< Back A review of two reports on early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation. Summary Two recent reports examined the current state of early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation at the university and community college levels. Both reports raise awareness about the challenges facing the ECE workforce. A new review out today finds both reports to be mostly sound and useful, although some limitations in research and length were identified. Publication Date May 8, 2018 Research Areas Early Childhood; Teacher Workforce Authors Marnie Kaplan / Emily Workman, Lisa Guernsey, and Sara Mead; Adam Winsler, George Mason University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Review: Two reports focused on teacher prep for early childhood education mostly sound, useful EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 8, 2018) – Two recent reports examined the current state of early childhood education (ECE) teacher preparation at the university and community college levels. A new review out today finds both reports to be mostly sound and useful, although some limitations in research and length were identified. Adam Winsler , George Mason University, reviewed both reports for the Think Twice think thank project. Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) , is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The first report reviewed by Winsler was, It Takes a Community: Leveraging Community College Capacity to Transform the Early Childhood Workforce , from Bellwether Education Partners . He also reviewed New America's Pre-K Teachers and Bachelor's Degrees: Envisioning Equitable Access to High-Quality Preparation Programs . Winsler writes that both reports raise awareness about the challenges facing the ECE workforce. In his review, Winsler also finds both reports to be valid and reasonable, although he notes that Bellwether's report is more comprehensive than the shorter one from New America . He says the New America report is "too short and rather awkward in presentation, which limits its effectiveness." According to the review, the reports rely on thank tank white papers instead of peer-reviewed journal publications. However, the analyses appear to Winsler to be sound and the conclusions and recommendations were reasonable and supported by the limited data available. He concludes, "these reports summarize key policy issues that are currently being discussed at multiple levels in the ECE policy community. Figuring out how best to ensure that our preschoolers are receiving high-quality educational and developmental appropriate experiences at ages 3 and 4 is high on the list of priorities for many." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the Bellwether report here: https://bellwethereducation.org/sites/default/files/Bellwether_CommunityCollege_JPK_Final.pdf Find the New America report here: https://www.newamerica.org/education-policy/policy-papers/pre-k-teachers-and-bachelors-degrees/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. You can also find the review on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Adam Winsler, (571) 221-9124, awinsler@gmu.edu Great Lakes Center, (517) 203-2940, greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Education Olympics 2008: The Games in Review Summary This report parallels the Olympics by awarding medals to top performing countries based on international assessments in reading, math and science. The report makes the claim that the low rankings of the U.S. on these tests will weaken the U.S. economy and jeopardize its future global standing. Publication Date October 15, 2008 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Edward G. Fierros, Villanova University Mindy Kornhaber, Penn State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Chartering and Choice as an Achievement Gap-Closing Reform: The success of California charter schools in promoting African American Achievement Summary This report claims that California charter schools are narrowing the Black-White achievement gap and that charter schools are centers of innovation. Publication Date November 10, 2011 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability Authors David R. Garcia, Arizona State University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release California Charter Schools Don't Narrow Black-White Achievement Gap New review finds claims made in CCSA report are misrepresented, exaggerated EAST LANSING, Mich. (Nov. 10, 2011) – In a recent report, the California Charter School Association claims that the state's charter schools are narrowing the Black-White achievement gap. Not so, explains Arizona State University professor David Garcia, an expert on charter school research, in a new review of the CCSA study. Garcia finds flaws in the report's methods, and he explains that the gap is "largely unaffected by charter enrollment." Further, Garcia pours cold water on the report's claim that innovative practices are at work in charter schools that aren't found in traditional public schools. Garcia reviewed Chartering and Choice as an Achievement Gap-Closing Reform: The success of California charter schools in promoting African American Achievement for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In his review, Garcia notes that the report claims that African American students attending California charter schools scored, on average, 19 points higher than the average for African Americans attending traditional schools on California's Academic Performance Index (API), which is derived from statewide standardized tests under the state's accountability system for public schools. The report also claims that California charter schools are reversing the trend of low academic achievement among African American students and effectively closing the Black-White achievement gap. Garcia observes that the data in the report itself show that "African Americans in California charter schools started out higher and actually lost ground relative to traditional public schools over time," with traditional public schools outgaining charter schools by 6 points. Moreover, he writes, "closing the achievement gap requires that African American students make more gains relative to White students – and by this definition, traditional public schools outperformed charter schools." According to Garcia the most positive spin that can be put on the evidence is that while the gap is still wide it might be growing at a slower pace for charter school students. Even this interpretation, however, is not well-supported by the data or analyses in the new report. This is largely because the main statistical model presented in the report has several prominent weaknesses. It accounts for only 3-6 percent of overall variance, meaning that the observed outcome differences are explained overwhelmingly by factors not included in the authors' model. One cannot make reliable policy decisions based on such a weak model. Moreover, throughout the report, the authors chose to set aside differences in socio-economic status as regards charter elementary and middle schools, not considering the likely effects those differences have on the measured outcomes. The sole exception occurs when the performance numbers appear to favor traditional public high schools, in which case the authors point to socio-economic status differences as the explanation. The report's greatest strength, Garcia writes, is that it again demonstrates what other studies have found: namely, that "charter schools are of variable quality, and there are very few innovations in charter school practices as a whole that are not also present in traditional public schools." In the main, however, he says: "The most useful policy briefs are concise as well as accurate. This report is lacking on both counts." Find David Garcia's review and a link to the CCSA report at http://www.greatlakescenter.org The Think Twice think tank review project, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound, reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also available on the NEPC website at http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-chartering-and-choice . --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: David R. Garcia – 480-727-7413; d.garcia@asu.edu Teri Battaglieri – 517-203-2940; tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org 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 October 1, 2012 Research Areas Governance & Public Education Authors Legislative Brief: Tina Trujillo, Michelle Renée Model Legislation: Tara Kini 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 Review of The Economic Cost of the Pandemic: State by State Summary A recent Hoover Institution report by Eric Hanushek presents a calculation of the future learning-related economic burden resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It projects a large and persistent economic loss by using a set of assumptions about the link between reduced student achievement levels and earnings, but in doing so fails to consider several factors. Publication Date March 7, 2023 Research Areas School Funding; Governance & Public Education; Equity & Civil Rights; School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability; Technology & AI Authors Eric A. Hanushek; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report Gives an Insufficient Calculation of the Economic Cost of Pandemic for Education An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's examination of future economic burden arising from students' decreased academic learning is far from comprehensive. EAST LANSING, MI (March 7, 2023) - A recent Hoover Institution report by Eric Hanushek presents a calculation of the future learning-related economic burden resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. It projects a large and persistent economic loss by using a set of assumptions about the link between reduced student achievement levels and earnings, but in doing so fails to consider several factors. In a review of The Economic Cost of the Pandemic: State by State , Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York describes how the report falls short of a full accounting of the total loss in children's human capital from the pandemic. The report focuses only on achievement-test shortfalls (what the report calls, "learning losses"), failing to consider the other dimensions of human-and social-capital. It also neglects the toll on families and, most significantly, it fails to consider how school productivity may have been permanently shocked. Almost certainly, Professor Belfield specifies, the educational consequences of the pandemic are understated. Belfield also points out that, while the report contends that schools need to be "made better" to offset the student achievement gap, it never says what this would entail. Schools, it seems, simply need to be reformed in some unspecified way to produce more outcomes with the same amount of money after a highly disruptive shock to inputs and technology. Finally, the report claims that schools "contributed to" the achievement-test shortfalls, but again it offers no evidence or justification for the claim. Unfortunately, without a full reckoning or understanding of the damage and costs-economic and otherwise-that the pandemic imposed on schoolchildren, it is unlikely that suggested policy responses will be adequate, efficient, or equitable. Find the review, by Clive Belfield, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Economic Cost of the Pandemic: State by State , written by Eric A. Hanushek and published by the Hoover Institution, at: https://www.hoover.org/sites/default/files/research/docs/Hanushek_EconomicCost_web.pdf NEPC Reviews ( https://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: https://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 Clive Belfield : (718) 997-5440, clive.belfield@qc.cuny.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Community Schools: An Evidence-Based Strategy for Equitable School Improvement Summary A new policy brief, co-produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and the Learning Policy Institute (LPI), explores the research on community schools. Community schools represent a partnership and school improvement strategy to integrate resources provided by community agencies and local government for improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities. According to the authors, community schools are strongly supported by research, and can be a particularly important strategy for transforming high-poverty schools. Further research on community schools and the conditions required for successful implementation is needed. Publication Date June 5, 2017 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Community Schools; Governance & Public Education Authors Jeannie Oakes, National Education Policy Center and the Learning Policy Institute; Anna Maier, LPI; and Julia Daniel, NEPC. Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Community schools are strongly supported by research evidence, as required by ESSA EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 5, 2017) – A new policy brief, co-produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and the Learning Policy Institute (LPI) , explores the research on community schools. Community schools represent a partnership and school improvement strategy to integrate resources provided by community agencies and local government for improved student learning, stronger families, and healthier communities. Common pillars of community schools include: (1) integrated student supports; (2) expanded learning time and opportunities; (3) family and community engagement; and (4) collaborative leadership and practices. The brief, Community Schools: An Evidence-Based Strategy for Equitable School Improvement , authored by Jeanie Oakes , Anna Maier , and Julia Daniel , investigated whether well-designed community schools could be harnessed under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to meet the needs of low-achieving students in high-poverty schools. The brief also provides support to school, district, and state leaders as they consider, propose, or implement a community school intervention. Community Schools was made possible in part by support provided to NEPC by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice . The research underlying the brief was supported in part by grants to LPI from the Ford Foundation and the Sandler Foundation. The policy brief draws from a larger research brief from LPI of 125 peer-reviewed studies, program evaluations, and published research reviews. The authors found that community schools are strongly supported by research, and can be a particularly important strategy for transforming high-poverty schools. Moreover, the authors say: "Sufficient evidence meeting ESSA's criteria for 'evidence-based' approaches exists to justify including community schools as part of targeted and comprehensive interventions in high-poverty schools." Broader use of the approach is recommended. Other considerations for future work include: Taking a comprehensive approach; Recognizing that successful community schools do not all look alike; Collaboration between schools, service providers, parents, and staff is key; Local community members, parents, and young people need to be part of a needs assessment, design, planning, and implementation process; Evaluation strategies need to provide useful information about implementation and exposure to services; and Data should be used for continuous improvement. The authors also encouraged further research on community schools for a stronger understanding of their effectiveness. They note that more information is needed on the conditions needed for these efforts to work. Find this brief on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org You can also find the brief on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu The Learning Policy Institute's website is: https://learningpolicyinstitute.org Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Barbara McKenna, (831) 588-4309, bmckenna@learningpolicyinstitute.org 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 Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers Summary This report claims that public school teachers are paid 52 percent more than fair market rates and that teachers are less intelligent than other workers of comparable education and experience. Publication Date January 31, 2012 Research Areas Teacher Workforce Authors Jeffrey H. Keefe, Rutgers University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Overpaid Teachers Report from Heritage/AEI is Based on Bad Stats and Groundless Assumptions EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 31, 2012) – A recent report from the Heritage Foundation and American Enterprise Institute, Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers, claims public school teachers are paid 52 percent more than fair market rates. While attention-grabbing, this contention is based on a faulty assessment that relies on "an aggregation of spurious claims" to make its case, according to a new Think Twice review. The Heritage/AEI report pits the wages and benefits of teachers against those of similarly educated and experienced private-sector workers and concludes that teachers are overpaid. But in his review of the report, Professor Jeffrey H. Keefe of Rutgers University's School of Management and Labor Relations, finds that it rests on a series of flawed and one-sided assumptions and sloppy statistical analyses. Using these assumptions, the authors stand normal conclusions on their head. While the straightforward evidence suggests that teachers are undercompensated by about 19 percent compared with their non-teacher peers in the workforce, the report concludes that they are instead overpaid by more than twice that percentage. Central to the original report's argument is the claim that teachers are less intelligent than other workers of comparable education and experience. The report bases this claim on the lower scores of teachers on the Armed Forces Qualifications Test (AFQT). Yet the AFQT is simply not an intelligence test. Further, the authors claim that AFQT scores alone can be used to compare teacher and non-teacher populations. But that conclusion relies on a data sample that's too small to provide any meaningful long-term analyses or conclusions, Keefe points out. In fact, "measured cognitive ability is correlated only weakly with wages and explains little of the variance in wages across individuals and time," Keefe writes. That is, people aren't generally paid based even on a valid IQ test; they tend to be paid based on factors such as their preparation, skills, reliability, knowledge, and experience. "The only reliable comparison in this report is its starting point: there is a 19 percent [compensation] penalty for teachers." Other statistical missteps in the report include its erroneous calculations for benefits costs, both during employment and after retirement, which leads the authors to contend that benefit costs for teachers amount to more than their salary costs, thus more than doubling teachers' overall costs. Keefe's review explains why this is "a claim that cannot be reasonably supported." The review, which was produced by the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice, also uncovers in the report a significant miscalculation that doubles the supposed monetary value embedded in the customary "summers off" work schedules of teachers. The report also asserts, notwithstanding recent widespread teacher layoffs, that teachers enjoy a substantial benefit of disproportionate job security, and the authors then proceed to pull, out of thin air, a monetized value of this asserted benefit. Keefe warns that the study isn't merely useless, but that it will lead to "headline-grabbing claims of dramatic overpayment of teachers" that, in turn, will result in ill-informed and harmful policy decisions that further undercut support for public education. "Any discussion of teacher compensation should be based on high-quality evidence," Keefe warns, adding that "this report does not advance that discussion." Find Jeffrey H. Keefe's review on the Great Lakes Center website at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Find Assessing the Compensation of Public School Teachers on the web at: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011/pdf/CDA11-03.pdf . Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also available on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-assessing-compensation --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center is to improve public education for all students in the Great Lakes region through the support and dissemination of high quality, academically sound research on education policy and practices. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Contact: Jeffrey H. Keefe, (732) 932-1749, jkeefe@rci.rutgers.edu Teri Battaglieri, (248) 444-7071, tbattaglieri@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform (18th edition) Summary The 18th edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council’s (ALEC) Report Card draws on ratings from market-orientated advocacy groups to grade states in areas such as allowances for charter schools, availability of vouchers, and permissiveness for homeschoolers. Publication Date May 9, 2013 Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Assessment & Accountability Authors Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois T. Jameson Brewer, University of Illinois Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release ALEC's Report Card Receives Failing Marks Policymakers should insist on referencing evidence-based research EAST LANSING, Mich. (May 9, 2013) – Ranking states is a popular tool for education advocacy groups, with the goal of advancing a policy agenda based on ideologically driven pre-packaged reforms. These report cards receive considerable media attention, although few reflect research-based evidence on the efficacy of particular polices. The 18th edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council's (ALEC) Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform is no different according to an academic review. Christopher Lubienski, associate professor of education policy and Director of the Forum on the Future of Public Education at the University of Illinois, and T. Jameson Brewer, a doctoral student at the University of Illinois, reviewed ALEC's Report Card for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Lubienski and Brewer find that ALEC draws its grades exclusively not from research organizations, but from like-minded market-orientated advocacy organizations. "Furthermore, when studies are highlighted in this report, they do not represent the peer-reviewed research on a given issue, are often of extremely poor quality, and generally unsuited for supporting their claim." In their review, Lubienski and Brewer provide two key areas – alternative teacher certification and school choice – to highlight gaps between ALEC's agenda and empirical evidence. Despite multiple claims that a "growing body of research indicates…" – the report offers absolutely no supporting evidence. Math results, which have a lower pass rate, were used to compare traditionally-certified teachers to alternatively-certified teachers. Meanwhile alternatively-certified teachers were portrayed using their reading results. "Many of the grades given to states reflect the level to which pro-market policies have been implemented while the grades systematically ignore meaningful measurements of equality and outcomes" according to the review. Readers of ALEC's Report Card should consider it a statement of policy preferences and not an overview of research on education reforms. The reviewers conclude, "At best, the report serves as an amalgamation of other like-minded think tanks' assessments of states' adoption of pro-market policies, and thus offers nothing new … it provides little or no usefulness to policymakers." Find the report by Lubienski and Brewer on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find ALEC's Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform (18th edition) on the web: http://www.alec.org/publications/report-card-on-american-education/ Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), provides the public, policymakers and the press timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by the support of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also available on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu --###-- The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Contact: Christopher Lubienski, (217) 333-4382, club@illinois.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 Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition Summary Despite the vast majority of research into tracking or ability grouping of students, a recently released report from the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) purports that sorting students by ability improves outcomes for low-achieving and high-achieving students alike. Publication Date April 2, 2013 Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Authors Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, South Side High School Katherine Allison, University of Colorado Boulder Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Tracking Students Continues To Be An Unproven Strategy EAST LANSING, Mich. (Apr. 2, 2013) – The vast majority of research into so-called tracking or ability grouping of students has reached a definite conclusion: it's harmful. Students placed in low-track classes fall further behind. However, a recently released working paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research found that sorting students by ability improves outcomes for low-achieving and high-achieving students alike. A new review finds that several important methodical issues limit the usefulness of the paper. Dr. Carol Corbett Burris, principal of South Side High School in the Rockville Centre School District in New York, and Katherine Allison, a doctoral student in research and methodology at the University of Colorado Boulder, reviewed the report, Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition , for the Think Twice think tank review project. Burris is the co-author of two books on tracking and equity as well as numerous articles regarding these issues in peer-reviewed and popular journals. The review was prepared for the National Education Policy Center with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. According to Burris and Allison, the paper is limited in several important ways. First, the paper assumes that schools in the study tracked students between classes – and this assumption is highly questionable. Second, the reviewers find that there was no criteria by which high- or low-achievers were classified. Finally, while it purports to be based on a measure of learning growth, it's not. The measure is only of relative standing of students on two proficiency tests given in different years. The reviewers further find "The authors go beyond their data and analyses when they conclude that schools should sort students as a cost-free method to improve student achievement." In the end, the reviewers find that this working paper should not be used to inform policy regarding tracking or grouping practices. "Evidence-based policy should always be grounded in the complete research base and should focus on high-quality data and analyses." Find the review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Does Sorting Students Improve Scores? An Analysis of Class Composition by Courtney A. Collins and Li Gan on the web: http://www.nber.org/papers/w18848 Think Twice, a project of the National Education Policy Center, provides the public, policy makers and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. This review is also found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-does-sorting-students --###-- 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: Carol Burris, (516) 599-0839, burriscarol@gmail.com Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 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 12, 2013 Research Areas Charter Schools Authors Andrew Maul, University of Colorado Boulder 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 Manhattan Institute Report Fails to Muster Solid Evidence to Support Vouchers Summary A recent Manhattan Institute report argues that the idea of what constitutes a "public" school should be expanded to include private schools that receive public funding. The report also contends that public funding for education should in fact be divided between traditional district public schools, charter schools, and private schools, with funding decisions based on student enrollment. Expansion of funding, it concludes, will result in greater choice for all students and will improve the quality of education. Publication Date October 22, 2019 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; School Funding Authors Ashley Rogers Berner, Johns Hopkins University; Joel Westheimer, University of Ottawa Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Manhattan Institute Report Fails to Muster Solid Evidence to Support Vouchers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Report's argument for funneling public funding to private schools is based on weak, biased, or irrelevant research. EAST LANSING, MI (October 22, 2019) - A recent Manhattan Institute report argues that the idea of what constitutes a "public" school should be expanded to include private schools that receive public funding. The report also contends that public funding for education should in fact be divided between traditional district public schools, charter schools, and private schools, with funding decisions based on student enrollment. Expansion of funding, it concludes, will result in greater choice for all students and will improve the quality of education. Joel Westheimer of the University of Ottawa reviewed The Case for Educational Pluralism in the U.S. , and found several serious problems. The report, he explained, is plagued by a lack of evidence, flawed logic, and a failure to consider differences in economic, social, political, and regulatory contexts. He also noted that the report's central argument originates primarily from "conceptual perspectives" rather than empirical research. The empirical studies the report does use are drawn primarily from religious and school choice advocacy groups. Also, the well-designed and peer-reviewed studies it uses lead to conclusions only loosely tied or entirely unrelated to public funding of private schools. Professor Westheimer concludes that, while the report may prove useful for those who seek a rhetorical appeal for public funding of a private school education, it offers little useful to policymakers whose goal is to improve access to quality schools. Find the review, by Joel Westheimer, at: https://www.greatlakescenter.org Find The Case for Educational Pluralism in the U.S. , written by Ashley Rogers Berner and published by the Manhattan Institute, at: https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/sites/default/files/R-0719-ARB.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: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Joel Westheimer: (613) 265-8077, joelwestheimer@mac.com Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back 12 Myths and Realities about Private Educational Choice Programs Summary Setting out 12, often cartoonishly caricatured, "myths" about vouchers, the report proceeds to systematically dismiss each myth. The evidence presented in the report is based largely on previous work from other advocacy groups that curated evidence—much of it highly questionable—on the advantages of vouchers. Accordingly, the IJ report repeats earlier advocacy claims, even when flaws in those works have already been publicly explained. In doing so, the report makes claims that are not supported, and in fact sometimes contradicted, by evidence in the sources it cites. Publication Date March 7, 2019 Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Authors Tim Keller; Christopher Lubienski Indiana University Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release New Release: Voucher "Myth" Report Distorts Its Questions and Its Answers An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Attempt by the Institute for Justice to muster pro-voucher evidence ignores the very research it cites, presenting a simplistic and one-sided treatment of the empirical record. EAST LANSING, MI (March 7, 2019) – Researchers have built a substantial body of evidence about policies that use vouchers to fund private schooling, so an honest attempt to bring together that research could have real value. But readers will be disappointed if they look to the Institute for Justice (IJ) for that report. Christopher Lubienski of Indiana University reviewed the IJ's report, 12 Myths and Realities about Private Educational Choice Programs . He considers the merits of each of the 12 claims, and finds that the report fails to take advantage of this body of research, instead offering little more than a simplistic and one-sided treatment of the empirical record. Setting out 12, often cartoonishly caricatured, "myths" about vouchers, the report proceeds to systematically dismiss each myth. The evidence presented in the report is based largely on previous work from other advocacy groups that curated evidence—much of it highly questionable—on the advantages of vouchers. Accordingly, the IJ report repeats earlier advocacy claims, even when flaws in those works have already been publicly explained. In doing so, the report makes claims that are not supported, and in fact sometimes contradicted, by evidence in the sources it cites. The report provides a textbook case of echo-chamber advocacy. Professor Lubienski concludes that it offers nothing useful in furthering our understanding of school vouchers. Find the review, by Christopher Lubienski, at: http://greatlakescenter.org/docs/Think_Twice/TT-Lubienski-Voucher-Myth.pdf Find 12 Myths and Realities about Private Educational Choice Programs , edited by Tim Keller and published by the Institute for Justice, at: https://ij.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/school-choice-myths-and-realities-2nd-PRINTING-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: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ About The Great Lakes Center The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center Web Site at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org . Follow us on Twitter at: http://twitter.com/greatlakescent . Find us on Facebook at: https://www.facebook.com/GreatLakesCenter. Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: William J. Mathis : (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Christopher Lubienski: (217) 419-9311, clubiens@iu.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More