< Back How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination 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 December 6, 2018 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding; Technology & AI Authors Julie F. Mead, University of Wisconsin Suzanne E. Eckes, Indiana University Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 6, 2018) – In Indiana, a private religious school receiving over $6.5 million in public funds via the state's voucher program placed an LGBT counselor on leave because she had married her same-sex partner. In Milwaukee, where students with disabilities constitute 12-20% of public school enrollments, they constitute only 2% of enrollments in private schools participating in the city's voucher program. Similarly, charter schools enroll a lower percentage of students with disabilities (particularly more severe disabilities) when compared to traditional public schools. In response to these and other issues of access and discrimination, some defenders of these schools have argued that the schools have broken no laws—and they are often correct. How can this be? To answer that question, professors Julie F. Mead of the University of Wisconsin and Suzanne E. Eckes of Indiana University authored a policy brief, titled How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination , which analyzes discrimination in an era of education privatization. The brief's review of relevant laws reveals that voucher and charter school programs open the door to discrimination because of three phenomena. First, federal law defines discrimination differently in public and private spaces. Second, state legislatures have largely neglected issues of discrimination while constructing voucher laws; charter laws are better, but they fail to comprehensively address these issues. Third, because private and charter schools are free to determine what programs to offer, they can attract some populations while excluding others. After briefly examining the history of discrimination in schools, the brief analyzes each of these three enabling factors and then outlines recent developments. Finally, based on its analyses, the brief offers the following recommendations to help address the issue of publicly funded programs currently failing to serve all segments of the public: Congress should amend federal anti-discrimination laws to clarify that states supporting charter schools and states directly or indirectly channeling public funds to private schools must ensure that those programs operate in non-discriminatory ways. Federal agencies should explore whether governmental benefits should be withheld from private schools failing to meet non-discrimination standards. State legislatures should include explicit anti-discrimination language in their state voucher laws to ensure that participating private schools do not discriminate against students and staff on the basis of race, color, sex, race, class, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, national origin, or primary language. State legislatures should adopt or amend charter school laws to ensure that policies and practices are reviewed throughout the process of approval and renewal. Schools failing to attract and retain reasonably heterogeneous student populations should be directed to address the problem and should be considered for non-renewal if the problem is not corrected. Find How School Privatization Opens the Door for Discrimination , by Julie F. Mead and Suzanne E. Eckes, 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 ( http://greatlakescenter.org/ ). 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 Review of Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices Summary New America recently published a report, Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices, that champions ways that micro-credentials have been used to allow teachers to move up the career ladder, receive higher pay, or renew their licenses. The report, along with an accompanying implementation guide, offers recommendations for how to implement and integrate micro-credentials into states’ human resources systems. Publication Date April 8, 2021 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Melissa Tooley and Joseph Hood; Elena Aydarova, Auburn University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Overpromises in Its Advocacy for Teacher Micro-Credentials An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: New America report lacks validity and reliability in promoting the benefits of micro-credentials in place of traditional professional development. EAST LANSING, MI (April 8, 2021) - New America recently published a report, Harnessing Micro-Credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices , that champions ways that micro-credentials have been used to allow teachers to move up the career ladder, receive higher pay, or renew their licenses. Elena Aydarova of Auburn University reviewed the report and found scarce evidence to support its ambitious claims of how micro-credentials could remedy the shortfalls of traditional professional development for teachers. The report, along with an accompanying implementation guide, offers recommendations for how to implement and integrate micro-credentials into states' human resources systems. However, Professor Aydarova explains, without incorporating any of the extensive research-based knowledge on teaching, effective professional development, and teacher effectiveness policies, the report fails to recognize that micro-credential use alone does not improve teaching or student learning. This can create problems rather than provide solutions. Moreover, the report's implementation guide starts with the idealistic assumption that states, districts, and school leaders have the capacity to select and ensure the high quality of micro-credentials before they are offered to teachers. Professor Aydarova also points out that the primary role of micro-credentials is to assess whether teachers have acquired a particular skill, so they require additional resources to provide teachers with opportunities to develop that skill. Since micro-credentials on their own cannot provide opportunities for teacher growth and require the existence of effective professional development systems to work, the report's title and guidelines are misleading. Even if implemented, Professor Aydarova concludes, the report's plan for expanding the use of micro-credentials could not deliver on its promises. Find the review, by Elena Aydarova, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Harnessing Micro-credentials for Teacher Growth: A National Review of Early Best Practices , written by Melissa Tooley and Joseph Hood and published by New America, at: https://d1y8sb8igg2f8e.cloudfront.net/documents/Harnessing_Micro-credentials_for_Teacher_Growth_.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center 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 Elena Aydarova: (334) 844-7784, eza0029@auburn.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 2016 Brown Center Report on American Education — Part II: Tracking and Advanced Placement Summary Based on the logic that states with more tracking tend to have more students passing AP exams in high school, a recent report from the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution claimed that tracking in eighth grade would promote greater equity. The Brown Center report, authored by Tom Loveless, used state-level data from the NAEP to describe a positive association between tracking in eighth grade and larger percentages of high-scoring AP test takers. Based on the findings, the author claims that tracking is beneficial for high-achieving students. Publication Date April 26, 2016 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors Tom Loveless; Marshall Jean, University of Chicago Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Showing Benefits of Tracking on High-Achieving Students Has Weaknesses, According to Review Neglects to consider how tracking affects lower-track classes EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 26, 2016) — Based on the logic that states with more tracking tend to have more students passing AP exams in high school, a recent report from the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution claimed that tracking in eighth grade would promote greater equity. An academic review of the report questions the impact of such policies on low-achieving students, and calls attention to the potential for tracking practices to exacerbate existing educational inequalities. Marshall Jean, a graduate fellow at the University of Chicago, reviewed the 2016 Brown Center Report on American Education — Part II: Tracking and Advanced Placement for the Think Twice think tank review project. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) produced the review with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Common in American high schools, tracking is the practice of grouping students into different classes based on perceived ability or achievement. It may mean students are assigned to different levels of the same course, such as ability-grouping systems; or in leveling systems. The Brown Center report, authored by Tom Loveless, used state-level data from the NAEP to describe a positive association between tracking in eighth grade and larger percentages of high-scoring AP test takers. Based on the findings, the author claims that tracking is beneficial for high-achieving students. In his review, Jean acknowledges that the report confirms that tracking is widespread across the U.S. – the average state tracks nearly three-quarters of its math students. Also, he notes that the findings are consistent with prior research that has frequently identified test-score benefits of tracking for high-achieving students. However, the reviewer cautions that the findings are based on correlational data, which cannot establish a causal relationship or identify what mechanisms work. Additionally, the review identifies a key weakness of the report: it fails to consider the disparate impact of tracking on lower-achieving students. Ultimately, Jean finds the claim that tracking has the potential for promoting equity to be "dubious." He concludes, "unless tracking systems are implemented carefully and coincide with substantial supports for struggling students, students assigned to low-ranking tracks are likely to be harmed." Read the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report on the web: http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports2/2016/03/24-brown-center-report-tracking-loveless Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Marshall Jean, (773) 368-5521, marshalljean@uchicago.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 Our Next Assignment: Where Americans Stand on Public K-12 Education: A Review of Recent Opinion Research Summary A recent report from Public Agenda compiled public opinion surveys to show where the American public stands on education issues. The report notes the importance of gauging current public understandings about education, particularly given three major policy changes in the past 10 years: Race to the Top, the Common Core State Standards, and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Publication Date January 15, 2019 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Rebecca Silliman and David Schleifer; Gustavo E. Fischman, Arizona State University Kevin Winn, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Gauging Public Opinion on K-12 Education Is a Flawed but Helpful Starting Point for Future Research Key Takeaway: Though a unique contribution, report's inconsistency and lack of clarity make many of its conclusions questionable. Lansing, MI (January 15, 2019) – A recent report from Public Agenda compiled public opinion surveys to show where the American public stands on education issues. The report notes the importance of gauging current public understandings about education, particularly given three major policy changes in the past 10 years: Race to the Top, the Common Core State Standards, and the Every Student Succeeds Act. Gustavo E. Fischman and Kevin Winn of Arizona State University reviewed Our Next Assignment: Where Americans Stand on Public K-12 Education: A Review of Recent Opinion Research . They find that the report makes a unique contribution in its gathering of many surveys into a single report, as well as its inclusion of interviews with employers. But a lack of methodological clarity makes many of the report's conclusions questionable. The report is also inconsistent in how it addresses respondents from different demographic groups (e.g., race, class, political affiliation) and in how it treats disaggregated data, resulting in an inability to generalize to the population or to any subgroup. Therefore, the conclusions are cursory and incomplete, requiring further study and research. For these reasons, Fischman and Winn do not recommend that the report be used to make policy, but they do see the report as a good starting point for understanding where more research should be undertaken. As the report's authors accurately point out, this includes incorporating the often-ignored voices of students and parents. Find the review, by Gustavo E. Fischman and Kevin Winn, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Fischman-K12-Surveys.pdf Find Our Next Assignment: Where Americans Stand on Public K-12 Education: A Review of Recent Opinion Research, written by Rebecca Silliman and David Schleifer and published by Public Agenda, at: https://www.publicagenda.org/files/PublicAgenda_OurNextAssignment_2018.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Gustavo E. Fischman: (602) 330-9629, fischman@asu.edu Great Lakes Center : (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Efficiency Index Summary This report, supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), measured efficiency based on test scores, and resource use analyzed in terms of teachers wages and pupil-teacher ratios. It looked at costs for teachers and educational outcomes, and did not consider socioeconomic differences. Publication Date September 23, 2014 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors Peter Dolton, Oliver Marcenaro-Gutierrez, and Adam Still; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release International Efficiency Index Distracts, Fails To Advance Understanding EAST LANSING, Mich. (Sept. 23, 2014) – A new report from GEMS Education Solutions scored and ranked national education systems worldwide based on their efficiency. The news media picked up on the report and asserted, based on the index, America's schools could be more efficient if teachers were paid less and class size was increased. However, a review out today, counters that the report does not advance our understanding of how to make education more efficient. Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York (CUNY), reviewed The Efficiency Index for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Professor Belfield is an Economist specializing in resource allocation and cost-effectiveness. The report, supported by the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), measured efficiency based on test scores, and resource use analyzed in terms of teachers wages and pupil-teacher ratios. It looked at costs for teachers and educational outcomes, and did not consider socioeconomic differences. In his review, Belfield finds the assumptions that efficiency is best analyzed through international comparisons of test score data to be problematic. He states, "This type of analysis has contributed very little to the improvement of educational policy in the US." Regarding the report's usefulness, he finds "the policy implications that flow from the report's own analysis are unrealistic and by the authors' own admission ' practically impossible .'" Belfield cites weaknesses based on the study's three key elements: (1) the output measure is questionable; (2) the input measures are unclear: and (3) the econometric method by which they are correlated does not have a straightforward economic interpretation. In his conclusion, Belfield says that the report serves to distract policymakers instead of informing. "The report's policy proposals derive from an abstract model that gives very little consideration to existing research (which is now extensive and high quality), to how resources are allocated, and to how education professionals make decisions." Put simply, Belfield says "the report does not advance our understanding of how to make education provision more efficient." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Efficiency Index on the web: http://www.gemsedsolutions.com/efficiency-index Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: 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 California Class Sizes Matter Summary Smaller class sizes are essential for our public school educators to do their jobs and provide every student with the individual attention they need to succeed. Yet the educator-to-student ratio continues to increase nationwide as educators are continually asked to do more with less. Publication Date May 2, 2025 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Authors Great Lakes Center Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Great Lakes Center Policy Brief: Research, Educator Voices Show 'Class Size Matters' Key Takeaway: New Great Lakes Center policy brief exploring the impact of class-size growth in California - the nation's largest state - makes the case for smaller class sizes in supporting educators and students alike. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 2, 2025) - Smaller class sizes are essential for our public school educators to do their jobs and provide every student with the individual attention they need to succeed. Yet the educator-to-student ratio continues to increase nationwide as educators are continually asked to do more with less. In the Great Lake Center's new policy brief, " California Class Sizes Matter: A Review of Research and Educator Voices ," the authors analyze classroom growth trends in California since 1963. Despite the best efforts of some through the decades, California today has the nation's fifth-largest educator-to-student ratio. In a recent survey of California educators statewide, over 75% of those surveyed said overcrowded classrooms are a serious issue at their school. This is despite widespread support for smaller class sizes and more student supports from parents, educators, community members, and students themselves. Smaller class sizes and adequate student supports give educators and students a greater opportunity for the type of individual and smaller group attention needed for students to succeed, the authors conclude. Research has found time and again that even small reductions in the number of students in a classroom can make a big difference in educators' ability to provide more individualized attention, facilitate more learning, and increase students' chances of success. The policy brief includes the voices of the education experts themselves - our teachers - to provide a historical perspective on continued class-size concerns in the Golden State. Each educator included in the brief has an average of more than two decades of teaching experience and has taught in overcrowded classrooms. Importantly, the educators have also taught before and after California's 1996 Class Size Reduction Initiative and throughout the unparalleled classroom challenges created by the COVID-19 pandemic. The policy brief makes a clear case that class size reductions are essential for student learning, social emotional support, and educator stability. Utilizing the best available research and the real-life experiences of California educators, the policy brief demonstrates how and why class sizes matter. Find "California Class Sizes Matter: A Review of Research and Educator Voices" by the Great Lakes Center at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/docs/Policy_Briefs/California-Class-Size-Matters.pdf. Maddie Fennell, Director Great lakes Center for Education Research and Practice maddie@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 10, 2022 Research Areas Charter Schools; School Funding Authors Anum Ali Mohammed and Adam Black; Audrey Amrein-Beardsley, Arizona State University 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 Review of Remote Learning Is Here to Stay Summary The RAND Corporation recently released a report based on a national survey of school district superintendents and charter management organization (CMO) directors (or their designees) about their experiences navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. Publication Date February 16, 2021 Research Areas Technology & AI Authors Heather L. Schwartz, David Grant, Melissa Diliberti, Gerald P. Hunter, and Claude Messan Setodji; David Garcia, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Misleading Report Fails to Provide Whole Picture of Survey Results An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Policymakers looking for guidance about pandemic-induced challenges will have to look beyond the report's title and recommendations and read deeper to get a complete picture. EAST LANSING, MI (February 16, 2021) -The RAND Corporation recently released a report based on a national survey of school district superintendents and charter management organization (CMO) directors (or their designees) about their experiences navigating the COVID-19 pandemic. David Garcia of Arizona State University reviewed Remote Learning Is Here to Stay and found some issues with one of its two recommendations. Professor Garcia also found the report to be curiously titled, as the headline is unwarranted by the survey responses. In fact, the respondents expressed much higher concerns about three other areas: (1) "addressing students' Socio-Emotional Learning and mental health needs" (the area with the greatest need for additional resources), (2) "addressing disparities in student opportunities to learn that result from differences in supplemental supports provided by families" (the most anticipated challenge), and (3) inadequate funding (the top staffing challenge). Relative to these three concerns, remote learning is a minor consideration. While the report's first recommendation, for more funding to address inequities and socio-emotional learning, follows from the respondents' stated needs, the other recommendation, for more funding to support remote learning, does not appear to align with needs expressed by district leaders. Professor Garcia also points out that the report combines two different types of local education agencies (school districts and CMOs), and it does so in a way that prevents readers from determining whether a given result is driven by one group or the other. Thus, while the report suggests that its most important finding is that "about two in ten districts have already adopted, plan to adopt, or are considering adopting virtual schools as part of their district portfolio after the end of the COVID-19 pandemic," it is unclear how much of this result is driven by CMOs rather than school districts. For these reasons, readers are encouraged to go beyond the title and read deeper to get a complete picture of the challenges, needs, and future of education from district leaders' perspectives. Find the review, by David Garcia, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Remote Learning Is Here to Stay: Results from the First American School District Panel Survey, written by Heather L. Schwartz, David Grant, Melissa Diliberti, Gerald P. Hunter, and Claude Messan Setodji and published by the RAND Corporation, at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA956-1.html 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 David R. Garcia: (480) 727-7423, david.garcia@asu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An analysis of intra-district spending patterns in Ohio Summary This report argues that funding disparities in high-poverty Ohio schools are the fault of school districts, not the state. Districts, the report contends, have adequate funds but don’t allocate them properly to high-poverty schools under their jurisdiction. The report’s central claim is that district-level policies are responsible for continued spending and achievement gaps. Publication Date October 17, 2007 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Funding Authors Bruce Baker, University of Kansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release BUCKEYE REPORT’S MAIN CLAIM LACKS EVIDENCE Reviewer says report’s serious shortcomings render it useless to guide policy EAST LANSING , MI – A recent report from the Buckeye Institute argues that funding disparities in high-poverty Ohio schools are the fault of school districts, not the state. The report contends that districts have adequate funds but don’t allocate them properly to their high-poverty schools. A review of that report, however, finds no basis for the report’s central claim that district-level policies are responsible for continued spending and achievement gaps. The Buckeye report, Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An analysis of intra-district spending patterns in Ohio , was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Bruce D. Baker at the University of Kansas. The Buckeye report contends that: The Ohio legislature has met its obligations under the state’s constitution to increase school funding and target it to high-poverty districts where it is most needed; School districts are responsible for continued inequity in spending that hurts high-poverty schools, because districts allocate staffing in ways that allow senior, higher-paid teachers to move to or stay in low-poverty schools; The inequity within districts is the primary cause of Ohio’s remaining achievement gaps between high- and low-poverty students; and Ohio can fix the problem by requiring districts to use so-called weighted student funding within districts. In his review, however, Baker finds that the Buckeye report never supports its basic interpretation of the problem. “The authors fail to validate their central thesis that the problem with Ohio school finance is a predominantly a within- rather than between-district problem and that the state system of allocating resources to districts is the most appropriate and equitable system to be used by districts allocating resources to schools,” Baker writes. One problem with the report, he says, is its scant review of existing research. “The authors of the Buckeye report either ignore entirely or are simply unaware of a vast body of directly and indirectly relevant literature,” he writes. The report’s contentions and conclusions are also severely weakened by other problems, according to Baker. It fails to take into account the way different grade levels may have different cost structures. Additionally, it makes analyses and comparisons on the basis of very small sample sizes, leading to distorted conclusions. And it appears to ignore evidence that the suggested solution, for a weighting system to be used in allocating funds, can in some instances “yield even less equitable financing than might exist if there were no weights at all.” But the larger flaw, Baker says, is the paper’s simple assumption that school districts are already adequately funded. “The Buckeye authors have failed to make their case that sufficient resources have already been allocated across districts, in part because they have failed to conduct any detailed analysis of the margins of additional funding in higher-need districts.” Ultimately the report “is built on the weakest of foundations,” he concludes. “It wrongly assumes that improving within-district disparity is the primary if not the sole remaining problem for the Ohio school finance system. Even more dubiously, it argues that remaining achievement gaps between high- and low-poverty children are mainly a function of within-district financial disparities. “As such, high-poverty districts are asked by these authors to bear the burden of correcting those disparities at no additional state expense. The report’s weak methodology compounds it shortcomings. If taken seriously, the Buckeye Institute report will only misguide policymaking.” A technical appendix to the new review by Baker further undermines the report’s claims. The appendix presents Baker’s analysis of Ohio data, demonstrating that the state’s funding approach provides only modest poverty-based support across districts. Contrary to the Buckeye report’s basic assumptions, Baker’s new analysis shows within-district equity and poverty supports to be no worse and no better than state efforts across districts. Find the complete review by Bruce Baker as well as a link to the Buckeye report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Teri Battaglieri, (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

< Back The Impact of Advocacy Funding on the School Choice Debate Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date March 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Pay for Performance Summary This report claims that students in nations where teachers are paid on "merit" score higher on an international achievement test. Publication Date May 31, 2011 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Mattias von Davier, Education Testing Service Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release International merit pay study inadequate for making policy decisions, independent review finds March 31, 2011 Harvard PEPG study used 'unreliable and invalid' information to back up its conclusions EAST LANSING, Mich. (March 31, 2011) — A study promoting merit pay for teachers is flawed and should not be used to guide public policy decisions, according to an independent review released today. The study entitled, Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Performance Pay, was released by the Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance (an abridged version was also published in Education Next). The study claims that students in nations that use merit pay for teachers score higher on an international achievement test. The study was thoroughly reviewed by researcher Matthias von Davier, Ph.D., principal research scientist with the Education Testing Service, a nonprofit organization that develops, administers and scores tests in more than 180 countries. Von Davier, a research fellow at the University of Oxford, found that the study reached overly broad conclusions. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Von Davier said the study uses numbers that are "unreliable and invalid" and "leaves too many questions unanswered." He also found that the study compares apples and oranges, making comparisons between nations that have different standards and are socially, economically and culturally distinct. According to von Davier: Grade levels are ambiguous between nations. Some of the nations tested in the Education Next report have universal pre-school or kindergarten, while others don't. Different countries have different criteria for certifying teachers - some can become teachers after simply passing an oral exam, while others must undergo more rigorous education and testing. Merit pay methods differ by nation, with some merit pay decisions made by principals and others made by local or national authorities. The study also looked only at a small set of nations, resulting in simplistic generalizations. Removing just one nation from the set of 28 countries studied substantially skews the results. For example, von Davier found that by just removing Mexico from the Education Next study, the correlation between student performance and merit pay dropped to zero. "As a consequence, the study does not yield results powerful enough to support the adoption of a policy of performance pay," von Davier said. The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely and academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find von Davier's complete review and a link to Cross-Country Evidence on Teacher Performance Pay at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . The review is also available on the National Education Policy website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-pisa-performance-pay . The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. --###-- The 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: Teri Battaglieri – (517) 203-2940; greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Matthias von Davier: (609) 734-1717, mvondavier@ets.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More