< Back Review of Thousands Served: Students with Disabilities in Wisconsin’s Parental Choice Programs Summary Scholars, advocates, and policymakers have long expressed the concern that many private schools receiving taxpayer subsidies through voucher programs would fail to serve children with disabilities. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, in collaboration with School Choice Wisconsin, recent published a report challenging those concerns. Publication Date April 7, 2025 Authors School Choice Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty; Maria M. Lewis, Pennsylvania State University; Julie F. Mead, University of Wisconsin-Madison Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Unreliable Claims on Disability Rates in Report about Wisconsin's School Voucher Programs An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Review finds methodological flaws and misleading conclusions in school voucher program analysis. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (APRIL 8, 2025) - Scholars, advocates, and policymakers have long expressed the concern that many private schools receiving taxpayer subsidies through voucher programs would fail to serve children with disabilities. The Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, in collaboration with School Choice Wisconsin, recent published a report challenging those concerns. In their review of Thousands Served: Students with Disabilities in Wisconsin's Parental Choice Programs , Maria M. Lewis of Pennsylvania State University and Julie F. Mead of the University of Wisconsin-Madison determine that the report's conclusions challenge precise state data with imprecise administrative estimates and are therefore misleading and unhelpful. The report asserts that the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) underestimates the number of students with disabilities in the state's school choice programs. The state determined that 8.9% of students participating in the state's voucher programs have or have had an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or were enrolled in the state's Special Needs Scholarship Program. The report dismisses that figure and asserts instead that over 14% of participating students "likely have a disability." The report's primary analysis relies upon survey data gathered from private-school leaders participating in the state's choice programs. Although the details of the survey remain unclear, respondents were asked to estimate the number of students in their schools who would be considered a student with a disability if enrolled in a public school. As such, the survey results amount to conjecture and cannot reasonably be compared to DPI data that relies upon a legal definition of a student with a disability and comports with the law's procedural requirements to make that determination. Given the report's flawed methods, Professors Lewis and Mead conclude that the utility of its findings and analysis for policymakers is significantly limited. Find the review, by Maria M. Lewis and Julie F. Mead, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Thousands Served: Students with Disabilities in Wisconsin's Parental Choice Programs, published by School Choice Wisconsin and the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, at: https://schoolchoicewi.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025_Disabilities_Research_Report.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://nepc.colorado.edu/reviews ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high-quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at GreatLakesCenter.org Contacts Michelle Renee Valladares Maria M. Lewis Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Democratic School Turnarounds: Pursuing Equity and Learning from Evidence Summary School Improvement Grant program in need of reform. A new brief by Tina Truillo of the University of California at Berkeley and Michelle Renée of the Annenberg Institute for School Reform at Brown University finds that standardized test scores are not a reliable measure for student growth and are even more problematic as a measure of whether a turnaround was successful or not, because test scores ignore social, civic and broader academic aspects of schooling. Model legislation accompanies this brief to create state-level school improvements that foster equitable, democratic, and sustainable school turnarounds in priority schools. Publication Date September 30, 2012 Authors Legislative Brief: Tina Trujillo, Michelle Renée Model Legislation: Tara Kini Research Areas Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program Summary This report claims that Florida’s McKay program of providing private-school vouchers to special education students has resulted in improved educational outcomes for special education students who chose to stay in public schools. The theory behind this conclusion is that increased competition to enroll these students has led public schools to improve services and programs for special education students not choosing to leave. Publication Date May 21, 2008 Authors John T. Yun, University of California at Santa Barbara Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Florida Voucher Report Too Flawed to be Valuable Review criticizes report’s conclusion that vouchers have positive impact on special education outcomes EAST LANSING, Mich., (May 22, 2008 ) — A recent Manhattan Institute report claims Florida’s program of publicly funded, private-school vouchers for special education students improves outcomes for special education students who remain in public schools. A Think Twice review of the report, however, concludes that research design problems and weaknesses in data analysis and interpretation render the report of little value to policy makers. “The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program,” was written by Jay P. Greene and Marcus Winters and published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. It was reviewed by Professor John T. Yun of the University of California at Santa Barbara. Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program provides vouchers for special education students to attend private schools. The scholarship program is open to any Florida student classified as having a learning disability. As of the 2006-2007 school year, about 4.5% of Florida’s special education students received these vouchers though The Manhattan Institute analysis appears to cover an earlier period, from school years 2000-2001 through 2004-2005, during which time the program enrolled fewer students. The Manhattan report is based on statistical analyses that, its authors conclude, shows that the McKay program spurred public schools to improve achievement for those special education students who remained in public schools during that time. The report presents relatively small effect sizes (a small competition benefit), but asserts that these results are probably understated. Yun’s review finds the evidence weak. He points out that any contributions the report may make are, “outweighed by research design problems, failure to take into account alternative explanations and unsubstantiated assumptions about the direction of possible selection bias.” Yun concludes that the report offers policymakers little guidance: “Any attempt to use this report for decision-making or policy evaluation, prior to validation using different methods and more robust approaches, should be viewed with extreme skepticism.” Find John Yun’s review and the The Manhattan 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: John T. Yun, (805) 893-2342; jyun@education.ucsb.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Whole Language High Jinks: How to tell when ‘scientifically-based reading Instruction’ isn’t Summary This report asserts that scientific research supports systematic phonics instruction and contends that ideologically biased supporters of whole-language instruction have thwarted the advance of scientifically based reading instruction. Publication Date February 13, 2007 Authors Richard Allington, University of Tennessee Research Areas Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release “Whole Language” Report Tells Only Partial Truth Report Misrepresents Research and Blatantly Promotes Author’s Own Product EAST LANSING, Mich. – A new Fordham Institute report that purports to unmask whole-language reading instruction as “unscientific” is more a promotion of commercial reading materials written by its author than an unbiased report on effective reading instruction. The report, Whole Language High Jinks: How to tell when ‘scientifically-based reading instruction’ isn’t by Louisa Moats, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Richard Allington, a professor at the University of Tennessee, past president of the International Reading Association and member of the Reading Hall of Fame. Allington puts the Fordham report in the context of longstanding debate over reading instruction. “Over the past 60 years, the so-called reading wars have pushed the nature of effective reading instruction into the political realm,” Allington writes. “While those advocating whole language approaches were in the ascendancy a couple decades ago, the phonics adherents have had the most political success of late, often preventing teachers and schools of education from keeping whole language approaches in their tool boxes.” The Fordham report contends that supporters of whole-language instruction have managed to thwart the advance of so-called scientifically-based reading instruction. It asserts such scientific research supports systematic phonics instruction. However, the report fails to provide convincing research supporting this contention. Moats, the report’s author, exaggerates the findings of research she does cite and incorrectly dismisses approaches that are, in fact, well-supported by research, Allington finds. “Perhaps most disturbingly,” Allington adds, Moats “touts primarily commercial curriculum products distributed by her employer -- products that have far fewer published studies of effectiveness than the products and methods she disparages.” He notes that she specifically promotes products that she herself authored. Find the complete review by Richard Allington as well as a link to the Fordham Institute report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org About Think Twice The Think Twice project provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University and the Education and the Public Interest Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to identify, develop, support, publish and widely disseminate empirically sound research on education policy and practices designed to improve the quality of public education for all students within the Great Lakes Region. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.or g Contact: Richard Allington (865) 974-1920 (email) rallingt@utk.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking — Moving Beyond Tracking Summary Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, summarizes current relevant findings in education policy research. Despite incontrovertible evidence demonstrating the harms of ability grouping, resistance to the elimination of tracking in schools remains strong. The latest in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research reviews the evidence for and against “tracking” students through school – that is, assigning students to particular classes, curricula and courses of study by their perceived ability. Publication Date May 29, 2013 Authors William Mathis, University of Colorado-Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education; Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Brief Reiterates Harm from "Ability Grouping" in School, Offers Recommendations EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 30, 2013) – Despite incontrovertible evidence demonstrating the harms of ability grouping, resistance to the elimination of tracking in schools remains strong. The latest in a series of two- and three-page briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research reviews the evidence for and against "tracking" students through school – that is, assigning students to particular classes, curricula and courses of study by their perceived ability. Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), prepared the brief Moving Beyond Tracking , the final installment of Research-Based Options for Policymaking , a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policies issues and identifies policies supported by research. Rather than achieving its purported goal – to tailor instruction to the diverse needs of students – tracking has been found repeatedly and over decades to reinforce social stratification, not provide advantages for high achieving students, and is actually harmful to lower achievers. "Whether known as tracking, sorting, streaming or ability grouping, an expansive body of literature conclusively shows tracking is harmful, inequitable and an unsupportable practice," Mathis says. Summing up the research, Mathis writes that lower track classes "tend to have watered-down curriculum, less-experienced teachers, lowered expectations, more discipline problems, and less- engaging lessons." He continues: "When high-quality, enriched curriculum is provided to all students, the effect is to benefit both high-achieving and low-achieving students." Successful examples of non-tracked or heterogeneous grouping can be found in both the U.S. and non-U.S. schools. Research has found that the younger the age at which tracking occurs, the greater the differences among a country's students on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) by age 15. Overall performance is not improved. Evidence notwithstanding, two key groups recurrently call for the use of so called tracking in schools: teachers and parents. "The teachers assigned to high-track classes tend to be more experienced and therefore can exercise more power," Mathis writes. "The parents who are able to secure high-track placement for their children are disproportionately likely to be white, well-educated and politically vocal and therefore able to pressure schools to keep higher-track classes for their children" segregated from lower-income students and minorities of race, class, or both. Mathis concludes with a series of recommendations drawn from earlier work by Carol Burris, Kevin Welner, and Jennifer Bezoza calling for the elimination of curricular tracking that separates students by race, socio-economic status, or assumptions about their learning ability. As interim steps toward elimination of tracking: States should require schools and districts to identify and describe their tracks and placement policies. States as well as non-governmental groups should work to connect educators and communities with researchers able to advance best practices in serving diverse populations. Districts and schools should provide sustained professional development so teachers are prepared to successfully instruct all learners in heterogeneous classrooms. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. Find William Mathis's brief on the web: http://greatlakescenter.org/research_based_option.php The brief was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This brief is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options 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: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net 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 Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 Summary As proponents continue to make the case that virtual education can expand student choices and improve the efficiency of public education, full-time virtual schools have attracted a great deal of attention. Advocates contend that this potential for individualization allows virtual schools to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. NEPC researchers found, however, that the research evidence does not support this claim. This three-part brief provides disinterested scholarly analyses of the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools; reviews the relevant available research related to virtual school practices; provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft virtual schools policy; and offers policy recommendations based on the available evidence. Publication Date May 27, 2019 Authors Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Najat Elgeberi, Michael K. Barbour, Luis A. Huerta, Sheryl Rankin Shafer, and Jennifer King Rice Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Charter School Performance in Michigan Summary The CREDO researchers analyzed differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools in Michigan. Charter advocates trumpeted the new CREDO Michigan study as a “smashing success” for charter schools. Publication Date February 11, 2013 Authors Andrew Maul, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Charter Schools Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Sound CREDO Michigan Charter School Report Provides Little Basis for Advocacy EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 12, 2013) – The overall research base is now clear that the charter school sector largely mirrors the conventional public school sector in terms of students' test scores. This is again confirmed by a recent analysis of charter schools in Michigan. A new review of that study points to some limitations but concludes that it employs solid analytic methods and relies on a large, impressive dataset. The Michigan report is the work of the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University. The CREDO researchers analyzed differences in student performance at charter schools and traditional public schools in Michigan. Andrew Maul of the University of Colorado Boulder reviewed Charter School Performance in Michigan . The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Up to this point, the majority of high-quality research studies on charter effects in the U.S. have tended to show no meaningful impact—positive or negative—on student achievement. Against this background, charter advocates have trumpeted the new CREDO Michigan study as a "smashing success" for charter schools. In truth, the new study estimates that students in charter schools in Michigan experience 0.06 standard deviations more academic growth than comparison students in traditional public schools. As Maul points out, "This is equivalent to saying that about a tenth of one percent of the variation in academic growth is associated with school type." Such a finding of almost no difference between charters and non-charters is very much in line with the overall body of past research. Some studies suggest slight benefits, some suggest slight harm, and many show no difference. The study itself has both strong and weak elements. "As with CREDO's previous reports on charter schools, the study employs a large and comprehensive dataset and fairly solid analytic methods," Maul notes. But he goes on to point out "significant reasons for caution in interpreting the study's results." Maul's discussion of research methods is somewhat technical but is clearly explained in his review. One concern is the study's failure to use methods that could have directly modeled both individual student growth and school-level effects, such as hierarchical linear modeling, which would have been better matched to the goals of making generalizable statements about both students and schools. He also questions whether the seven variables used in the study's "virtual twin" matching approach are truly sufficient to capture all meaningful differences between charter students and those at traditional public schools. Despite such caveats, Maul concludes that the study contains enough information that it represents an interesting contribution to the research literature on charter school effectiveness. Find the Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Charter School Performance in Michigan, the web: http://credo.stanford.edu/pdfs/MI_report_2012_FINAL_1_11_2013_no_watermark.pdf 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. Find Andrew Maul's review on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-charter-performance-michigan --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Andrew Maul, (303) 492-7653, andrew.maul@colorado.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity Summary Housing, land use, and zoning policies are often siloed in such a way that they are considered and addressed separately from school segregation and students' opportunities to learn. But these policy areas can interact in powerful ways. Professor Genevieve Siegel-Hawley of Virginia Commonwealth University explores how in a new NEPC policy brief, The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity, in which she examines the potential of housing and land use policy reform to address school segregation. Professor Siegel-Hawley describes the key role that has been played by discriminatory land use planning and zoning regulations. These laws contributed to the unequal wealth distribution currently afflicting the nation, and those inequities-as well as those laws themselves-now shape access to an array of public goods, including schools. Neighborhood-based school assignment creates a direct link between segregated housing and segregated schools. More positively, zoning initiatives in recent years have proliferated to roll back the use of land for exclusionary purposes, with important implications for schools. Publication Date February 12, 2024 Authors Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, Virginia Commonwealth University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Key Takeaway: Policy brief explains research findings on the effects of land use and housing policy on school segregation, arguing for coordinating policy across all three sectors. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (February 13, 2024) - Housing, land use, and zoning policies are often siloed in such a way that they are considered and addressed separately from school segregation and students' opportunities to learn. But these policy areas can interact in powerful ways. Professor Genevieve Siegel-Hawley of Virginia Commonwealth University explores how in a new NEPC policy brief, The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity , in which she examines the potential of housing and land use policy reform to address school segregation. Professor Siegel-Hawley describes the key role that has been played by discriminatory land use planning and zoning regulations. These laws contributed to the unequal wealth distribution currently afflicting the nation, and those inequities-as well as those laws themselves-now shape access to an array of public goods, including schools. Neighborhood-based school assignment creates a direct link between segregated housing and segregated schools. More positively, zoning initiatives in recent years have proliferated to roll back the use of land for exclusionary purposes, with important implications for schools. This policy brief attempts to break down the siloes separating land use and zoning policies from school segregation discussions and interventions. Drawing on multiple bodies of literature, it explores what we know about the potential of housing and land use policy reform to address school segregation-and why doing so matters. The research reviewed here illuminates the close historical and legal relationship between school and housing segregation and the clear links between land use policy and school and housing segregation. Studies also show that where land use or housing reforms have enabled greater access to less segregated schools, historically marginalized students' outcomes have improved. Although the reforms and, by extension, the research, are somewhat limited, it suggests that land use and housing policy has the potential to more broadly reduce school segregation and improve student outcomes. To this end, Professor Siegel-Hawley concludes with recommendations for federal and state policymakers to offer pathways to diverse, well-resourced schools for historically marginalized families, along with oversight and enforcement that considers school-housing interrelationships. Find The Potential for Land Use and Housing Reform to Address School Segregation and Educational Opportunity , by Genevieve Siegel-Hawley, 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 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 Renée Valladares Genevieve Siegel-Hawley Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Transgender Students and Policy in K-12 Public Schools: Acknowledging Historical Harms and Taking Steps Toward a Promising Future, Summary Transgender and nonbinary (collectively referred to here as “trans”) students are ill-served by most school environments. They experience challenges trying to navigate institutions that, at best, are poorly designed to support them and that often work against them. Although some districts and states have developed laws and policies to improve students’ experiences, many are either ill-conceived, ineffectively implemented, or reinforce restrictive and inflexible structures regulating gender. Publication Date March 22, 2022 Authors Elizabeth J. Meyer and Bethy Leonardi of the University of Colorado Boulder, and Harper B. Keenan of University of British Columbia Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Improving School for Transgender and Nonbinary Students Key Takeaway: Brief suggests processes and frameworks to improve school policy and practice for all youth. EAST LANSING, MI (March 24, 2022) - Transgender and nonbinary (collectively referred to here as “trans”) students are ill-served by most school environments. They experience challenges trying to navigate institutions that, at best, are poorly designed to support them and that often work against them. Although some districts and states have developed laws and policies to improve students’ experiences, many are either ill-conceived, ineffectively implemented, or reinforce restrictive and inflexible structures regulating gender. This issue is examined in depth in a new NEPC policy brief, Transgender Students and Policy in K-12 Public Schools: Acknowledging Historical Harms and Taking Steps Toward a Promising Future , authored by Elizabeth J. Meyer and Bethy Leonardi of the University of Colorado Boulder, and Harper B. Keenan of University of British Columbia. State legislation, district policies, federal regulation, and court opinions have created an inconsistent and confusing patchwork of vulnerability and protections. The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution has been held by federal courts to provide some protection. But Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of sex” in educational institutions, has had—under different presidential administrations—radically different guidance and enforcement regarding transgender students since 2010. Meanwhile, in 2016 and again in 2021-22, a wave of anti-trans legislation surged in many states, with bills proposed to exclude transgender youth from appropriate bathroom facilities, sports participation, accessing healthcare, and updating legal documents to reflect their self-determined gender. A powerful body of research demonstrates the harms such discriminatory legislation causes and what measures can improve students’ experiences in schools. This research, if heeded, can inform more effective laws, policies, and implementation efforts for trans students to thrive in school. At the same time, the authors of this new brief explain that such useful laws and policies are insufficient to create conditions under which trans youth are likely to succeed. Meyer, Leonardi, and Keenan conclude with recommendations for policy and practice to create spaces in which trans youth can thrive in school. The recommendations are multifaceted and differ from traditional policy recommendations in that they do not focus only on law and policy as the primary drivers of system transformation. Rather, they emphasize the power of grassroots community organizing as a way of propelling change. They also offer questions for policy actors to consider as they develop and implement policies and advocate for improving conditions for trans youth. The new brief’s authors explain that they have two goals. First, to provide support for policy development and implementation, and second, to suggest processes and frameworks to improve school policy and practice for all youth. In doing so, they offer recommendations for federal, state, and local policy, and for implementation efforts at the local level. Find Transgender Students and Policy in K - 12 Public Schools: Acknowledging Historical Harms and Taking Steps Toward a Promising Future , by Elizabeth J. Meyer, Bethy Leonardi, and Harper B. Keenan, 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, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Elizabeth J. Meyer : (303) 735-3029, elizabeth.j.meyer@colorado.edu Bethy Leonardi : (303) 492-8399, bethy.leonardi@colorado.edu Harper B. Keenan : (604) 827-3270, harper.keenan@ubc.ca Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Equity Elementary: “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” Staff in Public Schools Summary A recent Heritage Foundation report objects to the increasing number of Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) emerging on public school districts’ administrative teams, but it appears to be supporting a conservative agenda rather than guiding policy related to student achievement gaps. Publication Date January 24, 2022 Authors Jay P. Greene and James D. Paul; Edward García Fierros, Villanova University Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Chief Diversity Officers Makes Sweeping Policy Recommendations Based on Flawed Research An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Ideological report purports to be a policy guide but ignores the history, role, and models of CDOs and has glaring methodological flaws EAST LANSING, MI (January 25, 2022) -A recent Heritage Foundation report objects to the increasing number of Chief Diversity Officers (CDOs) emerging on public school districts' administrative teams, but it appears to be supporting a conservative agenda rather than guiding policy related to student achievement gaps. Edward García Fierros, a professor at Villanova University who also serves as Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, reviewed Equity Elementary: "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" Staff in Public Schools, and found it to promote test-driven accountability at the expense of the learning needs of pre-K-12 public school students. The report claims that districts with CDOs have failed to close student achievement gaps in standardized testing outcomes, have exacerbated performance gaps between white and minoritized students, and have advanced the Critical Race Theory goals of leftist political activists. It also asserts that increasing CDO numbers can be linked directly to their presence in higher education, where they are much more commonplace. As Professor Fierros points out, the report attempts to attribute test score outcomes to the presence of CDOs, without accounting for more likely (and research-supported) impacts on student achievement such as differences in household adult education attainment and societal inequalities linked to racial and socioeconomic status. It also does not distinguish between CDO models or examine how long CDOs have served in their roles. Accordingly, the report fails to analyze the true effectiveness of CDOs. The report's rhetoric and claims appear to be ideologically and politically motivated and, for that reason and others, it fails to provide guidance for policy or add to the research base on closing achievement gaps or on diversity, equity, and inclusion in K-12 settings. As such, Professor Fierros concludes that it has little use as a guide for policy and practice. Find the review, by Edward García Fierros, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Equity Elementary: "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion" Staff in Public Schools, written by Jay P. Greene and James D. Paul and published by the Heritage Foundation, at: https://www.heritage.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/BG3666.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares: (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Edward García Fierros: (610) 519-6969, Edward.Fierros@Villanova.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners Summary Bellwether Education Partners recently published a report that establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). The report provides a useful resource for policymakers and practitioners. Publication Date March 1, 2021 Authors Brandon Lewis, Melissa Steel King, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis, University of New Mexico Research Areas General / Needs Review; Equity & Civil Rights; Curriculum & Instruction Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Argues Convincingly for More High-Quality Early Childhood Math Programs for Dual Language Learners An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report contributes to an understanding of the benefits and challenges involved in engaging dual language families to support their young children in learning math. EAST LANSING, MI (March 2, 2021) -Bellwether Education Partners recently published a report that establishes the need to focus on the mathematics education of young Dual Language Learners (DLLs). The report provides a useful resource for policymakers and practitioners. Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis of the University of New Mexico reviewed Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners . She explains that the Bellwether report presents lessons from research and practice on engaging families of DLLs in early mathematics learning. Drawing from the strengths of students, families, and communities, it highlights two case studies, Mighty Math and Zeno Math, on engaging dual language families to support mathematics with their young children. Dr. Celedón-Pattichis did note that major studies were omitted from the report that are key to advancing our understanding of the capacity of young DLLs to engage in rigorous mathematical concepts when given opportunities to do so. Further, in the report's recommendations for teacher education and professional development, it misses the opportunity to address what early childhood educators need to know about how young DLLs develop languages. Nonetheless, the recommendations in the report valuably inform policymakers and other stakeholders as they build asset-based programs that can support families and communities in engaging young DLLs in mathematics learning. Find the review, by Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Language Counts: Supporting Early Math Development for Dual Language Learners , written by Brandon Lewis, Melissa Steel King, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether Education Partners, at: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_LanguageCounts-HSF_Final.pdf NEPC Reviews ( http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: https://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Michelle Renée Valladares : (720) 505-1958, michelle.valladares@colorado.edu Sylvia Celedón-Pattichis: (505) 277-2536, sceledon@unm.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era Summary A recent Fordham Institute report argues that post-pandemic enrollment declines will inevitably force districts to make the controversial decision to close some schools. Embracing this possibility, it provides dual criteria of substantial declines in enrollment and chronic low performance as indicators of which schools should be closed first, naming nearly 500 specific schools that meet the criteria. Publication Date January 27, 2025 Authors Sofoklis Goulas; Sally A. Nuamah, Northwestern University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding; School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report's School Closure Recommendations are Not Supported by Evidence An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Fordham report relies on arbitrary assumptions and calculations, and empirical research fails to support its inflated claims of school-closure benefits. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (January 28, 2025) - A recent Fordham Institute report argues that post-pandemic enrollment declines will inevitably force districts to make the controversial decision to close some schools. Embracing this possibility, it provides dual criteria of substantial declines in enrollment and chronic low performance as indicators of which schools should be closed first, naming nearly 500 specific schools that meet the criteria. In her review of Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era , Sally A. Nuamah of Northwestern University finds little evidence to support the report's contention that closing these schools will meaningfully reduce budget deficits and improve education outcomes. The report cherry-picks studies about school closures, discussing very little of the peer-reviewed research evidence concerning the negative impacts of school closings on affordable housing, school accessibility, racial equity, attendance, and socio-emotional health. The report also does not include what researchers would expect in terms of a "methods" section that explains and supports the approach used. Instead, it presents some descriptive data and analyses, the import of which depends on readers embracing the authors' assumptions and ignoring standard empirical procedures. Finally, the report fails to account for the broader civic and social purposes of schools, including their role in providing children with food, shelter, childcare, civic learning, health care, and social services. Further, Professor Nuamah contends, it ignores the potential harmful effects of closing schools in communities that have already experienced chronic disinvestment. Thus, she concludes, policymakers would do best to ignore this report, including its list of candidates for school closure. It offers an unfounded and oversimplified solution to highly complex challenges. Find the review, by Sally A. Nuamah, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Underachieving and Underenrolled: Chronically Low-Performing Schools in the Post-Pandemic Era ,written by Sofoklis Goulas and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at: https://fordhaminstitute.org/national/research/underachieving-and-underenrolled-chronically-low-performing-schools-post-pandemic 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 Sally A. Nuamah (312) 671-0441 sally.nuamah@northwestern.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More