< Back Review of Autonomous Schools Can Help Solve the Problem Behind the Teacher Shortage Problem Summary A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute highlights the emergence of widespread teacher staffing shortages. By describing teacher autonomy as a panacea for reversing the problem, however, the report oversimplifies the issue. Publication Date January 17, 2023 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Tressa Pankovits; Charisse Gulosino, University of Memphis; Hajime Mitani, Rowan University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Oversimplifies Complex Issue of Teacher Attrition An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Teacher autonomy alone cannot resolve the multifaceted, deeply nuanced, and complex systemic problems - such as low pay and high workloads - that have led to teacher shortages. EAST LANSING, MI (January 24, 2023) - A recent report from the Progressive Policy Institute highlights the emergence of widespread teacher staffing shortages. By describing teacher autonomy as a panacea for reversing the problem, however, the report oversimplifies the issue. Charisse Gulosino of the University of Memphis and Hajime Mitani of Rowan University reviewed Autonomous Schools Can Help Solve the Problem Behind the Teacher Shortage Problem and found it to overlook the complexity and nuance of the teacher shortage issue, ignoring the factors that school districts face such as staffing gaps, low pay, and high workloads. The report's recommendations are grounded in its descriptions of contemporary "autonomous" school initiatives. While the specifics of these initiatives vary, they all fall under the umbrella of positioning teachers with greater decision-making responsibilities and authority. Research does support the finding that increased autonomy generally produces greater job satisfaction for teachers. Therefore, the report suggests that such initiatives are effective strategies to remedy teacher shortages. What Professors Gulosino and Mitani find lacking in the report, however, is supporting evidence for these causal claims, in that it relies on popular contemporary readings and descriptive surveys rather than evidence of the efficacy of the recommended approach. Classical economic theory suggests that teacher shortages result from an imbalance between supply and demand generated by multiple factors. Furthermore, teacher labor markets are geographically small and localized, requiring local action. Effectively addressing the problem, therefore, requires understanding local conditions and analyzing factors affecting demand and supply in a specific context. Regarding autonomy reforms, it also requires assessing their cost-effectiveness and sustainability. Thus, they conclude, policymakers and other readers should be aware that what is ignored in this report is far more important to informed policy than what it contains. Find the review, by Charisse Gulosino and Hajime Mitani, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Autonomous Schools Can Help Solve the Problem Behind the Teacher Shortage Problem , written by Tressa Pankovits and published by the Progressive Policy Institute, at: https://www.progressivepolicy.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/PPI_Teacher-shortages.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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and 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. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu About The Great Lakes Center research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Contact: Alex Molnar: (480) 797-7261, nepc.molnar@gmail.com Faith Boninger: (480) 390-6736, fboninger@gmail.com Charisse Gulosino: (901) 678-5217, cglosino@memphis.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 Special Education and Distance Learning: Supporting Students Through the Pandemic Summary A brief published earlier this summer by ExcelinEd provides recommendations to education policy leaders for the delivery of special education services during the COVID-19 school closures. Publication Date September 17, 2020 Research Areas Technology & AI; School Funding Authors Patricia Levesque; Elizabeth B. Kozleski, Stanford University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Students with Disabilities Facing Remote Learning During COVID-19 Need Help, But the Recommendations in a Recent Brief Fall Short An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Brief lacks the policy guidance necessary to address inequality and complex issues of curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities. EAST LANSING, MI (September 17, 2020) - A brief published earlier this summer by Excel in Ed provides recommendations to education policy leaders for the delivery of special education services during the COVID-19 school closures. Professor Elizabeth Kozleski of Stanford University reviewed Special Education and Distance Learning: Supporting Students Through the Pandemic . She concludes that it offers only minimal support for policymakers in funding the research and development work that lies ahead as remove education continues for students with disabilities. The brief notes Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos' statement that the core features of implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Act must remain in place and that no waivers for the delivery of special education services are allowable. It also notes that families and advocates are deeply worried about learning progress and loss of learning because of the national pandemic. In response, the brief provides four sets of what it labels “best practices” for school and district leadership. Professor Kozleski explains that these recommendations come up short, in part because they assume that current knowledge among school professionals is sufficient to make the desired special education and technological leaps. In fact, the necessary knowledge and capacity are barely emerging. Further, the recommendations do little to address the unequal distribution of resources in schools, which include access to well-prepared teachers and related services personnel qualified to teach students with disabilities, particularly using distance learning approaches. Given these concerns, coupled with the lack of research anchoring its recommendations, the brief offers little to policymakers or practitioners currently struggling to make distance learning work during the pandemic. Find the review, by Elizabeth B. Kozleski, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Special Education and Distance Learning: Supporting Students Through the Pandemic , written by Patricia Levesque and published by Excel in Ed, at: https://www.excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/ExcelinEd.COVID19.SpecialEducationDistanceLearning.June2020.pdf NEPC Reviews (http://thinktankreview.org ) provide the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC Reviews are made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), a university research center housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center 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: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Elizabeth B. Kozleski: (303) 884-8482, kozleski@stanford.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Immersion Not Submersion: Can a New Strategy for Teaching English Outperform Old Excuses? Summary This report claims that the Structured English Immersion technique mandated by California's Proposition 227 is responsible for a "significant improvement in English proficiency across the state" among English Language Learners. The report goes also asserts that SEI strategies can overcome the effects of poverty and lower per-pupil funding. Publication Date December 14, 2006 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Jeff MacSwan, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Lexington Institute report fails to support claims that restricting bilingual education improved test scores in California December 14, 2006 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Flaws Render Education Report Useless for Guiding Policy/Practice Lexington Institute report fails to support claims that restricting bilingual education improved test scores in California CONTACT : Teri Battaglieri (517) 203-2940 (e-mail) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Jeff MacSwan (805) 893-2250 (email) macswan@asu.edu EAST LANSING, Mich. – A new report which concludes that English Language Learners (ELL) are improving under a California law which severely limits bilingual education is riddled with flaws and offers no useful evidence on the subject, according to a Think Twice review of the report. The original report is a policy brief, Immersion Not Submersion, Vol. III , written by David White and published by the Lexington Institute. It is presented as an evaluation of the outcome of Proposition 227, a ballot measure Californians passed in 1998 that mandated the use of Structured English Immersion (SEI) instead of bilingual education. The report was reviewed by Jeff MacSwan, an associate professor in the College of Education at Arizona State University whose research focuses on the linguistic study of bilingualism. MacSwan is currently serving as a Visiting Scholar at the Language Minority Research Institute at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Immersion Not Submersion claims that the Structured English Immersion technique mandated by the proposition is responsible for a “significant improvement in English proficiency across the state” among English Language learners (ELL). Proceeding from this assumption, the report then asserts that SEI strategies can overcome the effects of poverty and lower per-pupil funding. MacSwan points out that neither the data presented nor could the author’s analysis of that data possibly support these conclusions. “The Lexington Institute’s report suffers from poorly sampled data, inaccurate descriptions of district-level policies, failure to account for alternative explanations for observed changes in district testing data, and lack of any serious analysis of the data presented,” MacSwan writes. “The report also fails to acknowledge or address recently published research studies whose conclusions are dramatically different from those presented in the report.” MacSwan cites seven such studies, three of them commissioned by independent federal or state education agencies and the other three published in peer-reviewed journals. “The report’s poorly sampled data, compounded by its inaccurate descriptions of district-level language program orientations, leads us to abandon all hopes that it might usefully inform education policy,” MacSwan writes. Find the complete review by Jeff MacSwan as well as a link to the Lexington 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 Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of Equal Is Not Good Enough: An Analysis of School Funding Equity Across the U.S. and Within Each State | Access Granted: School Funding Between Schools in Districts Summary The Education Trust report, Equal is Not Good Enough and an accompanying piece, Access Granted: School Funding Between Schools in Districts, evaluate district revenue and school spending per pupil with respect to poverty, race, and language status. They focus on the extent to which states and local districts target sufficient resources fairly to these subgroups of students. They clearly lay out consistent evaluation criteria and conceptual framing, apply appropriate empirical methods with that framing, and provide data visualizations for understanding whether and to what extent states and local districts provide equitable school funding. Publication Date February 14, 2023 Research Areas Equity & Civil Rights; School Funding Authors Ivy Morgan | Indira Dammu, Bonnie O'Keefe, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess; Bruce Baker, University of Miami Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Reports on Equitable School Funding Get Mixed Reviews An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: While one report provides a solid analysis of empirical findings about funding disparities, the other lacks structure and sufficient analysis. EAST LANSING, MI (February 14, 2023) - Recent reports from the Education Trust and Bellwether discuss the fair and adequate funding of schools. A review of both concludes that they have varying degrees of merit and value for policymakers. Bruce Baker, professor and chair of the Department of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami, reviewed Education Trust’s Equal Is Not Good Enough: An Analysis of School Funding Equity Across the U.S. and Within Each State and Bellwether’s Balancing Act: How States Can Address Local Wealth Inequity in Education Finance . In his joint review, Baker explains how the Education Trust report is a valuable discussion of equitable school funding. But he describes the Bellwether report as lacking useful guidance, critiquing that report for providing no analyses of whether the policies mentioned in profiled states actually accomplish greater equity or stability of school revenues and spending. The Education Trust report, Equal is Not Good Enough and an accompanying piece, Access Granted: School Funding Between Schools in Districts , evaluate district revenue and school spending per pupil with respect to poverty, race, and language status. They focus on the extent to which states and local districts target sufficient resources fairly to these subgroups of students. They clearly lay out consistent evaluation criteria and conceptual framing, apply appropriate empirical methods with that framing, and provide data visualizations for understanding whether and to what extent states and local districts provide equitable school funding. The primary value of the main Education Trust report and its supporting materials, Professor Baker explains, is their focus on racial disparities. As a result, policymakers can use these publications to understand which states and districts have the most work to do to improve racial inequality in education funding. These reports also provide literature-based guidance for establishing funding policy that directs resources where they are most needed in order to provide equal educational opportunities for all students. The second report, Bellwether’s Balancing Act: How States Can Address Local Wealth Inequity in Education Finance , addresses how state finance systems rely on and regulate local property taxes and what design features should be included in state school finance systems. The Bellwether report contains a collection of state school funding profiles from six states. But it lacks empirical analyses that link its recommended property tax policies to improved school funding equity or revenue stability. Lacking such analyses, Professor Baker concludes, the Bellwether report can provide no useful, validated guidance for policymakers. Find the review, by Bruce Baker, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Equal Is Not Good Enough: An Analysis of School Funding Equity Across the U.S. and Within Each State , written by Ivy Morgan and published by the Education Trust, at: https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Equal-Is-Not-Good-Enough-December-2022.pdf Find its accompanying piece, Access Granted: School Funding Between Schools in Districts , at https://edtrust.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Access-Granted-School-Funding-Between-Schools-in-Districts-December-2022.pdf Find Balancing Act: How States Can Address Local Wealth Inequity in Education Finance , written by Indira Dammu, Bonnie O'Keefe, and Jennifer O'Neal Schiess and published by Bellwether, at https://bellwether.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/BalancingAct_Bellwether_December2022.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 high-quality information in support of democratic deliberation about education policy. We publish original research, policy briefs, and 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. 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 Bruce Baker : ( 848) 932-0698 , educpolicy@gmail.com 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. 2013: Politics, Performance, Policy, and Research Evidence Summary Major virtual schools report uncovers underperforming schools: In the last decade, virtual schools have expanded rapidly although there is little data to support their growth. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, released the first of a planned series of annual reports on the performance of virtual schools, the policy issues that virtual schools raise, and the available research evidence on virtual education. Authors urge policymakers to slow or stop the growth of these schools until more research is done and accountability measures can be put into place. Publication Date May 2, 2013 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Technology & AI Authors Alex Molnar, University of Colorado Boulder (editor) Gary Miron, Western Michigan University Luis Huerta, Teachers College, Columbia University Jennifer King Rice, University of Maryland Larry Cuban, Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Major Virtual Schools Report Released Analysis uncovers underperforming schools EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 2, 2013) – In the last decade, although virtual schools have expanded rapidly there is little data to justify their growth. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, released the first of a planned series of annual reports on the performance of virtual schools, the policy issues that virtual schools raise, and the available research evidence on virtual education. Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2013: Politics, Performance, Policy, and Research Evidence , is edited by Alex Molnar, a research professor at the University of Colorado Boulder. Contributing authors to the research brief include Gary Miron of Western Michigan University, Luis Huerta of Teachers College, Columbia University, Jennifer King Rice of the University of Maryland, and Larry Cuban of Stanford University. Contributors to this study also included professors Sheryl Shafer of Teachers College, Columbia University, Brian Horvitz of Western Michigan University, and Charisse Gulosino at the University of Memphis According to Cuban, "Policymakers know that business, civic and community leaders expect them to work tirelessly to improve student academic performance through every available means, including better school organization, governance, curriculum, instruction – and especially better technology. Unfortunately, good politics does not automatically result in good policy." The report offers a number of troubling statistics: In the 2010-11 school year, only 23.6 percent of virtual schools made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) compared to 52 percent for traditional and charter schools. Three-quarters of the students in virtual schools are white, compared to the national mean of 54 percent. Black students account for only 10.3 percent of the virtual school enrollment, compared to 16.5 percent for all public schools. The gap is even wider for Hispanic students, which is surprising given the large presence of virtual schools in states with large Hispanic populations like Arizona, Florida and California. The number of students qualifying for free or reduced lunch in virtual schools is 10-percentage points lower than all public schools – 35.1 percent compared to 45.4 percent. The proportion of students with disabilities being served by virtual schools is half the national average – 7.2 percent compared to 13.1 percent. Profits, rather than student outcomes, is clearly the main driver behind the rapid growth of virtual schools. Because virtual schools have lower costs associated with teacher salaries and benefits, facilities and maintenance, transportation, food service and other in-person services – compared to their brick-and-mortar counterparts – Huerta and King Rice recommend developing a new funding formula based on the actual costs of operating virtual schools. It's imperative for policymakers to slow or stop the growth of these schools until more research is done and accountability measures can be put into place, the report's authors concluded. "Even a cursory review of media reports and a passing acquaintance with the research on virtual education reveals that policy is being made in an environment much like the legendary 'wild west'," according to the report editor Molnar. "These reports will analyze the performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools; describe key policy issues raised by virtual education; assess the research evidence that bears on K-12 virtual teaching and learning; and provide research-based recommendations to help guide policymaking." Find the report on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This report is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Jamie Horwitz, (202) 549-4921, jhdcpr@starpower.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 Renewing our Cities: A Case Study on School Choice’s Role in Urban Renewal / CPR Scholarships: Using Private School Choice to Attack Concentrated Poverty, Crime, and Unemployment Summary EdChoice and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) released reports suggesting that expanded school choice would promote economic development in economically distressed urban areas. The EdChoice report was a case study on the relocation decisions of families in an urban charter school, while the AEI report calls for a voucher-like program to spur economic development by luring higher income families into neighborhoods. While the EdChoice report is an empirical paper, the AEI report only consists of a hypothetical proposal for a voucher program aimed at promoting economic development in high-poverty neighborhoods. Publication Date June 20, 2017 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; School Choice & Vouchers Authors David Harrison, and Jing Zhao, Bartley Danielsen, David Harrison, and Jing Zhao; Jennifer Jellison Holme and Emily Germain, University of Texas Austin Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Two reports promoting school choice as a means to economically develop low-income neighborhoods offer little guidance for policymakers or practitioners, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 20, 2017) — Earlier this year two organizations, EdChoice and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) , released reports suggesting that expanded school choice would promote economic development in economically distressed urban areas. The EdChoice report was a case study on the relocation decisions of families in an urban charter school, while the AEI report calls for a voucher-like program to spur economic development by luring higher income families into neighborhoods. An academic review of the reports finds that both reports make unsupported claims that rely on flawed logic and data. The reports, Renewing our Cities: A Case Study on School Choice's Role in Urban Renewal and CPR Scholarships: Using Private School Choice to Attack Concentrated Poverty, Crime, and Unemployment , were reviewed by Jennifer Jellison Holme and Emily Germain , University of Texas Austin, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. While the EdChoice report is an empirical paper, the reviewers find that the report fails to collect and analyze data related to the report's causal assertion that economic development resulted from the establishment of a charter school. Meanwhile, Holme and Germain find that the AEI report's claims are unsupported by existing research. That report only consists of a hypothetical proposal for a voucher program aimed at promoting economic development in high-poverty neighborhoods. The reviewers also note that both reports use selective research evidence and overlook other studies that contradict their claims. In their conclusion, Holme and Germain say: "the reports offer little guidance for policymakers seeking to reform urban schools, to support low-income students, or to uplift urban neighborhoods." Find the review on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the EdChoice report at: https://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Renewing-Our-Cities-by-Bartley-Danielsen-David-Harrisson-and-Jing-Zhao.pdf Find the AEI report at: http://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/CPR-Scholarships.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. 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: Jennifer Jellison Holme, (512) 475-9398, jholme@austin.utexas.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 Funding Formulas School Choice and Inherent Incentives Summary Click the button below and signup to receive the latest news and information from The Great Lakes Center. We value your privacy and do not share email addresses with any other organizations. Publication Date March 1, 2008 Research Areas General / Needs Review Authors Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Better Evidence, Better Choices, Better Schools: State Supports for Evidence-Based School Improvement Summary The Center for American Progress (CAP) and Knowledge Alliance released a report on the evidence-based provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The report called for a shift away from federal mandates toward greater state and local autonomy. It sought to provide guidance for school districts seeking to make decisions based on evidence to improve their lowest performing schools. And lastly, the report offered eight key recommendations for implementing evidence-based strategies. Publication Date January 12, 2017 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Steve Fleischman, Caitlin Scott, and Scott Sargrad; Terri S. Wilson, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ESSA Report Raises Important Issues, Leaves More Difficult Questions Unexplored EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 12, 2017) — Last fall, the Center for American Progress (CAP) and Knowledge Alliance released a report on the evidence-based provisions of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). The report called for a shift away from federal mandates toward greater state and local autonomy. Unfortunately, the advice provided to practitioners lacked evidence and specifics. According to a review released today, the report is methodologically weak, despite raising several important issues on evidence-based school improvement practices. The report sought to provide guidance for school districts seeking to make decisions based on evidence to improve their lowest performing schools. Terri S. Wilson, University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Better Evidence, Better Choices, Better Schools: State Supports for Evidence-Based School Improvement for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Wilson, in her review, finds that the report raises a number of important issues regarding the implementation of ESSA, yet the guidance offered to practitioners is "vague and unsubstantiated." The report offered eight key recommendations for implementing evidence-based strategies. Despite this, Wilson finds: "While helpful general pieces of advice, these recommendations remain relatively vague and are grounded in neither the existing research literature nor the empirical study featured in the report." Wilson accepts that evidenced-based policy is an idea that is easy to agree with, but important questions must be tackled as states begin implementing ESSA. Most notably, she raises two important questions: (1) what counts as evidence; and (2) who is able (and authorized) to determine what kinds of evidence are most relevant to local contexts? In her conclusion, Wilson suggests that practitioners seek new models and research that may better address the challenges identified in this report. Find the full review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can find the original report on the web at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/reports/2016/08/31/143223/better-evidence-better-choices-better-schools/ 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: Terri S. Wilson , (303) 492-5785, terri.wilson@colorado.edu Daniel Quinn , (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Smart, Skilled, and Striving: Transforming and Elevating the Teaching Profession Summary This recent Center for American Progress (CAP) report outlined a vision for elevating and modernizing the teaching profession. The report provided ten recommendations for improving the public perceptions and experiences of teachers. However, an academic review reveals several harmful policy reforms in the report. Publication Date January 7, 2016 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Carmel Martin, Lisette Partelow, and Catherine Brown; Elizabeth J. Meyer, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release CAP report offers little of substance to advance the teaching profession, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 7, 2016) – A recent Center for American Progress (CAP) report outlined a vision for elevating and modernizing the teaching profession. The report provided ten recommendations for improving the public perceptions and experiences of teachers. However, an academic review reveals several harmful policy reforms in the report. Elizabeth J. Meyer, Associate Dean for Teacher Education and Associate Professor at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Smart, Skilled, and Striving: Transforming and Elevating the Teaching Profession for the Think Twice think tank review project at the National Education Policy Center, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report argued that if we do not change the perception of the teaching profession, schools would not be able to recruit "high achieving young people" into teaching. In her review, Meyer notes that elements of the report's recommendations are likely to be beneficial. However, Meyer also finds that the some of the report's recommendations could likely have the opposite effect by: (1) increasing the surveillance of teachers; (2) reducing the job security of teachers; (3) evaluating teachers based on students' test scores; and (4) using merit pay systems. The review also finds that the report relies too heavily on popular rhetoric, sound bites, opinion articles, and advocacy publications. In conclusion, Meyer says, "Other than a review of contemporary issues, the report offers little of substance to advance the teaching profession." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report on the web: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2015/11/03/123747/smart-skilled-and-striving/ 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: Elizabeth J. Meyer, (303) 735-3029, elizabeth.j.meyer@colorado.edu Daniel Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? Summary This report concludes that since the implementation of NCLB in 2002, on average, student test scores have increased, the achievement gap has narrowed, and achievement gains post-NCLB have increased faster than before NCLB. Publication Date July 2, 2007 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors John T. Yun, University of California at Santa Barbara Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release REPORT TOUTING NCLB SUCCESS CANNOT SUPPORT OVERSTATED CLAIMS Methodology is too weak to support finding that student achievement has increased since passage of NCLB EAST LANSING, Mich. — A report released last month by the Center on Education Policy (CEP) is being used to argue that student achievement has increased since the implementation of the federal No Child Left Behind law. A review of this report finds that it suffers from important weaknesses and that the wording of numerous findings and key conclusions imply a much stronger connection between NCLB and increased achievement than can be substantiated by the data. The report, Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by John T.Yun, a professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. The CEP’s report has already received widespread attention from the news media, including front-page coverage in the Washington Post . The U.S. Secretary of Education immediately pointed to the report as confirming NCLB’s success. As reviewer Yun notes, the report “is likely to be cited often in the upcoming debate on the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).” While Yun credits the report with attempting “to carefully analyze the complex issue of test score improvement before and after the implementation of NCLB in 2002,” he describes how shortcomings in the data and analyses may have “resulted in a much more optimistic picture of the impact of the legislation than the data warrant.” Additionally, Yun says, while the report’s title may convey the impression that it seeks to examine the direct impact of NCLB on student achievement, the report itself acknowledges that an analysis accomplishing this goal may be impossible. The possible effects of NCLB cannot be disentangled from the possible effects of the large number of other state and local policies aimed at raising achievement during the same period of time. The review from Professor Yun contends that the most useful and important finding in the new report is its explanation of current weaknesses in state data availability. The authors had great difficulty in obtaining and analyzing state-level achievement data that should be readily available; until this situation is improved, researchers such as those at CEP will be faced with many of the same obstacles encountered here. But Yun stresses that this finding was given far too little attention and should not have been overshadowed by the problematic analyses of student achievement. Regarding the student achievement analyses, Yun does credit the report with offering thoughtful approaches and concludes that the report does represent progress toward more comprehensive examination of the outcomes of the law. He also commends the report for cautionary notes that help readers understand some of its limitations—yet not the three that he identifies as most serious: The report’s look at whether achievement scores have increased since 2002 (its ‘trend analysis’) used an approach that had a likely unintended effect of analyzing a sub-sample of states that was biased toward those that were most likely to have inflated test scores. The report’s finding of narrowing achievement gaps between groups of students suffered from the same weaknesses as its trend analysis, and also suffered from the problem of small sample sizes among some of the studied racial and ethnic groups, meaning that each of the percent-proficient estimates were effectively unreliable. Selection bias is also likely to have “seriously damaged” the value of the report’s analysis of pre- and post-NCLB outcomes, which found yearly gains in test scores greater after NCLB took effect rather than before. In fact, Yun points out that the authors selected for “exactly the wrong group” of states to consider if the goal of the analysis was to examine the impact of NCLB, because the approach used had the effect of screening out those states that changed their approaches following NCLB’s passage. These limitations seem particularly salient given the report’s prompt interjection into the public debate. U.S. Secretary of Education of Education Margaret Spellings, for instance, used the report to argue for NCLB reauthorization. Her official statement said, “This study confirms that [NCLB] has struck a chord of success with our nation’s schools and students. … We know the law is working, so now is the time to reauthorize [it].” Commenting on this new review in light of such reaction the report, Professor Kevin Welner of the University of Colorado at Boulder, co-director of the Think Twice project, focused on the issue of publicity. “The methodological problems pointed out by Professor Yun are important and should be carefully considered by any policy maker or researcher who makes use of the study. But the bigger problem here seems to be in the packaging and subsequent publicity. Neither the data nor the analyses in the report are anywhere near strong enough to meaningfully support the report’s title, ‘Answering the question that matters most,’ nor can the report support the sort of puffery we see from Secretary Spellings.” Find the complete review by John Yun as well as a link to the Center on Education Policy 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: John T. Yun (805) 893-2342 (email) jyun@education.ucsb.edu Kevin Welner (303) 492-8370 (email) kevin.welner@gmail.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Review of The Economic Impact from Colorado's Choice to Participate in the "Education Freedom Tax Credit" Provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act Summary The Common Sense Institute recently published a report declaring large potential benefits of the federal education tax-credit voucher program created through President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. However, the report's claims about the improvements the program would create for Colorado are unlikely to materialize. Publication Date May 21, 2026 Research Areas School Funding; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers Authors Thomas Young and Jimena Sanchez; Joydeep Roy, Teachers College, Columbia University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Cautionary Brookings Report Attempts to Weigh Opportunities and Risks of Generative AI in Education MAY 20, 2026 Dubious Claims About Colorado Benefits From Federal Tax-Credit Voucher Program An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's projected economic gains and private school enrollment increases are overstated and unsupported by evidence. GRAND RAPIDS, MI (MAY 20, 2026) - The Common Sense Institute recently published a report declaring large potential benefits of the federal education tax-credit voucher program created through President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill. However, the report's claims about the improvements the program would create for Colorado are unlikely to materialize. Joydeep Roy of Teachers College, Columbia University explains why in his review of The Economic Impact from Colorado's Choice to Participate in the "Education Freedom Tax Credit" Provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. As part of the legislation passed in July 2025, the federal government established a nationwide tax credit for contributions to so-called scholarship-granting organizations (SGOs) that can fund some K-12 educational expenses. Taxpayers can receive a credit of $1,700 each year for these donations. Although key rules are still being drafted by the Trump administration, eligible families given a voucher by a private SGO will likely be able to use these funds on a range of educational expenses, including private school tuition, tutoring, transportation, instructional materials, and courses offered at either private or public educational institutions. The Common Sense Institute report claims significant benefits will emerge for Colorado when-pursuant to the intentions of Gov. Polis-it opts into the program starting in 2027. The report predicts that the tax credits will boost incomes, create jobs, generate additional revenue for public schools, and increase private school enrollment. However, many of these hypothesized benefits are unlikely. The methods used in the report's economic impact model leave important questions unanswered, and it relies on speculative assumptions about participation and economic effects. For instance, participation rates in similar scholarship programs have historically been much lower than the report predicts for Colorado, raising doubts about the report's assumptions and conclusions. (Neither the report nor the review addresses the program's long-term impact on the health of the state's public education system.) Ultimately, Professor Roy concludes, the report provides little value in fostering an informed, evidence-based policy debate about the likely economic effects of the federal education tax credit program in Colorado. Find the review, written by Joydeep Roy, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Economic Impact from Colorado's Choice to Participate in the "Education Freedom Tax Credit" Provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act , written by Thomas Young and Jimena Sanchez and published by the Common Sense Institute, at: https://www.commonsenseinstituteus.org/colorado/research/education/the-economic-impact-from-colorados-choice-to-participate-in-the-education-freedom-tax-credit-provision-in-the-one-big-beautiful-bill-act 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 Joydeep Roy Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Money for Nothing: The Relationship Between Various Types of School Spending and Academic Outcomes Summary Money for Nothing lacks a theoretical or practical base and uses superficial and inaccurate methods that render it useless for policymaking purposes. Publication Date October 11, 2018 Research Areas School Funding Authors Will Flanders; William J. Mathis Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Review Describes Remarkably Weak Study of School Cost and Productivity EAST LANSING, Mich. (October 11, 2018) — A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty claims that Wisconsin does not get a good return on its educational investment. This study has been found to have overwhelming methodological shortcomings. William J. Mathis, Managing Director of the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed Money for Nothing: The Relationship Between Various Types of School Spending and Academic Outcomes . The original report suggests that districts employ too many non-teachers, that per-pupil spending is not linked to higher outcomes, and that teacher pay makes no difference in test scores. Dr. Mathis’ review points to critical errors in study design that fundamentally negate these conclusions. The report flounders in arguing causality from correlation and misinterpreting statistical significance as representing meaningful policy effects. This leads to false or unsupported conclusions clouded by the omission of critical details that prevent replication or confirmation. Rife with undocumented policy claims, the results run contrary to the literature on spending, administrator effects, and teacher effects. In fact, no literature review is provided at all, and the report fails to address the efficacy of interventions such as class size and early high-quality childhood education. The off-point theoretical base, flawed assumptions and meager findings lead Mathis to conclude that the report earned its title, “money for nothing,” which could leave unsuspecting policymakers in dire straits if they were to use these findings to guide policy. Find the review, by William J. Mathis, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/ Find Money for Nothing: The Relationship Between Various Types of School Spending and Academic Outcomes , written by Will Flanders and published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, at: http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/08/mfn-final.pdf About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More