< Back A Legal Lever for Enhancing Productivity Summary This report examines the extent to which the Texas education system is efficient. Using a five-factor definition of efficiency, the authors argue that in key areas – teacher training, teacher evaluation, teacher pay-setting, and use of instructional materials – the Texas education system is unlikely to be efficient or cannot demonstrate efficiency. Publication Date February 26, 2014 Authors Elizabeth Ettema, Krishanu Sengupta, and Sandy Kress; Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Texas efficiency report requires more evidence Report offers expanded definition of efficiency EAST LANSING, Mich. (Feb. 27, 2014) – The Texas state Constitution mandates an "efficient system of public free schools." A recent report from the George W. Bush Institute examines the extent to which the Texas education system is efficient. An academic review released today finds the paper to be of limited use for policymakers and educational professionals and calls for a more comprehensive and rigorous analysis of efficiency. The report, A Legal Lever for Enhancing Productivity , written by Elizabeth Ettema, Krishanu Sengupta, and Sandy Kress, uses a five-factor definition of efficiency to determine that the Texas education system is unlikely to be efficient or cannot demonstrate efficiency. Dr. Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project. The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The authors of the report investigate efficiency in key areas of the Texas education system: (1) teacher training; (2) teacher evaluation; (3) teacher pay-setting; and (4) use of instructional materials. Overall, Belfield notes that the authors should be commended for bringing the concept of x-efficiency – a theoretical framework that is more expansive than the basic economic definition of efficiency – and placing it front and center in their evaluation of the Texas education system. However, the authors fail to prove that the Texas education system is not efficient. Despite a strong literature review and multiple evidentiary sources, the report's analysis of the evidentiary sources is not persuasive. In his conclusion, Belfield says that it would be better if policymakers and education professionals applied the more expansive interpretation of efficiency displayed in this report. However, he cautions "because x-efficiency is a more comprehensive concept it requires more evidence and analysis in order to draw conclusions than was provided here." Find this Think Twice Review on the Great Lakes Center website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find A Legal Lever for Enhancing Productivity on the web: http://www.bushcenter.org/documents/2014/02/12/legal-lever-enhancing-productivity 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 with 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 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: Clive Belfield, (917) 821-9219, Clive.Belfield@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 Reimagining Learning: A Big Bet on the Future of American Education Summary A recent report from the NewSchools Venture Fund offered a thought experiment on how philanthropists can help accelerate efforts to reimagine school. It suggested that philanthropic investment should make a “big bet” on innovative models. It called for a total investment of $4 billion over 10 years through three key areas: (1) creating new schools and redesigning existing ones; (2) supporting targeted technology innovation; and (3) launching a campaign to foster understanding and demand for innovative education models. Publication Date March 6, 2017 Authors Stacey Childress and Meghan Amrofell; Jeffrey W. Snyder, Cleveland State University Research Areas Governance & Public Education; Technology & AI Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Questions still unanswered regarding philanthropic innovations in education, review finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Mar. 7, 2017) — A recent report from the NewSchools Venture Fund offered a thought experiment on how philanthropists can help accelerate efforts to reimagine school. It suggests that philanthropic investment should make a "big bet" on innovative models. However, an academic review finds the report's usefulness to policy and practice is limited. Jeffrey W. Snyder, Cleveland State University, reviewed the report, Reimagining Learning: A Big Bet on the Future of American Education , 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. Dr. Snyder studies the ways in which non-district actors (e.g. mayors and philanthropies) shape and respond to education reforms, and factors that may influence links among schools and outside service providers. Reimagining Learning called for a total investment of $4 billion over 10 years through three key areas: (1) creating new schools and redesigning existing ones; (2) supporting targeted technology innovation; and (3) launching a campaign to foster understanding and demand for innovative education models. Although the report presents valuable insight into the promises of philanthropy, Snyder's review finds that the report overpromises. He says, "Unfortunately, the report fails to provide a meaningful examination of research or a thorough basis for its recommendations." The review of the report focuses on the following critiques: It fails to consider human capital constrains or to sufficiently consider obstacles confronting classroom technology use; It overlooks equity concerns and past problems with dependence on external professional services; and It ignores the potential for disruptive reform churn and the danger of philanthropic efforts altering education systems in undemocratic ways. Snyder, in conclusion, says, "The report leaves many questions about its proposal unaddressed, including many concerns regarding assumptions, feasibility, and whether or not it is an appropriate roadmap to achieve change in a public and democratic system." Find the review on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find the report at: http://www.newschools.org/bigbet 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/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: Summary of Fourth Year Reports Summary This report summarizes the SCDP's own earlier research on the Milwaukee voucher program. Publication Date June 1, 2011 Authors Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Voucher report recycles limited information, has little value for policy making, new review finds School Choice Demonstration Project's report ignores extensive research on vouchers EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 2, 2011) – The latest in a series of reports about school vouchers published by the School Choice Demonstration Project (SCDP) at the University of Arkansas is of limited value because it relies on the project's previous reports and ignores broader research, according to a review released today. The review, written by Clive Belfield of Queens College, City University of New York, was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. It is part of the NEPC's Think Twice think tank review project. The SCDP report summarizes its own earlier research on the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), the nation's oldest and largest taxpayer-funded private school voucher program. Participation in the program is currently income-restricted and open only to Milwaukee Public School District families, although Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed removing the income cap and expanding the program to additional districts in the state. Since 2006, the SCDP has produced 27 reports on the Milwaukee program. The findings of the new summary SCDP report, authored by Patrick Wolf, "should be viewed with caution but interest," Belfield writes. "The report's method is simple: it uncritically re-states findings from studies performed by persons affiliated with the SCDP and does so in isolation from any other research," Belfield writes. "The author is of course free to summarize the SCDP's own research, but it is worth noting that none of it has been published in peer-reviewed journals and it is far from a comprehensive explanation of the MPCP." "The summary is faithful to those other studies," Belfield observes, "but readers would do better to read the other studies directly, and they would certainly be better off reading those other studies along with the extensive research and reviews that this new study neglects to engage with." Belfield notes that the report leaves out virtually all outside research on vouchers and school choice, and, as a consequence, it omits information necessary to accurately consider the value of its findings. For example, the report does not discuss constraints that keep some families from making choices or outside evidence of increased segregation following the implementation of school choice programs. It asserts that the Milwaukee program saves taxpayers money without noting that this claim has been called into question because it rests on some questionable assumptions about what students would do if the voucher option weren't available. Similarly, it repeats the claim that the performance of Milwaukee Public School students has improved as a result of competition for private schools that receive taxpayer-funded vouchers, without addressing serious challenges to that claim. And it exaggerates the importance of a weakly supported finding that students enrolled in the voucher plan may be more likely to graduate from high school and progress on to college. Find Clive Belfield's review and other Think Twice reviews of the Milwaukee voucher program 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. The review is also available on the National Education Policy Center website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-milwaukee-choice-4 --###-- 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: Clive Belfield: (718) 997-5448, Clive.Belfield@qc.cuny.edu Teri Battaglieri: (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 New York City's Children First: Lessons in School Reform Summary A recent report from the Center for American Progress summarizes and evaluates the public education reforms during the Bloomberg mayoral era in NYC. The report suggests that positive change resulted from the Children First reforms and makes several policy recommendations. The report describes four aspects of reform during the Bloomberg era, and makes recommendations for NYC and other urban districts. It focuses on top-down school reforms from the mayor's office, rather than on instructional changes inside classrooms. Publication Date June 2, 2014 Authors Maureen Kelleher; Randal Reback, Barnard College Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; School Choice & Vouchers; Teacher Workforce Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report provides excellent primer for NYC policy reforms Review finds some claims should be softened EAST LANSING, Mich. (June 3, 2014) – A recent report from the Center for American Progress summarizes and evaluates the public education reforms during the Bloomberg mayoral era in NYC. The report suggests that positive change resulted from the Children First reforms and makes several policy recommendations. An academic review out today finds that the report does an impressive job summarizing the reforms into a single, short narrative. However, several of the claims overhype the success of small high schools and charter schools. Randall Reback of Barnard College reviewed New York City's Children First: Lessons in School Reform for the Think Twice think tank review project of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report describes four aspects of reform during the Bloomberg era, and makes recommendations for NYC and other urban districts. It focuses on top-down school reforms from the mayor's office, rather than on instructional changes inside classrooms. In his review, Reback found several misleading claims and endorsements for the success of New York's small school movement. Regarding these claims, he says: "It is thus difficult to separate whether successful small schools were successful due to their 'smallness' or due to other, correlated factors." He also finds that the report exaggerates student performance outcomes for both charter schools and traditional public schools. For example, he discusses how the report fails to mention concerns about inflated high school graduation rates. On a positive note, Reback finds that the report does an excellent job of exploring potential reasons why some reforms may have 'stuck' while others did not. Furthermore, Reback calls for an examination of the reasons for success across all types of popular and thriving schools, not just the small schools advocated in the report. In his conclusion, Reback singles out the recruitment of promising principals and empowering principals to serve as both instructional leaders and school managers. However, he cautions that "our expectations for principals may be too great, in terms of their ability to serve as instructional leaders, evaluators of teachers, and managers of school resources." Overall, the Reback says, "This report provides an excellent primer for readers trying to understand New York City school policy reforms during the Bloomberg mayoral era." Read this review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Children First on the web: http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2014/03/21/86089/new-york-citys-children-first/ 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 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: Randall Reback, (212) 854-5005, rr2165@columbia.edu Dan Quinn, (517) 203-2940, dquinn@greatlakescenter.org Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

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

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

< Back What Does It Take to Scale Up Innovations? An Examination of Teach For America, Harlem Children’s Zone, and the Knowledge is Power Program Summary What Does It Take to Scale Up Innovations? A new brief investigates whether innovations are scalable and able to make a difference widely, using three commonly proposed innovations as examples. Ben Levin, University of Toronto, analyzes Teach For America (TFA), KIPP (Knowledge is Power Program), and the Harlem Children’s Zone (HCZ), which has already spawned the U.S. Department of Education’s Promise Neighborhoods program. Levin determined that there are barriers and opportunities to the scalability of these programs. The brief cautions policymakers to avoid the temptation of proclaiming small-scale innovative programs as solutions to large-scale problems in education. Publication Date March 13, 2013 Authors Ben Levin, University of Toronto Research Areas Charter Schools; Governance & Public Education; General / Needs Review 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 Diverse Housing, Diverse Schooling: How Policy Can Stabilize Racial Demographic Change in Cities and Suburbs Summary Throughout history, a child’s zip code has determined their educational opportunities, due to the tight relationship between racially segregated and unequal housing and schools. Research has revealed that racial inequality in American housing and schools is sustained by an iterative relationship between intangible and tangible factors in the housing-school choice process. According to a brief by Amy Stuart Wells, Teachers College, the nation may now have the ideal opportunity to address this housing-school nexus. Publication Date December 14, 2015 Authors Amy Stuart Wells, Teachers College Columbia University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Equity & Civil Rights Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release How can policy stabilize racial demographic change in cities and suburbs? The housing-school nexus, school choice, and resegregation addressed in new policy brief EAST LANSING, Mich. (Dec. 15, 2015) – Throughout history, a child's zip code has determined their educational opportunities, due to the tight relationship between racially segregated and unequal housing and schools. Research has revealed that racial inequality in American housing and schools is sustained by an iterative relationship between intangible and tangible factors in the housing-school choice process. According to a new brief out today, the nation may now have the ideal opportunity to address this housing-school nexus. Professor Amy Stuart Wells, Columbia University Teachers College, in Diverse Housing, Diverse Schooling: How Policy Can Stabilize Racial Demographic Change in Cities and Suburbs , reviews social science evidence, highlighting the problem of reoccurring racial segregation and inequality absent strong, proactive integration policies. The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) published the brief with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In the brief, Wells covers three key areas of social science research: (a) the nature of the housing-school nexus; (b) the impact of school desegregation and housing integration policies on the nexus; and (c) implicit racial biases as they relate to school and housing choices. Wells outlines several recommendations for breaking the cycle: Policymakers should embrace and capitalize on changing racial attitudes in the U.S., particularly among the younger generations, to promote and stabilize diverse communities and public schools; Policymakers must consider how current accountability policies in the field of education exacerbate segregation and inequality; and Local leaders and their constituents must embrace the new demographics of their communities and promote them as places forward-thinking people want to "be" and not "flee" in the suburban context. Sustainable and affordable housing and school enrollment policies must also support diversity in gentrifying urban neighborhoods. The policy brief explains why proactive measures to diversify housing and schools are so difficult to achieve and why our failure to integrate will have such dire consequences for our increasingly diverse nation and its schools. Find Diverse Housing, Diverse Schooling: How Policy Can Stabilize Racial Demographic Change in Cities and Suburbs on the web: http://www.greatlakescenter.org The brief can also be found on the NEPC website: http://nepc.colorado.edu Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Contact: Amy Stuart Wells, (212) 678-4042, wells@tc.columbia.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 Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking – Does Money Matter? Summary In Does Money Matter?, William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, discusses why money matters in education. He concludes that despite claims to the contrary, adequate and equitable funding is necessary for schools to improve their performance – especially schools serving children living in poverty. Publication Date June 15, 2016 Authors William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jun. 16, 2016) — For the past 10 years, the PDK/Gallup poll has consistently reported that the public feels lack of financial support is the biggest problem facing American schools. Despite this, some believe that more money would not improve the quality of public schools. A new concise brief out today explains why adequate and equitable funding is necessary for schools to improve their performance — especially in schools serving children living in poverty. The eighth in a series of policy briefs addresses how underinvestment, the result of political decision-making, threatens our schools. Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking is a compilation of short policy briefs that takes important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, with recommendations to policymakers based on sound scholarship. The compendium is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) and is funded in part by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. In Does Money Matter? , William J. Mathis, University of Colorado Boulder, considers the evidence used to support the claim that no correlation exists between spending and school quality. Mathis finds the evidence to be clear that money does, in fact, matter. He says that adequate and equitable distribution of school financial resources are a "necessary underlying condition for maintaining democracy, improving overall school quality and outcomes." Mathis does caution that results vary from place to place, but that funding matters most for economically deprived children. His recommendations for sound investments include: High-quality preschool; Small class sizes — particularly in lower grades and for economically deprived children; Teacher pay; and Additional learning time - which has a positive effect on academic motivation and low-performing students. Find the concise brief on the GLC website: http://www.greatlakescenter.org This brief is also found on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/ Friend on Facebook Follow on Twitter The mission of the Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice is to support and disseminate high quality research and reviews of research for the purpose of informing education policy and to develop research-based resources for use by those who advocate for education reform. Visit the Great Lakes Center website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back The Effects of Means Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation Summary A recent Urban Institute report brings together certain findings from studies of three school voucher programs. The report concludes that students using vouchers to attend private schools sometimes have higher rates of college enrollment and completion than their public school counterparts. Publication Date October 15, 2019 Authors T. Jameson Brewer, University of North Georgia Research Areas School Choice & Vouchers; Assessment & Accountability Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Report on Vouchers Struggles to Find Claimed Benefits An NEPC Review funded by the Great Lakes Center Key Takeaway: Measuring voucher success using educational attainment produces lackluster results at best. EAST LANSING, MI (October 17, 2019) - A recent Urban Institute report brings together certain findings from studies of three school voucher programs. The report concludes that students using vouchers to attend private schools sometimes have higher rates of college enrollment and completion than their public school counterparts. Here's how Urban Institute researchers summarized these studies in a piece they wrote for Education Next (published in March): [A] series of Urban Institute papers…found that participating in private school choice usually increased the rate at which students went to and graduated from college. The DC Opportunity Scholarship Program offers the one exception, as students in this program were no more or less likely to go to college. They were, however, more likely to graduate high school, and parents reported higher levels of satisfaction. But a new review points out that the Urban Institute is, at the very least, putting a problematic spin on the college-attainment research. T. Jameson Brewer, of the University of North Georgia, reviewed The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation . He explains that, of the three voucher-programs studies—in Washington DC, Milwaukee, and Florida—only the latter study shows clear benefits. Yet that Florida study was previously shown to have clear comparability problems (comparisons of apples to oranges). As noted in the above Education Next excerpt, no benefits whatsoever could be teased out of the Washington DC data. And the Milwaukee results were decidedly mixed and again could not sufficiently account for potentially pivotal differences between choosers and non-choosers. Only the Washington DC data were based on randomized assignment (a lottery) – and, as noted, that study showed no college attainment benefits. Professor Brewer notes two other concerns with the report. First, the literature review places an unbalanced reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources. Second, the report attempts to “move the goalposts” away from the test-score outcomes that have been the center of voucher advocacy and debate for decades—coinciding with recent voucher studies finding null or negative effects on test scores. These shortcomings, Brewer concludes, render the report of limited value for evaluating voucher policies. Find the review, by T. Jameson Brewer, at: https://greatlakescenter.org/ Find The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation , written by Matthew Chingos, Daniel Kuehn, Tomas Monarrez, Patrick J. Wolf, John F. Witte, and Brian Kisida, and published by the Urban Institute, at: https://www.urban.org/sites/default/files/publication/100665/the_effects_of_means-tested_private_school_choice_programs_on_college_enrollment_and_graduation_2.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 T. Jameson Brewer: (678) 910-2744, jameson.brewer@ung.edu Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More

< Back Measuring School Turnaround Success Summary A report produced by Public Impact for WestEd’s Center on School Turnaround asserted that because there is a lack of a shared definition of school turnaround success for states and districts, it is difficult for school districts to learn from one another. The report claimed to provide a model for defining school turnaround success. The report bases its model framework for determining turnaround success on three school-level measures: (1) proficiency in reading and math on state assessments; (2) growth in reading and math on state assessments; and (3) graduate rate (for high schools). Publication Date July 19, 2016 Authors Cassie Lutterloh, Jeanette P. Cornier, & Bryan C. Hassel; Tina Trujillo, University of California Berkeley; and Marialena Rivera, Texas State University Research Areas Assessment & Accountability; Governance & Public Education Publication Type Think Twice Download the Policy Brief Press Release Policymakers and Practitioners Will Find Little Worthwhile Guidance from School Turnaround Report, Academic Review Finds EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jul. 19, 2016) — A report produced by Public Impact for WestEd's Center on School Turnaround asserted that because there is a lack of a shared definition of school turnaround success for states and districts, it is difficult for school districts to learn from one another. The report claimed to provide a model for defining school turnaround success. However, an academic review finds the report deficient in several key areas. Tina Trujillo, University of California Berkeley, and Marialena Rivera, Texas State University, reviewed the report, Measuring School Turnaround Success, for the Think Twice think tank review project. Think Twice is produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The report bases its model framework for determining turnaround success on three school-level measures: (1) proficiency in reading and math on state assessments; (2) growth in reading and math on state assessments; and (3) graduate rate (for high schools). Unfortunately, Trujillo and Rivera find following shortcomings: Sufficient research evidence for the claims made is not presented in the report; It lacks sound methodological techniques; and It omits several rigorous, peer-reviewed studies that contradict a majority of its proposals. Despite the report's claim that it provides model that goes "beyond student achievement," Trujillo and Rivera found that it actually focused largely on standardized test scores. The reviewers explain that focusing primarily on standardized test scores distracts from other school goals, including: civic, social, emotional, and broader academic ones. Despite the shortcomings present in the report, the reviewers do acknowledge that the report does move the conversation toward a new theory of action for school turnaround, but falls short of achieving its goals. The review concludes that the proposed model continues the trend of relying on flawed, test-centered strategies: "Unfortunately, policymakers and practitioners looking for guidance on measuring turnaround success will not just find little worthwhile recommendations in this report, they will encounter several misguided ones, such as focusing heavily on standardized test scores and using percentile ranks, that are contradicted by solid evidence." Read the full review at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org Find Measuring School Turnaround Success on the web: http://centeronschoolturnaround.org/measuring-school-turnaround-success/ 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: Tina Trujillo, (510) 517-0874, trujillo@berkeley.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 Virtual Schools in the U.S. 2019 Summary As proponents continue to make the case that virtual education can expand student choices and improve the efficiency of public education, full-time virtual schools have attracted a great deal of attention. Advocates contend that this potential for individualization allows virtual schools to promote greater student achievement than can be realized in traditional brick-and-mortar schools. NEPC researchers found, however, that the research evidence does not support this claim. This three-part brief provides disinterested scholarly analyses of the characteristics and performance of full-time, publicly funded K-12 virtual schools; reviews the relevant available research related to virtual school practices; provides an overview of recent state legislative efforts to craft virtual schools policy; and offers policy recommendations based on the available evidence. Publication Date May 27, 2019 Authors Alex Molnar, Gary Miron, Najat Elgeberi, Michael K. Barbour, Luis A. Huerta, Sheryl Rankin Shafer, and Jennifer King Rice Research Areas Technology & AI Publication Type Policy Brief Download the Policy Brief Press Release Previous Next sign up for emails Get the latest K-12 education policy research delivered straight to your inbox! Read More