attention from other vital school reforms, concludes a new policy brief, The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? The brief, authored by William J. Mathis, was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "Without addressing both the in-school and out-of-school influences on test scores, common core standards are not likely to improve the quality and equity of America's public schools," Mathis explains. The Obama administration has embraced "common core" standards and has pressured states to adopt them by stating that federal Title I aid will be withheld from states that do not adopt standards such as those being developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. In addition, states that adopt the standards have a major advantage on their Race to the Top applications. Standards advocates argue that common standards are necessary for keeping the nation competitive in a global economy. But Mathis points out that research does not support this oft-expressed rationale. No studies support a true causal relationship between national standards and economic competitiveness, and at the most superficial level we know that nations with centralized standards generally tend to perform no better (or worse) on international tests than those without. Further, research shows that national economic competitiveness is influenced far more by economic decisions than by test scores. Mathis also raises questions about the rapid development of the common-core standards, the lack of field testing, and the overarching need for any high-stakes consequences to be "valid," pursuant to established professional guidelines. Given these concerns, he says that the prospect of positive effects on educational quality or equality "seems improbable." Find William Mathis's report, The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? on the web at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Mathis_NationalStandards.pdf 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: William J. Mathis – (802) 383-0058; William.Mathis@colorado.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Multiple Shortcomings Mar Report Ranking Michigan High Schools 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 April 29, 2019 Authors Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher M. Saldaña, of the University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (April 30, 2019) — Personalized learning programs are proliferating in schools across the United States, fueled by philanthropic dollars, tech industry lobbying, marketing by third-party vendors, and a policy environment that provides little guidance and few constraints. In Personalized Learning and the Digital Privatization of Curriculum and Teaching , Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar, and Christopher M. Saldaña, of the University of Colorado Boulder, consider how we got to this point. Beginning with an examination of the history of personalized learning and the key assumptions made by its proponents, they review the research evidence and reflect on the roles and possible impacts of the digital technologies deployed by many programs. As the authors explain, these personalized learning products will continue to be aggressively marketed, so policymakers and educators should be prepared to critically evaluate those products and that marketing. They need a clear understanding of the history and evidence if they are to craft appropriate guidelines for personalized learning initiatives. The research brief’s specific findings are alarming. It reveals questionable educational assumptions embedded in influential programs, self-interested advocacy by the technology industry, serious threats to student privacy, and a general lack of research support for personalized learning programs. Despite the many red flags, however, the pressure persists for the adoption of personalized learning programs. States, for example, continue to embrace policies that promote implementation of digital instructional materials but that do little to provide for oversight or accountability. Unless guided by informed policies, linking personalized learning with proprietary software and digital platforms can put important educational decisions in private hands and compromise the privacy of children and their teachers. It can also distort pedagogy in ways that stifle students’ ability to learn and grow as people and as participants in democratic civic life. By emphasizing data collection and analysis over other instructional considerations, digital personalized learning programs inevitably reflect a restricted, hyper-rational approach to curriculum and pedagogy that reduces students’ agency, narrows what they can learn in school, and limits schools’ ability to respond effectively to a diverse student body. Given the current manifest lack of oversight and accountability, the authors recommend that schools and policymakers pause in their efforts to promote and implement personalized learning programs until rigorous review, oversight, and enforcement mechanisms are established. They also recommend that states establish an independent government entity responsible for evaluating the pedagogical approaches, assessment, and data collection embedded in digital personalized learning programs. This new entity should also be responsible for implementing and enforcing safeguards to ensure the security and privacy of student and teacher data. Find Personalized Learning and the Digital Privatization of Curriculum and Teaching , by Faith Boninger, Alex Molnar and Christopher M. Saldaña, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/Boninger-Molnar-Personalized-Learning.pdf This research 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), 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Getting Ahead by Staying Behind: An Evaluation of Florida’s Program to End Social Promotion Summary This Education Next article summarizes the Manhattan’s Institute’s 2004 study, An Evaluation of Florida’s Program to End Social Promotion. The authors analyze the test scores of two third-grade cohorts over the period of one year and conclude that there are major positive effects associated with retention in the program. Publication Date February 22, 2006 Authors Ed Wiley, University of Colorado Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Overstates Impact of Florida Retention Policy, Review Finds October 10, 2006 For Immediate Release Education Research and Practice (248)444-7071 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Derek Briggs, University of Colorado at Boulder (303)492-6320 (e-mail) Derek.Briggs@colorado.edu EAST LANSING, Mich. (Tuesday, Oct. 10, 2006) — A recent Manhattan Institute report which concludes that Florida’s policy of retaining third-grade students based on their scores on a standardized reading test has helped them to improve their reading overstates the effect of retention on student achievement according to a Think Twice review of the report by Derek Briggs of University of Colorado. The report, “Getting Farther Ahead by Staying Behind: A Second-Year Evaluation of Florida’s Policy to End Social Promotion,” by Jay Greene and Marcus Winters reaches findings that “are best described as suggestive and merit further investigation” according to Briggs. In his review, he points out some principal shortcomings which undermine the validity of the report’s conclusions: The Florida policy doesn’t simply ‘retain’ third-graders who fail to achieve the threshold score in the state reading test, in the way the term is commonly understood. In addition to repeating the same grade, Florida’s policy also requires retained students to attend summer school and receive intensive remedial reading instruction. The authors are unable to isolate the effect of repeating the same grade from the effect of attending summer school and of receiving intensive reading instruction. While using methods that appear to be appropriate, the authors “omit important information necessary to understand and evaluate” their statistical models, including important descriptive statistics about the samples of students analyzed in the study. The authors appear to overstate the retention effect that their report estimates. This is due to the way they quantify the magnitude of the results from their statistical analysis. On the issue of other interventions that accompany retention, Briggs says that because Greene and Winters do not isolate effects of retention from those of summer school and intensive reading instruction, it is very difficult to conclude whether retention itself had a positive or negative effect. The report is a follow-up to a 2005 report by Greene and Winters which evaluated the first year of the Florida retention policy. This report was analyzed in a Think Twice review by Ed Wiley who was critical of the report’s methods and findings. Find the 2006 Manhattan Institute report and its review by Derek Briggs and the 2005 report and its review by Ed Wiley at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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 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 Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Realities of K-12 Virtual 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 April 19, 2009 Authors Gene V Glass, Arizona State University Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, MI (April 20, 2009) – K-12 virtual education is becoming increasingly widespread in public education, but concerns remain about the benefits of full-time virtual schools as well as issues of cost, accreditation, evaluation and the increased commercialization of schooling, according to a new policy brief released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The brief, The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education , is by Gene V Glass, regents’ professor of education at Arizona State University. Glass surveys the current research literature on virtual education, examining issues such as the quality of online schooling and attitudes toward it on the part of the public and public officials. The most frequent form of virtual education, Glass writes, is “credit recovery” – online classes that make up for a previously failed course or for a necessary class that could not be scheduled conventionally. Glass reports that three meta-analyses of studies examining virtual education programs have concluded that there was no difference in achievement between students taught through online courses and those taught in traditional, face-to-face classroom settings. These existing studies overwhelmingly concentrated on distance education – online education used, for example, to provide services to students in extremely rural areas – so research should now focus on the newer applications of the model. These earlier studies also “focused on highly structured curricula such as science, math, and reading,” Glass notes. Little is yet known about how well students can learn from virtual courses on “less readily codified subjects” such as art, music or literary interpretation. The development of full-time virtual schooling also raises funding and other political issues, Glass explains. This policy debate tends to be dominated by “the commercial interests of large, private providers of courses and programs,” with public school districts and universities now entering the market. Glass concludes with a series of recommendations made to legislatures, state-level education officials and school boards: Adopt new regulations governing the provision of online K-12 schooling. Call for audits of providers of virtual education to help determine costs. Recognize legitimate accrediting agencies. Require credible assessment and evaluation. Find Gene Glass’s report, The Realities of K-12 Virtual Education , on the Web at http://www.greatlakescenter.org . ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Gene V Glass – (480) 965 2692; glass@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Our Immense Achievement Gap: Embracing Proven Remedies While Avoiding a Race-Based Recipe for Disaster Summary This report claims that desegregation has failed and criticizes efforts to reduce concentrated poverty and achieve racial and socioeconomic integration in schools and housing in Minnesota. Publication Date March 28, 2012 Authors Susan Eaton, Harvard University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review Debunks Desegregation Claims Center for the American Experiment report ignores contradictory research EAST LANSING, Mich (March 29, 2012) – A recent report from the Center for the American Experiment in Minneapolis claims school desegregation has failed. A new review of the report found that it misrepresented proposals criticized and ignored an extensive body of research literature whose findings did not support the report's conclusions. The report, Our Immense Achievement Gap: Embracing Proven Remedies While Avoiding a Race-Based Recipe for Disaster, written by Katherine Kersten , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Susan Eaton, Research Director, Charles Hamilton Houston Institute at Harvard University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Eaton, in her review, found that the report misrepresented and then criticized recommendations from the Minnesota Department of Education, a think tank and two independent study groups, each of which recently encouraged particular voluntary efforts to reduce concentrated poverty and achieve racial and socioeconomic integration in schools and housing in Minnesota. In building its case against the recommendations of these bodies, Eaton writes, the report sets up and attacks two straw men— "busing" and "lawsuits" – neither of which was recommended by the organizations. The author relies heavily on selected research literature to make its arguments but ignores dozens of the most important peer-reviewed research studies that suggest strong relationships between racial, ethnic, economic diversity/desegregation and academic gains, Eaton finds. The report also relies heavily on anecdotes about desegregation policies and funding-equalization efforts in several states. While endorsing accountability-based reforms of the sort implemented in Florida, the report fails to fully explore what is actually known about the results of such policies. Investigations into the programs in Florida strongly suggest that claims of success about the state's accountability measures and teacher-accreditation practices are often unsubstantiated or exaggerated. In attacking the wrong targets, Eaton concludes, the report distracts rather than focuses the attention of policymakers seeking to close the achievement gap. Find Susan Eaton's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Our Immense Achievement Gap: Embracing Proven Remedies While Avoiding a Race-Based Recipe for Disaster , by Katherine Kersten, on the web at: http://www.amexp.org/sites/default/files/article_pdf/Our%20Immense%20Achievement%20Gap%20WEB.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 from funding from 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-immense-achievement-gap --###-- 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: Susan Eaton, (617) 216-6388, seaton@law.harvard.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 Redefining Teacher Pensions. Strategically Defined Benefits for New Teachers and Fiscal Sustainability for All Teacher Effectiveness from Changing Retirement Benefits Buyer Beware: The Risks to Teacher Effectiveness from Changing Retirement Benefits Summary These two reports consider the potential costs and benefits of eliminating traditional defined benefit pension plans for teachers and replacing them with cash-balance plans. Publication Date November 21, 2011 Authors Teresa Ghilarducci, New School for Social Research, Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis Research Areas Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Changing Pension Systems to Attract Best Teachers and Cut Costs Puts Cart before the Horse Two CAP reports raise important issues about pension plan changes, but more research is needed EAST LANSING, MI (November 22, 2011) –The Center for American Progress (CAP) recently released two reports that consider the potential benefits and detriments of scrapping traditional defined benefit pension plans for teachers in favor of cash balance plans. A new review of the reports finds that while they have some limitations, they raise important issues in the face of limited knowledge. The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Teresa Ghilarducci, a nationally recognized expert on pensions and a professor of economics at the New School for Social Research and Director of the Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The two reports examine the potential costs and benefits of defined benefit and cash balance pension plans. One report argues that switching to a cash balance plan might have benefits, while the other warns that this approach would likely end up costing more and creating incentives for the exit of peak-performance teachers from the profession. Both reports, however, conclude that current teachers' benefits should not be cut and that, if states convert to a cash-balance plan, they should maintain average pension benefits and strive to not cut benefit costs. Ghilarducci notes that both reports have their merits and both acknowledge the relatively scant research that currently exists on the questions they raise. She concludes, "These two reports are valuable contributions, not so much because of the proposals they set forth but as flags for the complicated and sometimes counter-productive effects of many current proposals." Find Teresa Ghilarducci's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the CAP report, Redefining Teacher Pensions. Strategically Defined Benefits for New Teachers and Fiscal Sustainability for All , by Raegan T. Miller, on the web at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/redefining_teacher_pensions.html . Find the CAP report, Buyer Beware: The Risks to Teacher Effectiveness from Changing Retirement Benefits , by Christian Weller on the web at: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2011/09/buyer_beware.html 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-redefining-teacher-pensions . --###-- 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: Teresa Ghilarducci: (212) 229-5901; Teresa.ghilarducci@gmail.com 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 Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands Department of Education Reform (DER) at the University of Arkansas Summary The authors of the report claim large and growing inequities between district funding provided through state, local, federal and other sources and charter school revenues from those same sources, even after accounting for differences in student needs. Publication Date May 19, 2014 Authors Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay F. May, Sheree T. Speakman, Patrick J. Wolf, Albert Cheng; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review of Charter School Funding Report Finds Major Flaws Policymakers should ignore highly flawed report seeking more taxpayer funds for charter schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 20 2014) – A report from the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform (DER) proclaims large and growing school funding inequities between school district and charter school revenues. The report contends that charter schools are severely disadvantaged relative to traditional local public schools in terms of the revenue they receive. A new academic review of the report finds the report to be of little use for informing public policy and illustrates the problem of attempting to compare "all revenues" between local public district and charter schools. Bruce Baker, Rutgers University, reviewed the report 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. The report, Charter School Funding: Inequity Expands , written by Meagan Batdorff, Larry Maloney, Jay F. May, Sheree T. Speakman, Patrick J. Wolf, and Albert Cheng, was published by the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. The authors of the report claim large and growing inequities between district funding provided through state, local, federal and other sources and charter school revenues from those same sources, even after accounting for differences in student needs. In his review, Baker finds that the report has one overarching flaw that invalidates all of its findings and conclusions, "the report displays complete lack of understanding of intergovernmental fiscal relationships, which results in the blatantly erroneous assignment of ‘revenues' between charters and district schools." Baker further states that the report ignores district funding that passes through district schools to charter schools in most states. The report also has several smaller shortcomings: (1) it suffers from alarmingly vague documentation; and (2) the report constructs entirely inappropriate comparisons of student population characteristics. In his review, Baker applies concrete numbers to three jurisdictions and finds miscalculations coupled with other inaccuracies. The serious flaws in the Charter School Funding report invalidate its conclusions and any subsequent return-on-investment comparisons claiming they're a better deal because they receive less funding and yet perform as well if not better than traditional public schools. In conclusion, Baker says "The Charter Funding report reviewed herein fails to meet either the most basic standards of data quality and comparability or methodological rigor. It is therefore unwise to use it to inform charter school policy." Find Bruce Baker's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter Funding: Inequity Expands on the web: http://www.uaedreform.org/charter-funding-inequity-expands/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible with support from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Representation of Social Groups in U.S. Educational Materials and Why It Matters Summary New America recently released a report about the value of culturally relevant curriculum in schools. According to a new review, the report is timely and helpful, although some limitations in its analysis weaken an otherwise valid exploration of how to address long-standing issues of racial and gender justice. Publication Date February 7, 2022 Authors Amanda LaTasha Armstrong; Christine Sleeter, California State University, Monterey Bay Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Shows Curriculum Matters in Increasingly Diverse Classrooms An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Despite some shortcomings, report draws needed attention to the importance of culturally relevant curriculum. EAST LANSING, MI (February 8, 2022) - New America recently released a report about the value of culturally relevant curriculum in schools. According to a new review, the report is timely and helpful, although some limitations in its analysis weaken an otherwise valid exploration of how to address long-standing issues of racial and gender justice. Christine Sleeter of California State University, Monterey Bay, reviewed New America's Representation of Social Groups in U.S. Educational Materials and Why it Matters . The report synthesizes research studies that analyze representation of diverse groups in curriculum materials, particularly children's literature. It finds an underrepresentation of minoritized racial/ethnic groups and females, very little attention to nonbinary and LGBTQ characters, and very little analysis of characters with multiple identities. The report concludes that many students consequently lose the opportunity to see themselves in curriculum and to learn about minoritized Americans who differ from themselves. The report provides helpful resources, according to Professor Sleeter. But she also flags some weaknesses. First, it concentrates narrowly on character representation in literature; it gives little attention to questions pertinent to other subject areas, such as history. It is also limited by relying as much on non-peer-reviewed as on peer-reviewed studies. Finally, it misses opportunities to connect culturally relevant curriculum with student academic learning, connect gender with culturally relevant education, or reveal how cultures of power (white and male) are represented in curriculum. Despite these limitations, Professor Sleeter continues, the overall validity of the report's conclusions remains intact. Taken as a whole, the report draws needed attention to the importance of cultural relevance of curriculum materials. Find the review, by Christine Sleeter, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Representation of Social Groups in U.S. Educational Materials and Why It Matters , written by Amanda LaTasha Armstrong and published by New America, at: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/reports/the-representation-of-social-groups-in-u-s-educational-materials-and-why-it-matter/ 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: https://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: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Christine Sleeter: (831) 915-3876, csleeter@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Choice and Accountability 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 February 29, 2008 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A review of two reports on early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation. Summary Two recent reports examined the current state of early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation at the university and community college levels. Both reports raise awareness about the challenges facing the ECE workforce. A new review out today finds both reports to be mostly sound and useful, although some limitations in research and length were identified. Publication Date May 7, 2018 Authors Marnie Kaplan / Emily Workman, Lisa Guernsey, and Sara Mead; Adam Winsler, George Mason University Research Areas Early Childhood; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Two reports focused on teacher prep for early childhood education mostly sound, useful EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 8, 2018) – Two recent reports examined the current state of early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation at the university and community college levels. A new review out today finds both reports to be mostly sound and useful, although some limitations in research and length were identified. Adam Winsler , George Mason University, reviewed both reports for the Think Twice think thank project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The first report reviewed by Winsler was, It Takes a Community: Leveraging Community College Capacity to Transform the Early Childhood Workforce , from Bellwether Education Partners . He also reviewed New America's Pre-K Teachers and Bachelor's Degrees: Envisioning Equitable Access to High-Quality Preparation Programs . Winsler writes that both reports raise awareness about the challenges facing the ECE workforce. In his review, Winsler also finds both reports to be valid and reasonable, although he notes that Bellwether's report is more comprehensive than the shorter one from New America . He says the New America report is "too short and rather awkward in presentation, which limits its effectiveness." According to the review, the reports rely on thank tank white papers instead of peer-reviewed journal publications. However, the analyses appear to Winsler to be sound and the conclusions and recommendations were reasonable and supported by the limited data available. He concludes, "these reports summarize key policy issues that are currently being discussed at multiple levels in the ECE policy community. Figuring out how best to ensure that our preschoolers are receiving high-quality educational and developmental appropriate experiences at ages 3 and 4 is high on the list of priorities for many." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the Bellwether report here: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_CommunityCollege_JPK_Final.pdf Find the New America report here: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/pre-k-teachers-and-bachelors-degrees/ 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/ Contact: Adam Winsler, (571) 221-9124, awinsler@gmu.edu Great Lakes Center, (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Charter Schools: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education Summary This report summarizes evidence from five studies of student achievement in popular urban charter schools and two studies on charter school revenues and combines it with the authors' judgment and experience to make recommendations regarding the federal role in charter schools. Publication Date January 19, 2011 Authors Gary Miron, Western Michigan University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Brookings Report too Flawed to Guide Federal Policy on Charter Schools January 20, 2011 Report misstates financial issues and omits extensive body of research EAST LANSING, Mich. (January 20, 2011) – A review of the Brookings Institution report, Charter Schools: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education finds that it relies on a limited body of research, misstates key issues and makes some recommendations not supported by the evidence. The review, by Western Michigan University professor Gary Miron, 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. The Brookings report consists of a summary of evidence from five studies of student achievement in oversubscribed charter schools, plus two studies about charter school revenues. It also draws on information from exchanges between the six co-authors at a day-long Brookings conference. It ends with recommendations intended to help shape the federal role in charter school policy. The evidence presented on student achievement suggests that charter schools are more effective at raising student achievement in popular urban charter schools. The evidence presented on revenues suggests that charter schools are short-changed in terms of the funding they receive. Miron points out that the five studies of student achievement in oversubscribed charter schools cited in the report, "cannot validly be generalized to less-popular charter schools." Overall, the research on charter student achievement is much less positive. Even more troubling, he finds that the two studies on charter school funding cited in the report are used to justify recommendations that are "poorly developed and based on a narrow and misleading view of the evidence." Miron criticizes the Brookings report for unquestioningly accepting the assertion by charter advocates that charter schools get some 20% less per pupil in public revenues than traditional public schools. In truth, he explains, "differences in revenues can largely be explained by higher spending by traditional public schools for special education, student support services, transportation, and food services." Moreover, there is great variation within the charter sector. Contrary to the Brookings recommendation, Miron concludes, "Recommendations regarding charter school finance should be targeted at the creation of better state funding formulas that are more sensitive to the diverse programs schools offer and the diverse needs of students that schools serve." As a result of the shortcomings of its data and analyses, the report's recommendations related to charter school facilities and charter school finance inappropriately support policies intended to expand the number of charter schools in the short run at the expense of policies that will strengthen charter schools in the longer run. The report is on stronger ground, Miron finds, in three areas: its call for the federal government to support and encourage the collection of more data and for charter school lotteries to be overseen by independent agencies; its proposal to set aside a portion of federal charter school funding for charter school authorizers and to make federal charter school funding contingent on rigorous oversight; and its call for a careful examination of unintended consequences in existing federal regulations on charter schools. In the end, Miron says, federal policies that will strengthen charter schools in the long run "need to be based on a more representative body of evidence and a process of formulating recommendations that includes more voices and more than a day of conversations." Find Gary Miron's review and a link to the Brookings Institute report on the Great Lakes Center website 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 think tank publications. The project is made possible in part by the generous 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-charter-federal . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Gary Miron: (269) 387-3883 or gary.miron@wmich.edu Teri Battaglieri: (517) 203-2940 or greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Hidden Value of Curriculum Reform: Do States and Districts Receive the Most Bang for their Curriculum Buck? Summary The Center for American Progress (CAP) issued a recent report that drew on bold conclusions about the high payoff of better textbooks. The report claimed that, compared to other reforms, a switch to better textbooks was a cost-efficient way to improve student achievement. The report pointed to very real problems with textbook adoption, including poor alignment with standards. It also made strong claims about the payoff of schools’ investment in high-quality curriculum materials. Publication Date November 18, 2015 Authors Ulrich Boser, Matthew Chingos, and Chelsea Straus; Sarah Lubienski, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Universal preschool report unhelpful, misleading, a review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 12, 2015) – A new Brookings Institution project called "Evidence Speaks" claims in a recent report that advocates exaggerate unmet need as well as the cost of universal pre-kindergarten. Unfortunately, an academic review of the report released today finds the report vastly underestimates unmet need and costs. According to the review, both estimates are based on serious factual errors and unfounded assumptions. The report, Do We Already Have Universal Preschool? , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Steven Barnett, director of the National Institute for Early Education Research (NIEER) at Rutgers University. Think Twice is a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report estimates that 69 percent of all four-year-olds already attend preschool and that universal access tops out at 80 percent enrollment. However, in his review, Barnett finds that the report vastly underestimates unmet need as well as the costs (estimated at $2 to $4 billion per year). Additionally, the report also fails to account for issues of quality. According to Barnett, access for four-year-olds to high quality preschool (as opposed to attendance in any preschool classroom, no matter the quality) is actually under 25 percent, not 69 percent. Barnett also points out that high quality universal pre-kindergarten could enroll more than 90 percent, not 80 percent, of children. Regarding the overall usefulness of the report, Barnett determines, "The report's conclusions regarding needs and the costs to meet them are invalid and misleading, and it should not be used as a basis for policymaking." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Do We Already Have Universal Preschool? on the web: http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/research/files/papers/2015/09/evidence-speaks/evidence-speaks-report-vol1.pdf 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: W. Steven Barnett, (848) 932-4350, sbarnett@nieer.org Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 240-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More