< Back Fixing the Morass of Special Education Funding 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 June 25, 2019 Research Areas School Funding Authors Tammy Kolbe, University of Vermont Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 25, 2019) — Today's challenges for special education funding are rooted in a complex regulatory and policy environment that reflects little forethought about who can and will pay special education costs. Despite the fact that states and school districts are legally required to ensure a free and appropriate public education to students with disabilities – as a condition of accepting federal funding – the federal government does little to fund the special education that students with disabilities receive. This places the overwhelming burden on states and localities to implement and pay for special education programs. The result is a diffuse funding system in which almost all states fail to provide enough funding to cover the cost of special education in their local districts. In a brief released today by the National Education Policy Center, Tammy Kolbe of the University of Vermont examines the complex – and largely incoherent – policy framework that creates this precarious system for funding special education. Funding Special Education: Charting a Path that Confronts Complexity and Crafts Coherence describes how increased federal funding should be packaged with a new framework for federal policy that would establish a fair and effective system for funding special education. Professor Kolbe provides specific and immediate steps for federal policymakers, with the goal of moving the country closer to a new, more coherent national policy framework grounded in thoughtful consideration of what special education should cost, who should pay the costs, and how best to align funding models with policy goals for identifying and providing appropriate educational opportunities for children with disabilities. Find Funding Special Education: Charting a Path that Confronts Complexity and Crafts Coherence , by Tammy Kolbe, at: http://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), 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 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 20, 2011 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Gary Miron, Western Michigan University 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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Do Choice Policies Segregate Schools? Summary Despite advocates advancing the notion that integration can be promoted by increased school choice, a new brief considers the research evidence of those policies. The concise brief concludes that while choice policies may be designed and implemented in ways intended to advance integration; the result has been increased stratification. The National Education Policy Center published the brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Publication Date March 31, 2016 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors William Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Concise brief considers school choice policies and segregation EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 31, 2016) – Despite advocates advancing the notion that integration can be promoted by increased school choice, a new brief released today considers the research evidence of those policies. The concise brief concludes that while choice policies may be designed and implemented in ways intended to advance integration; the result has been increased stratification. As a part of a new series of short, concise policy briefs produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss whether school choice policies actually segregate schools. The compendium of briefs is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In Do Choice Policies Segregate Schools? , Mathis and Welner describe the impact of choice policies on segregation in schools. The authors contend that while some choice school enrollments are integrated, the research literature documents an "unsettling degree of segregation – particularly in charter schools." This is the fourth part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. The authors investigate the impact of school choice through four lenses: (1) race and ethnicity; (2) poverty; (3) dual language learners; and (4) students with disabilities. They conclude, "Even without school choice, America's schools would be shockingly segregated, in part because of housing policies and school district boundaries. School choice policies that do not have sufficient protections against unconstrained, segregative choices do exacerbate the problem." As part of the brief, Mathis and Welner provide a list of research-based recommendations for policymakers to advance desegregation in order to provide educational opportunities for all students. Find the brief on the GLC website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options_2015.php This concise brief is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, and is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Some Assembly Required: How a More Flexible Learning Ecosystem Can Better Serve All Kids and Unlock Innovation Summary A report from Bellwether details what its authors call "assembly-based education," a concept described as a hypothetical ecosystem that removes schools as a central education component. A review of the report exposes this concept as unworkable outside of a miraculous private marketplace, and thus a shortsighted attempt to invalidate public schools. Publication Date November 8, 2022 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Juliet Squire and Alex Spurrier; Carrie Sampson, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Advocates for "Assembly-Based" School Choice to Address Inequity An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Misleading report argues that schools should no longer be positioned as a central education component. EAST LANSING, MI (November 8, 2022) - A report from Bellwether details what its authors call "assembly-based education," a concept described as a hypothetical ecosystem that removes schools as a central education component. A review of the report exposes this concept as unworkable outside of a miraculous private marketplace, and thus a shortsighted attempt to invalidate public schools. Carrie Sampson of Arizona State University reviewed Some Assembly Required: How a More Flexible Learning Ecosystem Can Better Serve All Kids and Unlock Innovation and found it to be based on a fallacy that flexible learning for all families can succeed in an ecosystem (or market) driven by choice and profits. The report’s plan proposes giving families the ability and funding to choose among varied learning opportunities. The approach is presented as helping to remove some barriers for lower-income families and to facilitate new communities based on shared interests rather than geography. The report also argues that the approach is timely and practical, pointing to the recent growth of school choice and supplemental learning. Dr. Sampson cautions that the report is poorly grounded in research evidence. There is only minimal reference to peer-reviewed research, and that data is presented in misleading, decontextualized, and inconsistent ways. She also points out that this concept undermines societal investment in neighborhood schools and therefore runs counter to research demonstrating that many families, youth, and communities work hard to protect and improve their neighborhood schools, especially in marginalized communities. Although a deeper examination of education from an ecological perspective is warranted, this proposal ignores research reflecting the voices and stories of those who are most marginalized. Thus, Professor Sampson concludes, this concept of an assembly-based education ecosystem fails to genuinely center equity and educational excellence and instead elevates choice as the greatest good in an education system. Find the review, by Carrie Sampson, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Some Assembly Required: How a More Flexible Learning Ecosystem Can Better Serve All Kids and Unlock Innovation , written by Juliet Squire and Alex Spurrier and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SomeAssemblyRequired_BetaByBellwether_August2022_FINAL.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: 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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and 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. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Carrie Sampson: (602) 543-2820, csampso4@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking - School Accountability, Multiple Measures and Inspectorates in a Post-NCLB World Summary First brief in a series of concise publications considers alternative accountability approaches: As a part of a new series of briefs being released beginning today by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses the efficacy of three types of school evaluation approaches: (1) test based accountability; (2) multiple measures; and (3) school self-evaluations plus inspectorates. Publication Date October 25, 2015 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release First brief in a series of concise publications considers alternative accountability approaches EAST LANSING, MI (Oct. 26, 2015) – This weekend the Obama Administration announced a shift away from policies it had previously supported, backing away somewhat from past policies that strongly promoted reliance on test scores in educator evaluation systems and in the evaluation of teacher preparation programs. As a part of a new series of briefs being released beginning today by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses the efficacy of three types of school evaluation approaches: (1) test based accountability; (2) multiple measures; and (3) school self-evaluations plus inspectorates. In School Accountability, Multiple Measures and Inspectorates in a Post-NCLB World , Mathis concludes, no evaluation system by itself is capable of overcoming the deficiencies of a school or community lacking resources. According to Mathis, the only way for school evaluation systems to succeed are “with all around accountability.” Mathis makes eight recommendations for policymakers: Adequate student opportunities and resources to achieve each state’s goals; Continued development of multiple-measure approaches that strive for balance and clarity; Cautious use of standardized test scores; Avoidance of data aggregation into a single score; Development and implementation of school visitation teams, with a priority on higher need schools; External reviews focusing on guidance and support rather than sanctions; Trained and qualified reviewers who meet prescribed standards; and Multiple stakeholders involved in the design of state’s evaluation/inspectorate program. This is a section of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. Find William Mathis's brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This report is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, and is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/research-based-options Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Daniel 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 Changes in the Performance of Students in Charter and District Sectors of U.S. Education: An Analysis of Nationwide Trends Summary The Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University recently published a research study touting improvement in the charter sector relative to district schools. The study attributes this, in part, to "enhanced charter performance." Publication Date December 3, 2020 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors M. Danish Shakeel and Paul E. Peterson; Yongmei Ni and Eunice Han of the University of Utah Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Attempts to Make Hay of Different Trends in Charter Schools and District Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The analysis of performance trends of different NAEP cohorts does not allow for causal conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the charter and district sectors in raising student achievement. EAST LANSING, MI (December 3, 2020) - The Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG) at Harvard University recently published a research study touting improvement in the charter sector relative to district schools. The study attributes this, in part, to "enhanced charter performance." Yongmei Ni and Eunice Han of the University of Utah reviewed Changes in the Performance of Students in Charter and District Sectors of U.S. Education: An Analysis of Nationwide Trends and determined that no such causal inferences can be drawn from its comparison of national performance trends in the charter and district sectors. Using National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math test results for seven different cohorts of fourth and eighth graders, the study compares student performance trends in the charter and district sectors between 2005 and 2017. Based on the comparisons of overall performance changes as well as subgroup analysis by student ethnicity, socioeconomic status, region, and locale, the study offers its conclusion that charter-school trends are better than those of district schools. The report then spins a storyline about "political resistance to charters [from] both the management and labor sides of the district sector" that feel threatened by the "disruptive ... innovation" of successful charter schools. However, professors Ni and Han explain that, because NAEP does not track the performance of individual students over time, the analysis of performance trends of different cohorts does not allow causal conclusions about the relative effectiveness of the charter and district sectors in raising student achievement. The reviewers also point out that the study suffers from several methodological weaknesses around sampling, control of extraneous variables, and determination of statistical significance. Due to these limitations, the study fails to advance our knowledge of charter school effectiveness and offers no solid base for policy recommendations regarding whether charters merit more or less investment, nor any insight into what practices and changes might benefit the charter sector. Find the review, by Yongmei Ni and Eunice Han, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Changes in the Performance of Students in Charter and District Sectors of U.S. Education: An Analysis of Nationwide Trends , written by M. Danish Shakeel and Paul E. Peterson and published by the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University, at: https://www.hks.harvard.edu/sites/default/files/Taubman/PEPG/research/PEPG20_04.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: 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 research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Yongmei Ni: (801) 587-9298, yongmei.ni@utah.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Student-Centered State Funding: A How-to Guide for State Policymakers Summary A report from Jeb Bush’s Foundation for Excellence in Education (ExcelinEd) attempted to illustrate and explain how state policymakers could design fairer and more transparent state funding systems where monies ‘follow the child’ through parental choice. The school finance systems promoted in the report allow for all state and local tax dollars to flow freely to local district, charter, or private and religious schools. The central premise of the report is: “that adopting ‘student-centered’ funding to enable parental choice of schools necessarily leads to a fairer and more transparent system for financing children’s schooling.” Publication Date January 9, 2018 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce; School Funding Authors Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Student-centered school funding report provides little value to policymakers, academic review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 9, 2018) — A report from Jeb Bush's Foundation for Excellence in Education ( Excel in Ed ) attempted to illustrate and explain how state policymakers could design fairer and more transparent state funding systems where monies 'follow the child' through parental choice. The school finance systems promoted in the report allow for all state and local tax dollars to flow freely to local district, charter, or private and religious schools. However, an academic review released today finds that the report lacks any clear understanding of the true costs of providing equal educational opportunities and provides too few specifics to inform policy design. Bruce D. Baker , a professor of education finance and the economics of education at Rutgers University, reviewed the brief, Student-Centered State Funding: A How-to Guide for State Policymakers , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center , is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . Baker says that the central premise of the report is: "that adopting 'student-centered' funding to enable parental choice of schools necessarily leads to a fairer and more transparent system for financing children's schooling." The report, according to Baker, supports an approach that sanctions public tax dollars that follow children to the schools of their choice. These 'money follows the child' approaches facilitate the diversion of public funds into school choice programs. In his review, Baker finds the arguments offered in the report to be "entirely unsubstantiated and unlikely to stand up to even the most cursory debate within state legislative subcommittees." He finds three major faults in the report: It advances a false dichotomy between funding the child and the institutions (e.g., public school districts) serving children; It is based on overly simplistic, frequently misrepresented, and often outright incorrect versions of the status quo , including overly broad mischaracterizations of how schools are currently financed; and The recommendations advanced within the report are purely speculative and unsubstantiated. "Worst of all," Baker concludes, "the authors convey reckless disregard for equity and equal educational opportunity through their outright denial of and recommendations in opposition to well understood, empirically validated factors affecting the costs of providing children equal opportunities to achieve common outcome goals." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report and other similar reports from Excel in Ed on the web at: https://www.excelined.org/quality/education-funding/ 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. 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: Bruce D. Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back A Legal Lever for Enhancing Productivity Summary This report examines the extent to which the Texas education system is efficient. Using a five-factor definition of efficiency, the authors argue that in key areas – teacher training, teacher evaluation, teacher pay-setting, and use of instructional materials – the Texas education system is unlikely to be efficient or cannot demonstrate efficiency. Publication Date February 27, 2014 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors Elizabeth Ettema, Krishanu Sengupta, and Sandy Kress; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Texas efficiency report requires more evidence Report offers expanded definition of efficiency EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 27, 2014) – The Texas state Constitution mandates an "efficient system of public free schools." A recent report from the George W. Bush Institute examines the extent to which the Texas education system is efficient. An academic review released today finds the paper to be of limited use for policymakers and educational professionals and calls for a more comprehensive and rigorous analysis of efficiency. The report, A Legal Lever for Enhancing Productivity , written by Elizabeth Ettema, Krishanu Sengupta, and Sandy Kress, uses a five-factor definition of efficiency to determine that the Texas education system is unlikely to be efficient or cannot demonstrate efficiency. Dr. Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The authors of the report investigate efficiency in key areas of the Texas education system: (1) teacher training; (2) teacher evaluation; (3) teacher pay-setting; and (4) use of instructional materials. Overall, Belfield notes that the authors should be commended for bringing the concept of x-efficiency – a theoretical framework that is more expansive than the basic economic definition of efficiency – and placing it front and center in their evaluation of the Texas education system. However, the authors fail to prove that the Texas education system is not efficient. Despite a strong literature review and multiple evidentiary sources, the report's analysis of the evidentiary sources is not persuasive. In his conclusion, Belfield says that it would be better if policymakers and education professionals applied the more expansive interpretation of efficiency displayed in this report. However, he cautions "because x-efficiency is a more comprehensive concept it requires more evidence and analysis in order to draw conclusions than was provided here." Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A Legal Lever for Enhancing Productivity on the web: http://www.bushcenter.org/documents/2014/02/12/legal-lever-enhancing-productivity 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 funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219, Clive.Belfield@gmail.com 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 An Analysis of the Use and Validity of Test-Based Teacher Evaluations Reported by the Los Angeles Times: 2011 Summary Catherine S. Durso of the University of Denver prepared the research brief for the National Education Policy Center. The brief was funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Publication Date June 20, 2012 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Catherine S. Durso,University of Denver Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release A review finds LA Times 2011 teacher effectiveness rankings remain unreliable, risk being misused High-stakes standardized tests only a snapshot of student's learning EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 20, 2012) – The Los Angeles Times' second attempt to rate the performance of teachers in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) still provides readers with unreliable data and potential misuse, according to an academic review released today. Catherine Durso of the University of Denver prepared the review titled An Analysis of the Use and Validity of Test-Based Teacher Evaluations Reported by the Los Angeles Times: 2011 . The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In her analysis, Durso addressed the variances of teacher ratings, specifically the imprecision and inconsistency of teacher scores. She found limitations on the use of teacher-linked effects in producing a single classification scale. The newspaper used a value-added model (VAM) and also rated teachers in one of five categories (least effective, less effective, average, more effective, and most effective). The series was based on a study carried out independently by Dr. Richard Buddin, a senior economist at the RAND Corporation. LAUSD uses the term Average Growth over Time (AGT) to represent VAM. Though demographics, classroom size and other outside factors were taken into account, the data produced broad "error bands" that essentially created a range score for each teacher, only the midpoint of which was used to rate teachers in a single effectiveness category. The single effectiveness rating was published with limited caution to readers. The single-scale the newspaper used to rate the effectiveness of teachers drew the greatest concern, "particularly the effectiveness classification categories published in the Teacher Ratings that the lay reader will be drawn to, and these are unreliable," Durso wrote in her review. She found that the potential for misuse of effective classification categories could prove to be harmful. Although the newspaper's data efforts were an improvement over a similar series (also based on the value-added model) that ran in 2010, isolating the causal effect of a teacher on a student from the influence of peers and situations outside of school remains challenging. Additionally, the majority of teachers in the Times' rankings were represented by data for three years or less and 26 percent of the teachers were in their first year. Using estimates from this smaller data sample yields less precise results. "Even when multiple years of data are employed, the lack of predictive power limits the usefulness of the estimates to a parent considering whether an assigned class will improve a child's test-based performance," Durso stated. Durso recommends, "Comparison of teacher-linked effects must be understood as comparing teachers and their work environments, not just teachers." Find the brief on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find a link to the LA Times series here: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/teachers-investigation/ The National Education Policy Center provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project was made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The reviews are also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: 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: Catherine Durso, (303) 871-3598, cdurso@cs.du.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 Has Progress Been made in Raising Achievement for English language Learners Summary This report urges finds that states have generally made progress in raising the achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) under No Child Left Behind. Publication Date May 19, 2010 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Jeff MacSwan, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ELL Report Asks a Question It Can't Answer May 19, 2010 CEP publication has significant weaknesses, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi., (May 19, 2010) – A recent Center on Education Policy (CEP) report asks, Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners? and finds that states have generally made progress in increasing the achievement of English Language Learners (ELLs) under No Child Left Behind. But a review of that report finds that the conclusions drawn are not supported by the evidence presented. The CEP report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Jeff MacSwan, who is Professor and Director of the Applied Linguistics Program at Arizona State University and specializes in ELL research. In his review, MacSwan, finds two principal flaws with the study. The first is that the report fails to adequately account for the fact that the language in which a person is taught can be a serious source of measurement error for ELL achievement test scores. The more sweeping problem, however, is in the source of data that the CEP report uses to draw its conclusions. The report relies on the percentages of ELLs in each year's cohort for a given grade level who meet NCLB-related adequate yearly progress (AYP) standards. Because the makeup of those cohorts changes each year, "drawing growth-related conclusions from [these data] is inappropriate," MacSwan writes. Moreover, while the report's title, "Has progress been made in raising achievement for English language learners?" asks readers to infer a direct causal relationship between changes in reported percentages of ELLs meeting AYP and improvements in academic achievement for ELLs, no such inference can legitimately be drawn from these data. And the report all but ignores a wide range of plausible, competing explanations for changes in scores over time other than actual improvement of achievement levels. "A causal inference would require minimally that competing explanations be eliminated," MacSwan writes. "While the report notes these potential complications in the data, they are apparently not taken seriously enough to prevent the authors from drawing very specific conclusions about the achievement trajectories of ELLs." The result is a report that "is not a useful guide for policy or practice related to ELLs," MacSwan concludes. "The data analyses presented do not provide useful insight into ELL progress, and no judgments can be made regarding the relative success of current federal policy based on the report." Find Jeff MacSwan's review and a link to the CEP report on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Think Tank Research Quality: Lessons for Policy Makers, the Media, and the Public , a new book based on the work of the Think Twice/ Think Tank Review Project, is now available at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/think_twice_research_quality/Order_Form.pdf About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Jeff MacSwan (480) 965-4967; macswan@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Thousands Served: Students with Disabilities in Wisconsin’s Parental Choice Programs Summary Scholars, advocates, and policymakers have long expressed the concern that many private schools receiving taxpayer subsidies through voucher programs would fail to serve children with disabilities. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, in collaboration with School Choice Wisconsin, recent published a report challenging those concerns. Publication Date April 8, 2025 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors School Choice Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty; Maria M. Lewis, Pennsylvania State University; Julie F. Mead, University of Wisconsin-Madison Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Unreliable Claims on Disability Rates in Report about Wisconsin's School Voucher Programs An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Review finds methodological flaws and misleading conclusions in school voucher program analysis. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (APRIL 8, 2025) - Scholars, advocates, and policymakers have long expressed the concern that many private schools receiving taxpayer subsidies through voucher programs would fail to serve children with disabilities. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, in collaboration with School Choice Wisconsin, recent published a report challenging those concerns. In their review of Thousands Served: Students with Disabilities in Wisconsin's Parental Choice Programs , Maria M. Lewis of Pennsylvania State University and Julie F. Mead of the University of Wisconsin-Madison determine that the report's conclusions challenge precise state data with imprecise administrative estimates and are therefore misleading and unhelpful. The report asserts that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) underestimates the number of students with disabilities in the state's school choice programs. The state determined that 8.9% of students participating in the state's voucher programs have or have had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or were enrolled in the state's Special Needs Scholarship Program. The report dismisses that figure and asserts instead that over 14% of participating students "likely have a disability." The report's primary analysis relies upon survey data gathered from private-school leaders participating in the state's choice programs. Although the details of the survey remain unclear, respondents were asked to estimate the number of students in their schools who would be considered a student with a disability if enrolled in a public school. As such, the survey results amount to conjecture and cannot reasonably be compared to DPI data that relies upon a legal definition of a student with a disability and comports with the law's procedural requirements to make that determination. Given the report's flawed methods, Professors Lewis and Mead conclude that the utility of its findings and analysis for policymakers is significantly limited. Find the review, by Maria M. Lewis and Julie F. Mead, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Thousands Served: Students with Disabilities in Wisconsin's Parental Choice Programs, published by School Choice Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, at: https://schoolchoicewi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025_Disabilities_Research_Report.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Maria M. Lewis Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Economic Benefits of New York City’s Public School Reforms, 2002-2013 Summary An estimated $74 billion impact was attributed to the reforms (based on earnings of students who graduated under the reforms – who might not have otherwise – and on property values). The report assumes that higher graduation rates and charter school availability increased residential property values in the city. Publication Date March 31, 2014 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; School Funding Authors Robert J. Shapiro, Sonecon, Inc. & Kevin A. Hassett, American Enterprise Institute (AEI); Sean P. Corcoran, New York University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice Review of NYC Reforms Sonecon analysis seriously flawed, useless for policymakers EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 31, 2014) – A recent paper attempts to estimate the economic impact of school reforms implemented by former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg. The report suggests that reforms enacted by Bloomberg boosted the city's economy by an estimated $74 billion. However, a review of the report out today finds that it is so seriously flawed as to be useless for policymakers. The Economic Benefits of New York City's Public School Reforms, 2002-2013 was produced by Robert J. Shapiro of Sonecon, Inc., a Washington, D.C., economic advisory firm, and Kevin A. Hassett of the American Enterprise Institute. Sean P. Corcoran, associate professor of educational economics at New York University, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think thank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The paper highlighted a range of school reforms implemented by Bloomberg: (1) centralizing school governance while increasing both financial autonomy and accountability for individual school leaders; (2) raising teacher salaries; (3) standardizing the curriculum; (4) tying school funding to student need; and (5) aggressively expanding school choice, including the opening of 160 charter schools. An estimated $74 billion impact was attributed to the reforms (based on earnings of students who graduated under the reforms – who might not have otherwise – and on property values). The report assumes that higher graduation rates and charter school availability increased residential property values in the city. Professor Corcoran writes, "While such estimates are always an exercise in some level of speculation, this report relies on highly inappropriate assumptions to reach its conclusions." Breaking down the math of the authors, Corcoran calculates that the impact on property values attributed to the Bloomberg-era educational reforms is comparable to "two-thirds of the entire increase in residential property values between 2007 and 2013." Corcoran found that many NYC public school students did experience "real educational and economic gains" during Bloomberg's time in office, but the estimates that the Sonecon report makes, he concludes, "are pure fantasy." Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Economic Benefits of the New York City's Public School Reforms, 2002-2013 on the web: http://www.sonecon.com/studies.php 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 publication. The project is made possible with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Sean Corcoran, (212) 992-9468, sean.corcoran@nyu.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