< Back National Charter School Study 2013 Summary The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University examined charter schools in 26 states and New York City. Its primary findings were: (a) a small positive effect of being in a charter school on reading scores and no impact on math scores; and (b) a relative improvement in average charter school quality since CREDO’s 2009 study. Publication Date July 15, 2013 Authors Andrew Maul, University of Colorado Boulder Abby McClelland, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review of CREDO's National Charter School Study Finds Significant Reasons for Caution EAST LANSING, Mich. (July 16, 2013) – The Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University announced in a press release that "charter school students now have greater learning gains in reading than their peers in traditional public schools." This conclusion was repeated in newspapers across the nation. But there is much less to the CREDO study and to its claim than meets the eye, according to a new review. The National Charter School Study 2013 examined charter schools in 27 partner states. Andrew Maul and Abby McClelland from the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed the study for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The CREDO study attempts to identify differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools. Its primary findings were: (a) a small positive effect of being in a charter school on reading scores and no impact on math scores; and (b) a relative improvement in average charter school quality since CREDO's 2009 study. Maul and McClelland, however, find "significant reasons for caution in interpreting the study's results." Some of those reasons concern important choices regarding analytic methods; others concern basic questions of how meaningful the findings really are. Technical concerns identified in the review: The statistical approach used to compare charter students to so-called virtual twins in traditional public schools may not adequately control for differences between families who select a charter school and those who do not, which could bias the results The researchers don't sufficiently justify their estimation of growth, which they express using the problematic "days of learning" approach The regression models fail to address independence of observations and the absence of measurement error – two key assumptions required in such analyses These 'technical' concerns could easily implicate differences in the study's results that are substantially larger than the highlighted results attributed to differences between charter schools and traditional public schools. Even if concerns over the study's analytic methods are set side, however, Maul and McClelland point out that the study itself shows only a tiny real impact on the part of charter schools: "less than one hundredth of one percent of the variation in test performance is explainable by charter school enrollment," they write. Specifically, students in charter schools were estimated to score approximately 0.01 standard deviations higher on reading tests and 0.005 standard deviations lower on math tests than their peers in traditional public schools. "With a very large sample size, nearly any effect will be statistically significant," the reviewers conclude, "but in practical terms these effects are so small as to be regarded, without hyperbole, as trivial." The study merely confirms that charter school performance mirrors that of traditional public schools . Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find National Charter School Study 2013 by CREDO on the web: http://credo.stanford.edu/research-reports.html / 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. Andrew Maul and Abby McClelland's review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-credo-2013 -###- 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: Andrew Maul, (303) 492-7653, andrew.maul@colorado.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 Summit Charter Organization Continues to Make Unjustified Claims Summary Summit Public Schools, a charter school organization operating schools in California and Oregon, published Pathways to Success: Exploring the Long-Term Outcomes of Alumni from Summit Public Schools in September 2021, detailing the success of its graduates. A review by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley of Arizona State University examines these questionable assertions made about the performance and life satisfaction of Summit graduates. The report claims that Summit alumni graduated from college at nearly double the national average and self-reported high levels of well-being, fulfillment, and workplace satisfaction. It also reports that alumni from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds now make more than $60,000 per year on average working full time. Publication Date May 9, 2022 Authors Anum Ali Mohammed and Adam Black; Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Arizona State University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Summit Charter Organization Continues to Make Unjustified Claims An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: A variety of methodological issues undermines the validity of report's findings. EAST LANSING, MI (May 10, 2022) - Summit Public Schools, a charter school organization operating schools in California and Oregon, published Pathways to Success: Exploring the Long-Term Outcomes of Alumni from Summit Public Schools in September 2021, detailing the success of its graduates. A review by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley of Arizona State University examines these questionable assertions made about the performance and life satisfaction of Summit graduates. The report claims that Summit alumni graduated from college at nearly double the national average and self-reported high levels of well-being, fulfillment, and workplace satisfaction. It also reports that alumni from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds now make more than $60,000 per year on average working full time. However, Professor Amrein-Beardsley explains, low survey response rates and incomplete or inaccurate methodology prevent these claims from being justified. Although the report professes to be conducted for internal purposes, Summit also distributed an accompanying press release that announced its findings to a broader audience, making the report's claims of potential interest to policymakers, practitioners, and the public. However, Professor Amrein-Beardsley concludes that although the study may provide some information useful to Summit's internal decision-making, its serious methodological issues (e.g., survey research methods, response rates, sample bias, sample representativeness, and uses of comparative data) prevent it from having any implications for practice or policymaking in general. For further information about Summit Public Schools, please refer to the NEPC's June 2020 research brief, Big Claims, Little Evidence, Lots of Money: The Reality Behind the Summit Learning Program and the Push to Adopt Digital Personalized Learning Platforms . Find the review, by Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Pathways to Success: Exploring the Long-Term Outcomes of Alumni from Summit Public Schools , written by Anum Ali Mohammed and Adam Black and published by Summit Public Schools, at: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LU81FTmr4ZkZzkAzCPZrVurjfmpJcgHn/view 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: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Audrey Amrein-Beardsley : (602) 561-4731, audrey.beardsley@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education Summary Kenneth Howe and David Meens, of the University of Colorado at Boulder, examine the suppression of local control by policymakers and what it means for our democracy. A new report presents a comprehensive review of research on two key elements—democratic policymaking and democratic education. The evidence surveyed in this report suggests that contemporary reforms “run afoul of democratic principles in several critical ways.” Publication Date October 15, 2012 Authors Kenneth Howe, University of Colorado-Boulder David Meens, University of Colorado- Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Report Cautions Against Federal Education Policies that Undermine Democracy and Local Control EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 16, 2012)—While transmission of educational services happens at the local level, increasingly the power has shifted to state or national control. With the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) the politics of education have been nationalized to an unprecedented degree. A new report out today concludes the concept of local control "has all but disappeared" in discussions of education policy. The report, Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education , by Kenneth Howe and David Meens of the University of Colorado Boulder, examines the impact on democratic ideals of vanishing local control over education. The report examines the making of education policy as well as the decisions about what schools teach and how they teach it. The authors review suggests that many contemporary reforms "run afoul of democratic principles in several critical ways." While local discretion is allowed for how to comply with state and federal mandates, the constraints imposed by those mandates have been enormous. Consequently, Howe and Meens contend, NCLB and its progeny have been fundamentally anti-democratic. The same is true of the reform policies that have been advanced by President Obama and Education Secretary Duncan. The authors warn that current reform approaches are marginalizing community involvement. "Democratic reform should involve local stakeholders, especially marginalized members of society, because inclusion is a democratic value that increases not only the likelihood that policies will be just, but also the likelihood that reform will succeed," Howe and Meens write. "Such inclusion also helps create the conditions in which all students can attain the democratic threshold." They conclude with a series of recommendations, urging schools and education policymakers to take three key steps. First, move away from a punitive model based on threats to withhold funding. This should be replaced by a participatory model – such as support and incentives for school employees, parents and community members to collaborate together on resolving educational problems. Second, encourage states and local communities to adopt curriculum standards "that include a conscious and substantive focus on developing the deliberative skill and dispositions required of democratic citizenship." Third, curtail the privatization of public education resources. Instead, build up democratic values by holding schools receiving public funds accountable to the public through democratically elected school boards and other democratic institutions. Moreover, "If the future reauthorization of ESEA is to safeguard and strengthen democracy, it should make education for democracy a fundamental aim of public education." Find Democracy Left Behind: How Recent Education Reforms Undermine Local School Governance and Democratic Education , by Kenneth Howe and David Meens, on the web at http://www.greatlakescenter.org 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, produced the policy brief. The brief is 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 . Contact: Kenneth Howe, (303) 492-7229, Ken.Howe@Colorado.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 NEPC Review: Estimating the LongRun Impact of a Universal ESA Program in Mississippi Summary A recent report from EdChoice estimates the long-term economic returns of a universal education savings account (ESA) policy in Mississippi. ESA policies provide taxpayer dollars to households that decline to send their children to public schools, allowing those funds to be used for private school tuition or other educational expenses. As ESAs and similar school choice programs expand rapidly across the country, rigorous research is essential to inform sound, evidence-based policymaking. Publication Date February 23, 2026 Authors Martin Lueken and Michael Q. McShan; David S. Knight, University of Washington Research Areas School Funding; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Methodological errors and flawed assumptions undermine claims by EdChoice about the long-term economic benefits of Education Savings Accounts. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (FEBRUARY 24, 2026) - A recent report from EdChoice estimates the long-term economic returns of a universal education savings account (ESA) policy in Mississippi. ESA policies provide taxpayer dollars to households that decline to send their children to public schools, allowing those funds to be used for private school tuition or other educational expenses. As ESAs and similar school choice programs expand rapidly across the country, rigorous research is essential to inform sound, evidence-based policymaking. Although the EdChoice report attempts to measure the long-term economic benefits of a universal ESA, it contains significant methodological errors, questionable assumptions, and misleading conclusions. University of Washington professor David S. Knight reviewed Estimating the Long-Run Impact of a Universal ESA Program in Mississippi and found it offers limited value for informing sound public policy. The report bases its projections on evaluations of programs that are not universal ESA models; the programs included in the analyses have substantially different fiscal approaches, including conventional vouchers and approaches that use tax-credits to fund the private-school subsidies. The report also overstates projected benefits while omitting a meaningful analysis of program costs, despite extensive evidence that such initiatives require significant state expenditures. By omitting these costs and relying on dissimilar policy models, the report presents an incomplete and potentially distorted view of the policy’s fiscal and economic impact. As a result, Professor Knight concludes, the report risks misleading state leaders about how best to invest limited education dollars. Any lawmaker treating this report as definitive evidence for advancing a universal ESA proposal risks undermining what should be an informed, evidence-based debate. Legislators should instead examine the broader body of independent research. Find the review, written by David S. Knight, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find Estimating the Long-Run Impact of a Universal ESA Program in Mississippi , authored by Martin Lueken and Michael Q. McShane and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares David S. Knight Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Qualified Education Expense Tax Credit: Economic Analysis Summary A recent report from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts examines the monetary costs and benefits of the state's Qualified Education Expense Tax Credit (QEEC), a voucher policy that provides a public subsidy for families to pay for private school tuition. A review of the report, however, contradicts its claim that the policy provides a net fiscal benefit to the state budget. Publication Date September 25, 2023 Authors Greg S. Griffin and Lisa Kieffer; David Knight, University of Washington Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Tax-credit scholarship programs probably incur more costs than savings for state and school districts, placing financial strain on state budgets and driving the need for future budget cuts. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (September 26, 2023) - A recent report from the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts examines the monetary costs and benefits of the state's Qualified Education Expense Tax Credit (QEEC), a voucher policy that provides a public subsidy for families to pay for private school tuition. A review of the report, however, contradicts its claim that the policy provides a net fiscal benefit to the state budget. David Knight of the University of Washington reviewed Qualified Education Expense Tax Credit: Economic Analysis , and he found several methodological challenges that undermine the report's conclusions and its usefulness. One key claim in the report is that the tax credit results in $81 million of forgone state tax revenue per year. Another key claim is that the vouchers incentivize almost 20,000 students per year to choose private schools instead of public, thus removing the cost of educating those students from state and local budgets. Based largely on these two claims, the report concludes that QEEC provides a net fiscal benefit for Georgia's state budget. Professor Knight points to a lack of data about how many students per year do actually switch from public to private schools because of the voucher subsidy and incentive. In fact, existing private-school families have extremely strong incentives to accept the public subsidies. And if most of the vouchers are provided to support these students who were already planning to attend a private school, then the policy only subsidizes private school students with funding that could otherwise be returned to taxpayers or invested in the state's public education system, which is open to all students. While these calculations are all necessarily grounded in some speculation because of the unregulated elements of the voucher policy and the resulting lack of hard data, the most likely result of tax credit scholarship programs like QEEC is that the state and school districts incur more costs than savings, placing financial strain on state budgets that could require future cuts. Because the report relies on unrealistic assumptions, its suggestion that program benefits outweigh costs is tenuous and risks misleading state education leaders. Instead, state leaders should invest educational dollars in policies that have a positive return on investment and therefore help, rather than harm, state and local budgets. Find the review, by David Knight, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Qualified Education Expense Tax Credit: Economic Analysis , written by Greg S. Griffin and Lisa Kieffer, and published by the Georgia Department of Audits and Accounts, at: https://www.audits.ga.gov/ReportSearch/download/29827 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 Alex Molnar David Knight: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Charter School Funding: Support for Students with Disabilities Summary A recent brief from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas erroneously asserts that charter schools are shortchanged of funding for students with disabilities. Publication Date September 1, 2021 Authors Cassidy Syftestad, Patrick J. Wolf, Wendy Tucker, and Lauren Morando Rhim; Bruce D. Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Provides Deeply Flawed Picture of Special Education Funding for Charter Schools An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: No valid conclusions can be drawn about special education population differences, needs, costs, or funding gaps from the inaccurate methods presented in report. EAST LANSING, MI (September 2, 2021) - A recent brief from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas erroneously asserts that charter schools are shortchanged of funding for students with disabilities. Bruce Baker of Rutgers University reviewed Charter School Funding: Support for Students with Disabilities, and found it to ignore substantial differences in the classifications, needs, and costs of children with disabilities in district-operated versus charter schools. Most obviously, the available data suggests that the students with disabilities that charter schools enroll have, on average, less severe needs. In addition, Professor Baker points to the report's exclusive citing of deeply flawed, self-published evidence of a purported charter school funding gap more generally, while it ignored more rigorous studies yielding contradictory findings. As such, he concludes, the report adds no value to legitimate debate over the comparability or adequacy of general or special education funding of charter schools. Find the review, by Bruce D. Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter School Funding: Support for Students with Disabilities, written by Cassidy Syftestad, Patrick J. Wolf, Wendy Tucker, and Lauren Morando Rhim and published by the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas, at: https://cpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/wordpressua.uark.edu/dist/9/544/files/2018/10/charter-school-funding-support-for-students-with-disabilities.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: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Bruce D. Baker: (303) 492-8370, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.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 A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes Summary A large and growing body of high-quality research shows that increased school funding positively affects student outcomes. Yet, as compared to the effect of school funding reported in an authoritative meta-analysis, a new Brookings Institution report examining this relationship finds a much smaller (although still positive) effect. Publication Date December 10, 2025 Authors Sarah Reber and Gabriela Goodman; Mark Weber, Rutgers University Research Areas School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Recent Brookings Report Misrepresents Research Consensus on School Funding DECEMBER 11, 2025 Recent Brookings Report Misrepresents Research Consensus on School Funding An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Despite strong research evidence that increased school funding improves student outcomes, report relies on simplistic statewide comparisons that obscure the true effects of investment in education. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (DECEMBER 11, 2025) - A large and growing body of high-quality research shows that increased school funding positively affects student outcomes. Yet, as compared to the effect of school funding reported in an authoritative meta-analysis, a new Brookings Institution report examining this relationship finds a much smaller (although still positive) effect. In his review of A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes , Rutgers University lecturer and school finance expert Mark Weber explains how the report's reliance on overly simplistic methods prevents it from credibly estimating the true relationship between funding and student outcomes. As Dr. Weber shows, the report uses comparisons of statewide averages for spending and outcomes (comparing states to states), which masks substantial variations within states that are central to understanding how school resources affect students. The consensus that more funding leads to better outcomes for students is built on a foundation of high-quality, rigorous evidence. That consensus can and should be tested regularly by ongoing research, using appropriate data and methodologies. It cannot, however, be credibly challenged by a few simplistic correlational analyses, like those applied in the Brookings report. Consequently, Dr. Weber concludes, little meaningful guidance is offered by the recent report for policymakers seeking to reform school funding policies. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A State-Level Perspective on School Spending and Educational Outcomes , authored by Sarah Reber and Gabriela Goodman and published by The Brookings Institution, at: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-state-level-perspective-on-school-spending-and-educational-outcomes/ NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Mark Weber Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Should Charter Schools Pay Rent? Implications for Staffing and Growth Summary This report from the Manhattan Institute examined the potential impact of requiring co-located charter schools to pay rent in NYC. The report reflects concerns of charter advocates and operators regarding potential policy changes under Bill de Blasio, New York's new mayor. The report claims that charging rent to co-located charters in NYC would have triggered an average budget deficit of 10.7 percent at those schools. The report also proposes that paying rent could cripple the co-located charters' growth in NYC. Publication Date February 19, 2014 Authors Stephen Eide; Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice reviews NYC charter co-location report Manhattan Institute report provides little useful guidance EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 20, 2014) – A recent report from the Manhattan Institute examined the potential impact of requiring co-located charter schools to pay rent in NYC. The report reflects concerns of charter advocates and operators regarding potential policy changes under Bill de Blasio, New York's new mayor. A new academic review of the report finds numerous problems with the report's assumptions and with its poorly documented and oversimplified analyses. Bruce Baker, Rutgers University, reviewed the brief for the Think Twice think tank review project, published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Should Charter Schools Pay Rent? Implications for Staffing and Growth, by Stephen Eide, claims that charging rent to co-located charters in NYC would have triggered an average budget deficit of 10.7 percent at those schools. The report also proposes that paying rent could cripple the co-located charters' growth in NYC. Professor Baker finds that the report only presents a handful of poorly documented tables and graphs listing potential budget deficits, speculative layoffs, and average proficiency rates of co-located and non-co-located charter schools. However, the report's greatest weakness is in its assumption that there is no possible downside when resources are transferred from city schools to charter schools. The report assumes that subsidies benefit charter schools and halting these subsidies harms charters and benefits no one. More importantly, Baker finds that the report ignores the broader and more complex policy questions of what it takes to manage a balanced and equitable system of schooling options. In conclusion, Baker states: "The Manhattan Institute report provides little useful guidance for New York City with respect to the narrow question of whether the city should charge rent to charter operators." Find Bruce Baker's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Should Charter Schools Pay Rent?, by Stephen Eide, on the web: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/ 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 School Accountability-Past, Present, and Future: Findings and Recommendations for State and District Policymakers Summary A recent report from the Hoover Institution's Education Success Initiative argues that state and federal officials should retain what it calls "results-based" accountability systems that use standardized assessments of students followed by consequences for not meeting performance goals. But it does not provide the evidence needed to support that contention. Publication Date February 8, 2021 Authors Chester E. Finn, Jr.; Gail L. Sunderman, Maryland Equity Project Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Poorly Argues for the Expansion of Ineffective School Accountability Systems An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Hoover Institution advocacy report relies on theories of test-based accountability and market-driven reforms rather than research evidence to provide a rationale for its conclusions and recommendations. EAST LANSING, MI (February 9, 2021) -A recent report from the Hoover Institution's Education Success Initiative argues that state and federal officials should retain what it calls "results-based" accountability systems that use standardized assessments of students followed by consequences for not meeting performance goals. But it does not provide the evidence needed to support that contention. Gail L. Sunderman, co-founder of the Maryland Equity Project, reviewed School Accountability-Past, Present, and Future: Findings and Recommendations for State and District Policymakers , authored by Dr. Chester Finn. The report contends that accountability systems can be improved by expanding assessment to more grades, transparently reporting those results, and focusing on intervening in low-performing schools through a combination of intervention-style and market-driven consequences coupled with an inspectorate system to evaluate schools. Dr. Sunderman found the report unconvincing for a number of reasons. She explains that the report ignores a plethora of literature on the deleterious impact of test-based accountability on outcomes that could provide a more nuanced understanding of these systems. It also fails to explain why these systems should be extended to include more testing at more grades. Further, she finds, the report provides no evidence on the efficacy of its preferred reform strategies for low-performing schools, which include combining external interventions with market-driven consequences. Rather than evidence, the report relies on unsupported theories of accountability and market-driven reform to provide a rationale for its conclusions and recommendations. For these reasons, Dr. Sunderman concludes, policymakers, educators, and state education administrators should not rely on this report for guidance as they consider strategies for assisting low-performing schools and districts. Find the review, by Gail L. Sunderman, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find School Accountability—Past, Present, and Future, written by Chester E. Finn, Jr. and published by the Hoover Institution, at: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/finn_webready.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 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 Gail L. Sunderman: (410) 435-1207, glsunderman@yahoo.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Safe at School: Addressing the School Environment and LGBT Safety through Policy and Legislation Summary Safe at School: Addressing the School Environment and LGBT Safety through Policy and Legislation, presents a series of recommendations and model legislation to make public schools safer for LGBT students. Publication Date September 29, 2010 Authors Stuart Biegel & Sheila James Kuehl Research Areas School Climate & Student Support Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New report offers concrete guidance for improving school environment FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE EAST LANSING, Mich., (September 30, 2010) - "The mistreatment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender students is worse today than many might realize, with unacceptable complicity by school personnel that continues to exacerbate the problem," according to Stuart Biegel, co-author of a groundbreaking new report released today. The report, Safe at School: Addressing the School Environment and LGBT Safety through Policy and Legislation , presents a series of recommendations and model legislation to make public schools safer for LGBT students. The new report is authored by Biegel and Sheila James Kuehl and is a collaboration between the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education and the Williams Institute at UCLA Law School, with financial support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Safe at School documents the persistence of hostile and unsafe school environments that can result in lower educational outcomes and higher rates of depression and suicide for LGBT students. Citing an extensive body of research, it also takes note of the growing legal exposure that schools face when they do not act to change these hostile environments. The authors note and respond to the lack of resources and institutional support that school administrators, teachers, and educational support professionals sometimes face in their attempts to make schools more welcoming to LGBT students. The report contains a series of policy recommendations to ensure schools are welcoming and safe for LGBT students. These recommendations cover areas such as school climate, curriculum, and the particular role of school sports in defining a school's culture. Safe at School also contains model legislation, offering a range of options for state legislatures to adopt, including general prohibitions against bullying, harassment and intimidation in schools, as well as sections that address teacher education and professional development. "The addition of a Model State Code to the analysis and recommendations in the report will encourage state legislatures to adopt a comprehensive and tested set of statutes to help remedy the problems of discrimination in our schools," said co-author Sheila Kuehl, a former State Senator from California. The authors explain that the overarching purpose of all their recommendations is to make schools safe and improve the quality of life for everyone within our education system. "In this area, educators are not required to change their personal values or religious beliefs," said co-author Biegel. "However, all students must be treated with equal dignity and equal respect by school officials, both under the law and as a matter of morality and common decency." Find the complete report at http://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence. For more information on NEPC, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/ . The Williams Institute advances sexual orientation law and public policy through rigorous, independent research and scholarship, and disseminates it to judges, legislators, policymakers, media and the public. A national think tank at UCLA Law, the Williams Institute produces high quality research with real-world relevance. For more information on the Williams Institute, please visit http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/ . The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is dedicated to improving 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. For more information on the Great Lakes Center, please visit http://greatlakescenter.org/ . ### Contact: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Education Summary A recent report from Bellwether considers the role of generative AI (GenAI) in education, posing the question: When does the ease afforded by GenAI enable deeper learning, and when is ease merely a shortcut with hidden costs? Publication Date October 20, 2025 Authors Amy Chen Kulesa, Marisa Mission, Michelle Croft, and Mary K. Wells; Thomas M. Philip, University of California, Berkeley Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Asks Important Questions About the Benefits and Risks of AI in Schools, but Its Answers Are Poorly Grounded and Generic OCTOBER 21, 2025 Report Asks Important Questions About the Benefits and Risks of AI in Schools, but Its Answers Are Poorly Grounded and Generic An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Bellwether takes a balanced yet overly simplistic approach to evaluating the use of artificial intelligence in schools. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (OCTOBER 21, 2025) - A recent report from Bellwether considers the role of generative AI (GenAI) in education, posing the question: When does the ease afforded by GenAI enable deeper learning, and when is ease merely a shortcut with hidden costs? Thomas M. Philip of the University of California, Berkeley reviewed Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Educatio n. He found that while the report raises important questions, its analysis is limited. To explore its central question, the report examines how AI tools interact with students' memory and information processing, attention and engagement, motivation and mindset, and metacognition and self-regulation. However, Professor Philip finds that the report conflates the multiple meanings of "learning," leading to unjustified conclusions about AI's potential impact. In particular, by adopting an overly individualistic lens to learning, the report often overlooks the realities of complex classroom environments, making unfounded inferences about classroom use of AI-powered tools. Further, the report stops short of offering proactive recommendations to mitigate the known harms of GenAI, particularly for children and youth. As a result, while it highlights important questions that policymakers must consider, the report's usefulness as a guide for decision-making is quite limited. Find the review, by Thomas M. Philip, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Productive Struggle: How Artificial Intelligence is Changing Learning, Effort, and Youth Development in Education , written by Amy Chen Kulesa, Marisa Mission, Michelle Croft, and Mary K. Wells and published by Bellwether, at: https://bellwether.org/publications/productive-struggle/ 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 Thomas M. Philip Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Teachers in the Digital Age of Digital Instruction: Creating sound policy for digital learning Summary Teachers in the Digital Age of Digital Instruction: Creating sound policy for digital learning Publication Date April 2, 2012 Authors Luis A. Huerta, Teachers College, Columbia University Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Latest Review of Online Learning Reports Lacks Evidence of Rigor Policymakers should seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments EAST LANSING, Mich (April 3, 2012) –A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute outlines a vision for how technology might transform the teaching profession. A new review of the report found little or no empirical research evidence to support its central claim that digital age technologies will improve the education system. The report, Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction : Creating sound policy for digital learning , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Luis Huerta, an associate professor of education at Teachers College-Columbia University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Huerta, in his review, writes that the report's rationale is based on claims that the current education system lacks the capacity to support revolutionary changes needed to unleash the technological innovations of online instruction that will yield increased effectiveness and efficiency. The report explains that effective teachers are central to the demands of online instruction and will be even more necessary in the digital age than in the current system. Further, it asserts that the elements that constitute effective teaching can be broken down into discrete skills, packaged and then distributed to a wider group of learners via digital media. Huerta considers that while the report does address an important topic, the impact of effective teaching, the empirical research evidence to support its fundamental premise is insufficient and inadequate. Consequently, he concludes, the report amounts to only an advocacy document that outlines a vision of what changes might be necessary as the digital revolution comes of age in public education. Find Luis Huerta's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction , by Brian and Emily Hassel on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/teachers-in-the-age-of-digital-instruction.html Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part 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-teachers-digital-age . --###-- 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: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 531-1638, huerta@tc.columbia.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