< 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 School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs Summary This report concludes that school choice programs which subsidize private school attendance with public funds have saved taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars cumulatively over a 15 year period. Publication Date May 24, 2007 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Bruce Baker, University of Kansas Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. – A recently released report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation claims that school choice programs which subsidize private school attendance with public funds have, cumulatively over 15 years, “saved” taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars. But a new review of that report concludes the claims of savings are misleading, oversimplified and, even if accurate, insignificant – less than 1/100 th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year. Further, the Friedman report does not address the issue of school quality, which is a large part of determining true cost savings. The report, “School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006,” was written by Susan Aud. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas. In her report, Aud studied twelve programs that offer public subsidies for students who attend private schools in ten states and the District of Colombia. She compared the per pupil cost of public financing (state and local) for a student attending a public school to the public financing of a student using a voucher to attend a private school. Based on this, she found a cumulative savings of $444 million over a 15-year period nationwide. In his review, Baker points out that expenditures and costs are not the same thing and that the report confuses “cost savings” with “government expenditure reduction.” “Typically,” he explains, “cost savings are defined in terms of achieving similar or better quality of outcome or output with lower investment. Cost necessarily assumes a level of product quality. Further, when one accounts for the cost of producing a product of specific quality, one must account for all resources that went into production, not just the small portion that was government subsidized.” The bottom line, Baker concludes, is that even if state and local governments were, in fact, able to reduce instructional expenses by $444 million over 15 years, this is a miniscule figure. The small number is in part because publicly financed vouchers are only used by 100,000 students which represents 0.2 percent of 2005 U.S. public school enrollment. Using 2004-05 public education spending amounts, Baker calculates the purported savings to be the equivalent of less than 1/100 th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year. Aud’s evidence, Baker concludes, “does not make a sufficient case to informed policymakers for the positive fiscal impact of vouchers and tuition tax credits. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite – that fiscal gains are trivial at best.” Find the complete review by Bruce Baker as well as a link to the report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation 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: Bruce Baker (785) 864-9844 (email) 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 Connecticut's Charter School Law and Race to the Top Summary This report argues for lifting the charter school cap and increasing funding for charter schools in Connecticut. Publication Date March 10, 2010 Research Areas Charter Schools; Assessment & Accountability Authors Robert Bifulco, Syracuse University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mi., (March 10, 2010) – A recently released issue brief argues that lifting the charter school cap and increasing funding for charters would raise low-income student achievement in Connecticut. A new Think Twice analysis of brief finds that it is one-sided, ignores relevant research on charter schools and offers no evidence to support its claim. The brief, published by the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN), Connecticut's Charter School Law and Race to the Top , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Syracuse University professor Robert Bifulco. In his review, Bifulco explains that the brief is fundamentally an advocacy piece that is "designed to promote a specific view of charter schools, and does not help policymakers or the public think carefully about what a charter school program should be trying to achieve and how best to achieve it." The ConnCAN issue brief claims that "charter schools have demonstrated sustained success, especially among low-income students" and calls those schools "an essential part of closing Connecticut's achievement gap." The brief advocates lifting the Connecticut charter school cap and creating a funding mechanism that pays charter schools the same per pupil rate as that pupil's home school district. Though Bifulco praises the brief for pointing to funding questions that may deserve attention, he identifies several major shortcomings. The brief fails, for instance, to use any peer-reviewed, empirical research on charter schools, even though such research is ample and relevant. Additionally, Bifulco observes that simply lifting the charter school enrollment cap across the board, as the ConnCAN brief recommends, ignores the fact that charters can already exceed the cap in Connecticut—but only if they demonstrate a record of student achievement. Changing that law to allow expansion for charters that do not have such a record may not, as the ConnCAN brief contends, place the state in a better position to receive Race to the Top dollars. Overall, the brief is described by the reviewer as providing "a rather one-sided and incomplete analysis of the issues at stake." Find Robert Bifulco's review as well as a link to the ConnCan issue brief at: http://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: Robert Bifulco – (315) 443-3144; rbifulco@syr.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back On the Public-Private School Achievement Debate Summary The Lubienskis’ review of the report finds that the evidence and claims made in the report are critically flawed. Among other things, the researchers did not control for key student demographic data and student-reported data neglected to include key information. Publication Date August 30, 2006 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Christopher Lubienski and Sarah Theule Lubienski, University of Illinois Publication Type Think Twice 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 Teachers in the Digital Age of Digital Instruction: Creating sound policy for digital learning Summary Teachers in the Digital Age of Digital Instruction: Creating sound policy for digital learning Publication Date April 3, 2012 Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction; Technology & AI Authors Luis A. Huerta, Teachers College, Columbia University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Latest Review of Online Learning Reports Lacks Evidence of Rigor Policymakers should seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments EAST LANSING, Mich (April 3, 2012) –A report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute outlines a vision for how technology might transform the teaching profession. A new review of the report found little or no empirical research evidence to support its central claim that digital age technologies will improve the education system. The report, Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction : Creating sound policy for digital learning , was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Luis Huerta, an associate professor of education at Teachers College-Columbia University. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Huerta, in his review, writes that the report's rationale is based on claims that the current education system lacks the capacity to support revolutionary changes needed to unleash the technological innovations of online instruction that will yield increased effectiveness and efficiency. The report explains that effective teachers are central to the demands of online instruction and will be even more necessary in the digital age than in the current system. Further, it asserts that the elements that constitute effective teaching can be broken down into discrete skills, packaged and then distributed to a wider group of learners via digital media. Huerta considers that while the report does address an important topic, the impact of effective teaching, the empirical research evidence to support its fundamental premise is insufficient and inadequate. Consequently, he concludes, the report amounts to only an advocacy document that outlines a vision of what changes might be necessary as the digital revolution comes of age in public education. Find Luis Huerta's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction , by Brian and Emily Hassel on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/teachers-in-the-age-of-digital-instruction.html Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part from funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-teachers-digital-age . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Luis A. Huerta, (212) 531-1638, huerta@tc.columbia.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Fiscal Effects of School Choice: The Costs and Savings of Private School Choice Programs in America Through FY 2022 Summary The expansion of voucher programs, which provide taxpayer-financed subsidies for families enrolling students in private schools, has prompted a debate about their fiscal impact. A recent EdChoice report argues that these programs do not negatively affect public school finances and actually save taxpayers substantial sums of money. Today's review explains how this argument rings hollow. Publication Date February 10, 2025 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Martin F. Lueken; Mark Weber, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Unsuccessfully Attempts to Present a Convincing Fiscal Argument for Voucher Programs An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: EdChoice's poorly constructed frameworks muddy the issues policymakers must contend with when considering the establishment or expansion of these programs. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (February 11, 2025) - The expansion of voucher programs, which provide taxpayer-financed subsidies for families enrolling students in private schools, has prompted a debate about their fiscal impact. A recent EdChoice report argues that these programs do not negatively affect public school finances and actually save taxpayers substantial sums of money. Today's review explains how this argument rings hollow. In his review of Fiscal Effects of School Choice: The Costs and Savings of Private School Choice Programs in America Through FY 2022 , Mark Weber of Rutgers University and the New Jersey Policy Perspective walks readers though the report's simplistic and unvalidated methods, showing how they lead to the invalid conclusion that the programs result in taxpayer savings. The report's estimation of the number of students likely incentivized by vouchers to switch from public to private schools-as opposed to students who use the vouchers to subsidize a private-school education that they would avail themselves of even without the voucher-is wholly unfounded. This problem is crucial, since the latter ("stayers" in private schools) represent a large new expenditure for states with voucher programs. Further, Dr. Weber points out, the report fails to apprehend that private and public schools serve different students, with public schools enrolling more students with specific educational needs that drive up costs. Weber notes additional methodological assumptions that are fatally flawed, likely underestimating the true costs of private-school voucher programs. Ultimately, he concludes, the report's lack of empirical evidence, reliance on poorly formed theories, and slapdash methods render it useless to policymakers. Find the review, by Mark Weber, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Fiscal Effects of School Choice: The Costs and Savings of Private School Choice Programs in America Through FY 2022 , written by Martin F. Lueken and published by EdChoice, at: https://www.edchoice.org/research-library/?report=2024-fiscal-effects-of-school-choice#report NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Mark Weber Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts Summary The report relies primarily on school district annual capital outlay data reported in the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data. It also examines which state policies may promote more progressive investment patterns. Confirming other studies, the report finds that school district capital expenditures vary from year to year and from state to state, that each state has a unique approach and mix of policies governing state support for local capital outlay, and that capital outlay is rarely equal or progressive. The report also finds that states with policies that aim to equalize capital spending are more likely to provide capital outlays for students from low-income backgrounds that are equal to or greater than outlays in wealthier communities. Publication Date April 20, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding Authors Kristin Blagg, Fanny Terrones, and Victoria Nelson; Jeffrey M. Vincent, University of California, Berkeley Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Solid Report Examines Expansion of Federal Facilities Funding for Public School Equity An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: The Urban Institute report's recommendations provide useful insights for how state and federal policy can move toward more progressive capital funding approaches. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (April 20, 2023) - State and local governments invest a great deal in the infrastructure of the nearly 100,000 schools across the U.S., encompassing about 8.1 billion gross square feet of buildings. Yet recent years have seen a recognition that expanded federal funding will be needed to address shortfalls and inequities. To that end, the Urban Institute recently released Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts , which analyzes equity patterns of school capital investment. In a review , Jeffrey M. Vincent of the University of California, Berkeley concludes that the report's findings and recommendations are strong and well-supported. The report relies primarily on school district annual capital outlay data reported in the U.S. Department of Education's Common Core of Data. It also examines which state policies may promote more progressive investment patterns. Confirming other studies, the report finds that school district capital expenditures vary from year to year and from state to state, that each state has a unique approach and mix of policies governing state support for local capital outlay, and that capital outlay is rarely equal or progressive. The report also finds that states with policies that aim to equalize capital spending are more likely to provide capital outlays for students from low-income backgrounds that are equal to or greater than outlays in wealthier communities. These findings are all well-supported, and the report's recommendations, including increasing funding, accounting for student economic need, and continuing assessment on building quality, provide useful insights for state and federal policy that will promote more progressive capital spending. Find the review, by Jeffrey M. Vincent, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/post-page/?id=3133&type=think_twice Find Assessing the National Landscape of Capital Expenditures for Public School Districts , written by Kristin Blagg, Fanny Terrones, and Victoria Nelson and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/research/publication/assessing-national-landscape-capital-expenditures-public-school-districts NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank-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 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 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: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Jeffrey M. Vincent: (510) 593-3067, jvincent@berkeley.edu 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 7, 2008 Research Areas School Funding Authors Bruce Baker, University of Kansas 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 Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality Summary A recent report from the Hamilton Project sought to study how public investment in education will further long-term prosperity, economic growth, and individual economic security. The inquiry focused on whether or not a bachelor’s degree or higher education would increase economic prosperity and reduce economic inequality. Publication Date May 18, 2015 Research Areas Technology & AI; Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review Authors Brad Hershbein, Melissa S. Kearney, and Lawrence H. Summers; Marvin Lazerson, Central European University and University of Pennsylvania; and Ryan Pfleger, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Unconstrained faith in education's economic power lacks evidentiary base, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 18, 2015) – A recent report from the Hamilton Project sought to study how public investment in education will further long-term prosperity, economic growth, and individual economic security. The inquiry focused on whether or not a bachelor's degree or higher education would increase economic prosperity and reduce economic inequality. A review of the report released today finds that it oversimplifies the importance of college degrees in boosting the economy, while rejecting the widely held view that education can substantially reduce economic inequality. Marvin Lazerson, professor of higher education policy at Central European University, Budapest, Hungary, and emeritus professor at the University of Pennsylvania, and Ryan Pfleger, a doctoral student in Educational Foundations, Policy, and Practice at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality 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. The report examines three possible components of education's economic power: (1) education is the critical factor in creating sustainable economic prosperity; (2) college and advanced degrees increase earnings power for individuals; and (3) a broad base of increased educational attainment will narrow income inequality. In the review, the authors find that the report and its assertions are straightforward and use an empirically-based simulation for future projections. However, the report has several limitations. Specifically, Lazerson and Pfleger find the following insufficiencies: there is little direct evidence in the report to show that increasing educational attainment is the most "efficient and effective," as the report describes, way to improve prosperity; the data are drawn are only from males, with no attention paid to gender, race, field of study, labor-market conditions, or institutional reputation; and no data were analyzed to evaluate other ways to address economic problems. The reviewers note that the findings of the report are illuminating, "because more schooling increases, on average, the income of individuals in comparison to those not receiving advanced schooling." However, the reviewers contend that more direct actions are necessary, and the use of schools as a lever to improve economic conditions is an indirect method. The reviewers conclude, "Claiming that the primary solution to a wide array of economic problems is to improve ‘human capital,' the report perpetuates a problematic myth that undervalues alternative ways to address poverty and economic insecurity." Read his full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Increasing Education: What it Will and Will Not Do for Earnings and Earnings Inequality on the web: http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/increasing_education_what_it_will_and_will_not_do_for_earnings_inequal/ 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: Marvin Lazerson, +498022662345 (Germany), marvinlazerson@t-online.de 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 Hidden Money: The Outsized Role of Parent Contributions in School Finance Summary A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) investigated private fundraising by parent groups, a source of inequality in education that receives scant attention. The report called on district leaders to take actions to address funding disparities between wealthy and low-income schools. The report found that while affluent students receive additional funding for additional resources from parent groups, low-income students (disproportionately children of color) must spend public dollars to obtain the same resources. Publication Date June 15, 2017 Research Areas General / Needs Review; School Funding Authors Catherine Brown, Scott Sargrad, and Meg Benner; Maia Cucchiara, Temple University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Promising report on private fundraising by parent groups only scratches the surface of inequality, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 15, 2017) — A report from the Center for American Progress (CAP) investigated private fundraising by parent groups, a source of inequality in education that receives scant attention. The report called on district leaders to take actions to address funding disparities between wealthy and low-income schools. An academic review of the report finds the report's findings about the scope and beneficiaries of private fundraising are credible and important. Maia Cucchiara , Temple University, reviewed the report, Hidden Money: The Outsized Role of Parent Contributions in School Finance , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The report found that while affluent students receive additional funding for additional resources from parent groups, low-income students (disproportionately children of color) must spend public dollars to obtain the same resources. Cucchiara, in her review, finds the report to be worthwhile, but finds fault with the report's focus on a small number of schools and districts. She adds that the report fails to provide school and community context, and the case study design limited the report's overall relevance. In her conclusion, Cucchiara says: "Many of the report's recommendations are quite promising. However, it is important to remember that privately raised funds comprise only a minor part of education spending, and that the true sources of educational inequality are structural factors (such as differences in property values, insufficient state aid, and concentrated poverty), rather than the actions of individual parents." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the original report on the web: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2017/04/08/428484/hidden-money/ 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: Maia Cucchiara , (215) 204-2743, maia.cucchiara@temple.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 New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis Center on Reinventing Public Education Summary The report finds that differences in charter and district school special education enrollment rates are far smaller than is claimed in recent federal reports and other literature. It finds disparities between elementary and secondary enrollment patterns, and variation among charter authorizers. The report argues against one-size-fits-all 'enrollment targets.' Publication Date December 6, 2012 Research Areas School Funding Authors Bruce Baker, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Special Education Under-enrollment Study Fails Test EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 6, 2012) – A recent report from the Center on Reinventing Public Education (CRPE), at the University of Washington, compares special education enrollment patterns in charter schools and district-run schools in New York State. The report suggests that charter schools may be doing better at enrolling students with special needs than previously reported. The report, New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis , was written by Robin Lake, Bethany Gross, and Patrick Denice and commissioned by the National Association of Charter School Authorizers. Bruce Baker, Rutgers University, reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report implies that charter schools perform well in serving special needs students. The authors of the study suggest that factors other than discrimination explain disparities in enrollment of students with special needs in charter schools. In his review, Bruce Baker says, "When not spun and when properly understood, the report's findings are relatively simple, straightforward and unsurprising." However, Baker finds that the study's main contention, that differences in enrollment rates among special education students are smaller than claimed on federal reports and other literature, is unsupported. His review also finds that the study relies very little on existing research regarding special education enrollments in New York State or New York City. Baker does agree with the report that state average comparisons between charter and non-charter schools without regard to location or age ranges of children served may not be accurate or sufficiently nuanced. Baker says "the report's main findings properly read, are consistent with earlier research: this set of charter schools – the vast majority in the sample observed – tend to systematically under-serve children with disabilities." "The report's objective appears to be to provide the appearance of an empirical basis for an advocacy goal – convincing policymakers across states that it would be unnecessary or wrongheaded to adopt 'enrolment target' policies to address a special education under-enrollment problem that may not exist." Find Bruce Baker's review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the New York State Special Education Enrollment Analysis , by Robin Lake, Betheny Gross, and Patrick Denice on the web: http://www.crpe.org/publications/new-york-state-special-education-enrollment-analysis 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 is also available on the National Education Policy Center website: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496 ext. 8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More