< Back Review of Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools? Summary Legislatures across the United States continue to pass policies to add or expand school choice. Within this context, the Fordham Institute, an advocate of school choice expansion, has published a report asserting that charter schools have not negatively affected students in traditional public schools. However, a review of this report finds that though it could contribute to the conversation, its conclusions are highly misleading. Publication Date June 19, 2024 Authors Stéphane Lavertu; Bryan Mann, University of Kansas Research Areas Charter Schools; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Despite a Sound Analysis of School Choice, Report Offers Misleading Conclusions An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's analysis contributes to the charter school debate but fails to support its bold claim that the debate is over. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JUNE 20, 2024) - Legislatures across the United States continue to pass policies to add or expand school choice. Within this context, the Fordham Institute, an advocate of school choice expansion, has published a report asserting that charter schools have not negatively affected students in traditional public schools. However, a review of this report finds that though it could contribute to the conversation, its conclusions are highly misleading. In his review of Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools? , University of Kansas professor Bryan Mann determines the report to have little value to policymakers. This is in large part because the report's conclusions extend well beyond the scope of its statistical analysis. The Fordham report concludes that the presence of charter schools leads to modest improvements in traditional schools' attendance and graduation rates and, therefore, that charters and similar approaches should be expanded in Ohio. That is, the report argues that lawmakers should increase the charter-school footprint, based solely on a limited analysis of these two performance indicators. This argument aligns with other advocates' "competitive effects" arguments-the idea that district-run schools will adjust to marketplace pressure and improve. However, the study's statistical analysis actually reveals null findings in performance indicators, allowing for counterfactuals that undermine its core arguments. The study's own findings do not justify the report's bold conclusions. Even though there is significant scholarly debate on the extent and nature of competitive effects, Professor Mann details how the report misuses its limited findings to declare that debate "over." The competitive-effects issue remains unresolved. Thus, because of its unsupported leap from findings to conclusions, policymakers should avoid using the report to make high-stakes-and costly-decisions that expand charter schools in Ohio. Find the review, by Bryan Mann, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Did the Emergence of Ohio Charter Schools Help or Harm Students Who Remained in District Schools?, written by Stéphane Lavertu and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/research/did-emergence-ohio-charter-schools-help-or-harm-students-who-remained-district 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 Bryan Mann: Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Reversing the Deprofessionalization of Teaching Summary As part of a series of briefs being released by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss three forces impacting teachers: (a) alternative (fast-track or no-track) teacher preparation and licensure; (b) teacher evaluation approaches that are largely focused on students’ test scores; and (c) scripted, narrow curriculum that can be constricting and demoralizing for high-quality teachers. Publication Date December 7, 2015 Authors William Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Second concise brief considers deprofessionalization of teaching EAST LANSING, MI (Dec. 8, 2015) – A new concise brief released today describes the forces driving teacher deprofessionalization and the resulting easy-entry, easy-exit approach to the hiring and firing of teachers. It also offers policy options to address some of the damage currently being done. As a part of a new series of briefs released by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, William J. Mathis and Kevin Welner, University of Colorado Boulder, discuss three forces impacting teachers: (a) alternative (fast-track or no-track) teacher preparation and licensure; (b) teacher evaluation approaches that are largely focused on students' test scores; and (c) scripted, narrow curriculum that can be constricting and demoralizing for high-quality teachers. In Reversing the Deprofessionalization of Teaching , Mathis and Welner describe the impact of teacher-level reforms and offer a path to restoring teaching as a profession. The authors make five recommendations for policymakers: Strengthening teacher education programs, with increased focus on developing pedagogical content knowledge and expertise; State education agencies should not recognize or approve teacher education programs or accreditation agencies that fail to provide a full teacher preparation program with appropriate field experience; Teacher evaluations should also be strengthened, making use of established approaches, such as peer assistance and review; A moratorium should be placed on test-based policies such as value-added teacher assessment; and A broadening of the curriculum, with a partial or complete decoupling of test scores from high-stakes consequences. This is the second part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. This brief updates the research from a previous policy brief by Professor Richard Milner, the Helen Faison Endowed Chair of Urban Education at the University of Pittsburgh. Find the brief on the GLC website: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_options_2015.php This concise brief is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder, and is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Daniel J. Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States Summary American public education faces an escalating challenge: the rise of Christian nationalism. This movement entwines politics and religion, insisting the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed by rigid hierarchies under the Christian God. A new policy brief explores the political and ideological effects this movement has on education policy. Publication Date November 3, 2025 Authors Kevin Burke, University of Georgia; Heidi Hadley, Auburn University Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States NOVEMBER 4, 2025 Policy Brief Explores How Christian Nationalism Is Changing Public Education Key Takeaway: New brief warns of growing efforts to reshape schools around White Christian nationalist ideology. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (NOVEMBER 4, 2025) - American public education faces an escalating challenge: the rise of Christian nationalism. This movement entwines politics and religion, insisting the U.S. was founded as a Christian nation and should be governed by rigid hierarchies under the Christian God. A new policy brief explores the political and ideological effects this movement has on education policy. The brief, Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States , is authored by Kevin Burke of the University of Georgia and Heidi Hadley of Auburn University. It examines the movement's history, foundation, goals and impact on American politics, society and life, and it provides suggestions for educational policymakers. Christian nationalists view public education as a battleground for advancing their values, justifying nearly any means to impose Christian priorities in schools. Their influence is evident in book bans, parental choice campaigns, and school board takeovers, supported by right-wing networks and bolstered by recent Supreme Court rulings. President Trump's second term, aligned with the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025 , has accelerated this agenda at the federal level, emboldening Republican-controlled states to enact White Christian nationalist education policies. Activists, funded by political action committees and conservative organizations, continue to push school boards toward policies aligned with their ideological vision. At stake, the report warns, is more than a mere series of isolated policy disputes. These conflicts point to a fundamental struggle over whether the United States will remain a pluralistic democracy or move toward a theocracy rooted in a narrow Christian theology. State lawmakers, it concludes, must help the public understand these stakes by requiring publicly funded schools to disclose which groups of people and what academic content are excluded under such ideologies. Noting the brutal assassination of Charlie Kirk and the subsequent attacks on free speech by the Trump administration, the report's authors said that now is the time when we most need to protect freedom of inquiry while repudiating terror at the hands of the state and individual actors. "This brief was authored in a time of escalating political violence and very real attacks on liberal democracy," Burke said. "Heidi and I hope that Americans can come to resist the fruits of hatred and seek strength in the pluralism of our society." Find Christian Nationalism and Educational Policy in the United States , by Kevin J. Burke and Heidi Hadley, at: https://greatlakescenter.org This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, sponsors research, produces policy briefs, and publishes expert third-party reviews of think tank reports. NEPC publications are written in accessible language and are intended for a broad audience that includes academic experts, policymakers, the media, and the general public. Our mission is to provide high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence and support a multiracial society that is inclusive, kind, and just. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu Kevin J. Burke burkekq@uga.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back School Closure as a Strategy to Remedy Low Performance Summary Closing a “low-performing” school and sending students to a “better-performing” one has been offered as a school improvement strategy, which the logic suggests will motivate schools to improve. A new policy brief released today investigates whether closing schools is an option that policymakers should pursue. According to the brief, the limited evidence base suggests that school closures are not a promising strategy for remedying low performance. The authors write, “School closures have at best weak and decidedly mixed benefits; at worst they have detrimental repercussions for students if districts do not ensure that seats at higher-performing schools are available for transfer students.” Publication Date May 17, 2017 Authors Gail L. Sunderman, University of Maryland; Erin Coghlan, University of California Berkeley; and Rick Mintrop, University of California Berkeley. Research Areas General / Needs Review; Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Policy Brief Explores School Closure as a Reform Policy EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 18, 2017) — Closing a "low-performing" school and sending students to a "better-performing" one has been offered as a school improvement strategy, which the logic suggests will motivate schools to improve. A new policy brief released today investigates whether closing schools is an option that policymakers should pursue. The brief, School Closure as a Strategy to Remedy Low Performance , was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), and written by Gail L. Sunderman, University of Maryland, Erin Coghlan, University of California Berkeley, and Rick Mintrop, University of California Berkeley. It was funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to the brief, the limited evidence base suggests that school closures are not a promising strategy for remedying low performance. The authors write, "School closures have at best weak and decidedly mixed benefits; at worst they have detrimental repercussions for students if districts do not ensure that seats at higher-performing schools are available for transfer students." In addition to reviewing the evidence base, the authors answer four overarching research questions: How often do school closings occur and for what reasons? What is the impact on students of closing schools for reasons of performance? What is the impact of closing schools on the public school system in which closure has taken place? and What is the impact of school closures on students of various ethnic and socioeconomic backgrounds, and on local communities and neighborhoods? Based on their analysis, the authors offer the following cautions: (1) Because this turnaround option is so infrequently used, policy and district actors should approach this option with caution; (2) "Closure and transfer" is a decidedly undesirable option in districts where transferring to a higher-performing school is not available; (3) School closures are especially inadvisable for middle school students, due to the shorter grade span of such schools; (4) Closing schools for any reason has costs, but closing schools solely for performance has unanticipated consequences; and (5) Closures tend to differentially affect low-income communities of color. The authors, in their conclusion, state that school closure as a strategy for school improvement is a "high-risk/low-gain strategy that fails to hold promise for improving student achievement and non-cognitive well-being." They continue, "In many instances, students, parents, local communities, district and state policymakers may be better off investing in persistently low-performing schools than closing them." Find School Closure as a Strategy to Remedy Low Performance on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The brief 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. 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: Gail L. Sunderman, (443) 932-1934, gsunderm@umd.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 Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States Summary This report involved a large scale analysis of 65-70% of the nation’s charter schools and found that average charter performance is equal to, or perhaps lower than, the performance of traditional public schools. Miron¡Çs and Applegate¡Çs review of the report finds that the solid analytic approach employed and the comprehensive data set used make the report a valuable addition to the body of charter school research. Publication Date June 23, 2009 Authors Gary Miron and Brooks Applegate, Western Michigan University Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release High-Quality Charter School Report Confirms Past Research June 24, 2009 CREDO study reinforces evidence showing no overall impact of charters on student achievement, according to new review EAST LANSING, Mi., June 24, 2009 – A new report on the impact of charter schools on student performance finds that, on average, charter schools perform no better than traditional public schools. A review of the report finds that the solid analytic approach employed and the comprehensive data set used make the report a valuable addition to the body of charter school research. The report, Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States , is from the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Gary Miron and Brooks Applegate of Western Michigan University who have extensive experience studying and evaluating charter school performance. Multiple Choice draws its conclusions from the researchers’ examination of longitudinal, student-level data compiled from 15 or 16 states (the reviewers note some lack of clarity on this point), covering 65-70% of the nation’s charter schools. The report analyzes the achievement of students in these charter schools compared to that of matched students in traditional public schools. The primary findings of the CREDO report show that charter school students’ test performance is basically the same as the performance of students enrolled in traditional public school. Because of their very large data base, the authors were able to tease out statistically significant differences in 54% of the charter schools studied, with the following results: “17 percent [of charters] provide superior education opportunities for their students. … 37 percent, deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their student would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.” In their review, Miron and Applegate summarize past research examining charter school performance and indicate that the CREDO findings strengthen the broader body of evidence which shows average charter performance to be equal to, or perhaps lower than, the performance of traditional public schools. The CREDO report also attempts to draw some state-level conclusions from their results, looking at three policies associated with more or less restrictiveness in the state charter laws: caps on the number of allowed charters in the state, restrictions on who can authorize the creation of a charter, and the allowance of appeals by charter applicants from a denial of authorization. The results were mixed, and the reviewers conclude that the analytic approach was undermined by the divergent manner in which these policies are implemented. The reviewers do, however, present their own secondary look at the state-level data (presented in their review) and uncover a pattern showing states doing better when they have fewer charters and when fewer of those charters are run by for-profit corporations. Although too complex to be easily summarized, the review from Miron and Applegate also raises a series of technical questions regarding the report’s analyses. Because of the potential value of the CREDO work, the reviewers urge the authors to answer those questions in technical follow-up papers to the report and in later work with their data base. Find Gary Miron’s and Brooks Applegate’s review as well as a link to the Stanford CREDO report on the web at: www.greatlakescenter.org About The Think Twice Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Gary Miron, (269) 599-7965; gary.miron@wmich.edu Brooks Applegate, (269) 387-3886; brooks.applegate@wmich.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Fixing Classroom Observations: How Common Core Will Change the Way We Look at Teaching Summary This report suggests that many states and school districts are rolling out new teacher evaluation systems that will not succeed in improving instruction because they have not been updated to reflect the Common Core. The report asserts that new evaluation systems have not remedied practical challenges of classroom observations. It calls for increased emphasis on lesson content and a paring down of observation rubrics – to make them more focused and clear. Publication Date January 20, 2014 Authors Jennie Whitcomb, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Teacher Workforce; Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Think Twice Project Reviews TNTP Report Review questions value of report on teacher evaluation, Common Core EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 21, 2014) – A recent report from TNTP, Fixing Classroom Observations: How Common Core Will Change the Way We Look at Teaching, asserts that current classroom observation rubrics are not aligned with Common Core standards and have too many cumbersome criteria. The report proposes several remedies to improve teacher evaluation rubrics; however, an academic review released today questions the value of the report. Dr. Jennie Whitcomb of the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Fixing Classroom Observations claims that current observation rubrics overload observers, result in too many high ratings, and seldom give productive feedback to participants. The report identifies two key changes to improve observation rubrics: (1) pay more attention to lesson content; and (2) pare observation rubrics down to make them more focused and clear. Whitcomb found that the "two recommendations have potential to improve implementation of Common Core and teacher evaluation systems," but there is no research evidence presented that the strategies suggested will work. No research was found to support the claim that clinical or instructional feedback improved practice. The report cited only one study and ignored all other research on the design of research-based classroom observation tools. Whitcomb says, "Improving observer training, monitoring collaboration, and providing necessary time in school schedules to both conduct adequate observations and provide sound feedback may hold greater promise to improve teacher's instruction and student's learning experiences." She suggests that better implementation of current tools may hold more promise than the remedies suggested in the report. The review concludes that the problems of teacher evaluation are too complex to be seriously addressed by simply streamlining observation instruments or aligning content more closely with Common Core. Rather than solving implementation problems facing schools, Whitcomb says, "The report appears to be a sales-pitch for TNTP's soon-to-be-launched observation tools focused on Common Core lesson content." Find Jennie Whitcomb's review on Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Fixing Classroom Observations on the web: http://tntp.org/ideas-and-innovations/view/fixing-classroom-observations Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Jennie Whitcomb is the associate dean for teacher education at the University of Colorado Boulder and a former editor of the Journal of Teacher education . 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: Jennie Whitcomb, (303) 735-3029, jennie.whitcomb@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 Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin for 2024 Summary A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) examines publicly available test score data from Spring 2024 in Wisconsin to investigate the relative effectiveness and cost of school choice programs. Publication Date June 9, 2025 Authors Will Flanders; Benjamin Shear, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Charter Schools; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report overstates its conclusions without sufficient data transparency or fiscal analysis. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (JUNE 10, 2025) - A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty (WILL) examines publicly available test score data from Spring 2024 in Wisconsin to investigate the relative effectiveness and cost of school choice programs. The report claims to provide evidence that private schools participating in the state's voucher programs and charter schools yield better academic results as compared with traditional public schools, but Benjamin Shear of the University of Colorado Boulder identifies several critical limitations in the data and analyses behind those claims. NEPC today published Professor Shear's review of WILL's Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin for 2024 . The report uses statistical adjustments to compare test scores across Wisconsin public schools, private "choice" (voucher-receiving) schools, and charter schools. Based on these analyses and the per-pupil funding amounts for each program, the report concludes that private and charter schools perform as well or better than traditional public schools-while receiving less public funding-ultimately claiming these schools offer "more bang for the buck." Professor Shear argues, however, that the statistical methods used cannot overcome the substantial underlying constraints of the data. Additionally, the report lacks transparency around key methodological decisions and fails to include a systematic fiscal analysis-undermining its conclusions about both the "bang" and the "buck" elements of cost-effectiveness. As a result, the report offers policymakers little to no practical guidance. If school choice policies are to be guided by cost-benefit analyses, those analyses should be comprehensive and should incorporate empirical evidence about how well the different schooling models are working. While the report does provide a helpful overview of the range of school choice options available in Wisconsin and raises important questions about their efficacy, its descriptive findings are of minimal use without greater transparency and rigor in its data and methods. Find the review, by Benjamin Shear, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin for 2024, written by Will Flanders and published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, at https://will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/ApplestoApples202553.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Benjamin Shear Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Starts and Stumbles of Restorative Justice in Education: Where Do We Go from Here? Summary Schools are implementing Restorative Justice in Education (RJE) initiatives across the United States, often to reduce the use of out-of-school suspension, which is known to increase the risk for dropout and arrest. Many RJE initiatives also aim to strengthen social and emotional competencies, reduce gender and racial disparities in discipline, and increase access to equitable and supportive environments for students from marginalized groups. Yet whether these benefits emerge depends on whether the reforms are well implemented. Publication Date January 13, 2020 Authors Anne Gregory, Ph.D., Rutgers University, Katherine R. Evans, Ph.D., Eastern Mennonite University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights; School Climate & Student Support Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Contacts: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Anne Gregory : (848) 445-3984, annegreg@gsapp.rutgers.edu Restorative Justice in Education is Working, but Smart Implementation is Crucial A NEPC Policy Brief Funded By the GLC Key Takeaway: Restorative justice practices are proactive and responsive in nurturing healthy relationships, repairing harm, transforming conflict, and promoting justice and equity. EAST LANSING, Mich. (January 14, 2020) — Schools are implementing Restorative Justice in Education (RJE) initiatives across the United States, often to reduce the use of out-of-school suspension, which is known to increase the risk for dropout and arrest. Many RJE initiatives also aim to strengthen social and emotional competencies, reduce gender and racial disparities in discipline, and increase access to equitable and supportive environments for students from marginalized groups. Yet whether these benefits emerge depends on whether the reforms are well implemented. NEPC released a policy brief today, The Starts and Stumbles of Restorative Justice in Education: Where Do We Go from Here? , authored by Professors Anne Gregory of Rutgers University and Katherine R. Evans of Eastern Mennonite University. The brief summarizes the research on restorative initiatives, with a focus on implementation and outcomes in U.S. schools. Gregory and Evans view RJE as a comprehensive, whole school approach to shifting school culture in ways that prioritize relational pedagogies, justice and equity, resilience-fostering, and well-being. Each of these elements is important; schools cannot water down the reforms, implementing them in a half-hearted way, and realistically hope to see strong results. Guided by a set of restorative values and principles (such as dignity, respect, accountability, and fairness), RJE practices are proactive and are responsive in nurturing healthy relationships, repairing harm, transforming conflict, and promoting justice and equity. Educators in schools and classrooms with well-implemented RJE work to ensure that the “vulnerable are cared for, the marginalized are included, the dignity and humanity of each person in the educational setting matters, and everyone’s needs are heard and met.” The authors present the accumulating evidence that restorative approaches can reduce the use of exclusionary discipline. They describe promising evidence that such approaches can narrow racial disparities in discipline. They also consider some mixed findings related to improving school climate and student development in light of possibly faulty models and mis-implementation of RJE. Finally, they offer recommendations for comprehensive RJE models and strategic implementation plans to drive more consistently positive outcomes. Find The Starts and Stumbles of Restorative Justice in Education: Where Do We Go from Here?, by Anne Gregory and Katherine R. Evans, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ This policy brief was made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice ( greatlakescenter.org ). The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy and Portability to Ohio School Finance Summary This report is the latest in a series which argues that state funding should follow children to the public schools (rather than the districts) of their choice; that per-pupil funding amounts should be weighted according to children’s individual needs and circumstances; and that schools should have flexibility in how they spend the funds they receive. A major goal of these proposals is to end funding disparities within and between districts. Publication Date April 6, 2008 Authors Bruce Baker, University of Kansas Research Areas School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review Finds Both Strengths and Weaknesses in Weighted Student Funding Report Fordham Institute’s “Fund the Ohio Child” report takes measured approach but falls short in use of research to support its claims EAST LANSING, Mich.(April 7, 2008) — A new report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute advocates for decentralized control of public schools, weighted student funding and school choice. A review of this report finds that it is of higher quality than past reports on the topic, but falls short in its failure to use any relevant, empirical research that might provide policy makers with useful insights. The report, Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy and Portability to Ohio School Finance , was published by the Fordham Institute. It was reviewed for the Think Twice Project by Professor Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas. The report is the latest in a series which argues that state funding should follow children to the public schools (rather than the districts) of their choice; that per-pupil funding amounts should be weighted according to children’s individual needs and circumstances; and that schools should have flexibility in how they spend the funds they receive. A major goal of these proposals is to end funding disparities within and between districts. Professor Baker credits the report because it “avoids bold but unfounded claims that research has found decentralized governance to necessarily lead to improved student outcomes.” And he has praise for its “much more measured approach toward recommendations for implementing the reform,” primarily its suggestion that states carefully and methodically phase in the proposal. “However, the current report continues to fall short in its application of, or even reference to, relevant peer-reviewed policy research, or rigorous empirical analysis that might provide useful insights to policymakers,” Baker writes. “In particular, the report overlooks several studies presenting alternative methods for evaluating cost variation across school settings and children that might aid in the design of better weighted student funding formulas.” Moreover, Baker points to clear inequities in the weighted student formula system already in place in Cincinnati, highlighting that the reform could easily replicate existing funding problems. Nevertheless, Baker concludes, this new report “takes important steps forward from previous reports” promoting weighted student funding. Find the complete review by Bruce Baker as well as a link to the Fordham Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. ### The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Contact: Bruce D. Baker, (785) 864-9844; bbaker@ku.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure Summary This study examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools has led to improved student achievement. It concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. Publication Date January 14, 2008 Authors Damian Betebenner, National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORT OVERSTATES CLAIMS FOR FLORIDA’S A+ ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM Reviewer says report presents strong analysis of Florida’s system, but wrongly implies vouchers can be singled out as a cause of school improvement EAST LANSING , Mich. (Jan. 15, 2008) – A new study from the Urban Institute’s CALDER center examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools led to improved student achievement. The report concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. A new review of the study praises its comprehensive analysis of data, but identifies several key instances where the report overstates its case. The CALDER report,“Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure,” was authored by Cecilia E. Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio. The report was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Damian Betebenner of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. In their report, the authors seek to understand the extent to which accountability sanctions and incentives impact school practices and student achievement. Based on statistical analysis of the lowest performing schools, the authors conclude that, in Florida, schools receiving a grade of “F” in the state’s A+ Plan for Education actually did alter their teaching practices, leading to higher test scores. Though Betebenner commends the report for its thorough analysis of the data, he observes that the most prominent shortcoming of the report is its overstatement regarding the relationship between the pressure of accountability sanctions and improvements in school achievement. He notes that the report’s title and some of the statements in the body of the report suggest that vouchers and other accountability measures are the cause of the achievement gains though there is no supporting evidence that such a causal connection exists. Betebenner adds, “Moreover, even if it is true that the Florida policy of vouchers plus other accountability provisions did lead to the changes in policy and practice, nothing in this new research allows a policy maker to single out either vouchers or other accountability provisions (or a combination) as having such an effect.” Betebenner concludes that the Urban Institute report does offer reason to believe that one or more elements of Florida’s accountability systems “may offer … a lever” to improve student achievement. But he continues, “because changes in school policy and practice can occur for many reasons, this research should not be read to show that the accountability system ‘led to’ or ‘caused’ the student achievement increases. Nor does the new report consider whether the accountability levers in Florida are the most effective means of quickly and beneficially transforming the policies and practices of schools in a way that leads to increased student achievement.” Find the complete review by Damian Betebenner as well as a link to the CALDER center at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . About the Think Tank Review Project The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center 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: Damian Betebenner – (603) 516-7913; dbetebenner@nciea.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 For Good Measure? Teacher Evaluation Policy in the ESSA Era Summary A recent Bellwether Education Partners report advocated for the maintenance of key elements of high-stakes teacher evaluation, with a focus on accountability and the use of student outcomes to evaluate teachers. The report sought to influence states’ decisions about possible revisions to teacher evaluation policies under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). However, an academic review of the report finds that its conclusions are underdeveloped and unsubstantiated. Publication Date December 31, 1969 Authors Research Areas General / Needs Review Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Faulty logic and incomplete analyses limit report on teacher evaluation reform EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 21, 2017) — In December 2016, Bellwether Education Partners released a report that advocated for the maintenance of key elements of high-stakes teacher evaluation, with a focus on accountability and the use of student outcomes to evaluate teachers. The report sought to influence states' decisions about possible revisions to teacher evaluation policies under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). An academic review of the report finds that its conclusions are underdeveloped and unsubstantiated. Amy Farley, University of Cincinnati, reviewed For Good Measure? Teacher Evaluation Policy in the ESSA Era for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Since 2009, the federal government has spurred states make wide reaching changes to teacher evaluation laws. This report sought to review recent teacher evaluation policy movement and identify positive outcomes of the new systems and negative consequences. It urged policymakers to move slowly in revising their systems. Farley says, "While the report raises several good questions with regard to the future of teacher evaluation, it overstates the likelihood that ESSA will result in widespread changes to evaluations." According to Farley, the report ignores the extant literature regarding substantial technical challenges and unintended consequences of growth measures. Also, the report dismissed the ideological and political debates surrounding teacher accountability. In conclusion, Farley finds "The unsubstantiated claims and dogged defense of student growth metrics provide little fresh or worthwhile new directions to policymakers seeking a nuanced and research-based discussion of teacher evaluation reform in the ESSA era." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report on the web: http://bellwethereducation.org/publication/good-measure-teacher-evaluation-policy-essa-era 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: Amy N. Farley, (513) 556-5111, amy.farley@uc.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? Summary A recent American Enterprise Institute (AEI) report attempted to examine the impact of student achievement scores on longer-term school-related attainment outcomes. The report suggested that less attention be given to test score comparisons between traditional public schools and school choice models (e.g., charters and school vouchers). A new academic review out today investigates the consistency of the claims made and the evidence used for the report. Publication Date May 2, 2018 Authors Collin Hitt, Michael Q. McShane, and Patrick J. Wolf; Chris Lubienski, Indiana University; & T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Disappointing test score results shift focus of school choice report EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 3, 2018) — A recent American Enterprise Institute (AEI) report attempted to examine the impact of student achievement scores on longer-term school-related attainment outcomes. The report suggested that less attention be given to test score comparisons between traditional public schools and school choice models (e.g., charters and school vouchers). A new academic review out today investigates the consistency of the claims made and the evidence used for the report. Reviewers Christopher Lubienski , Indiana University, and T. Jameson Brewer , University of North Georgia, find the report to be based on questionable evidence and of little use to policy makers. The report, Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . According to the review, the report is not consistent with previous school choice advocacy papers, and marks a stunning change in school choice policy preferences. The reviewers find that after years of disappointing test score outcomes, school choice advocates are now attempting to move away from test score comparisons with traditional public schools. In terms of evidence, Lubienski and Brewer find the report to be "riddled with numerous internal inconsistencies in its discussion and treatment of a set of studies that were selected by questionable methods." They conclude, "In view of the 180-degree turn based on questionable evidence, the report - despite the authors' assertions — is of little use to policymakers." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? here: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/Do-Impacts-on-Test-Scores-Even-Matter.pdf Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. You can also find the review on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Christopher Lubienski , (217) 643-8311, clubiens@iu.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