NEPC Resources on Politics, Policy, and School Practices
Review of Two Presentations on the Portfolio School Model
Representatives from the Recovery School District (predominantly, New Orleans) and the Achievement School District (Memphis) have created detailed presentations concerning the successes and challenges of implementing portfolio models. A portfolio district contracts with various providers to run schools and is responsible for holding those providers accountable. Although no rigorous research has yet examined the effectiveness of portfolio governance structures, the presentations are aimed at encouraging their adoption. While one should not expect citation of specific studies in PowerPoint presentations, policymakers considering such reforms should not act without a comprehensive and nuanced discussion of relevant evidence. Moreover, while the presentations both include strong assertions of positive results, they should acknowledge the thin evidence base on portfolio governance and consider possible alternative explanations for those asserted results. Specifically, the reported achievement gains are suspect and may be attributable to other unexamined factors such as the massive out-migration of New Orleans students. The Memphis data are too limited in scope and time to be conclusive. The purported teacher and administrator human-capital improvements that are reported in both presentations are not specified. Finally, the influx of unexamined federal and philanthropic funds may underestimate true costs, and the implications for community relations are not well developed. In conclusion, the presentations fail to provide the research base needed for policymakers.
Both PowerPoint presentations can be found at http://www.publicschoolshakedown.org/review-portfolio-districts.
Is American Education on a Bad Track?
What Does It Take to Scale Up Innovations?
NEPC Review: Parent Power: Grass-Roots Activism and K-12 Education Reform (American Enterprise Institute, July 2012)
The authors of this American Enterprise Institute report interviewed 28 leaders and practitioners of four national educational reform organizations to catalogue opportunities for and barriers to “parent power.” The report unevenly reflects the competing conceptions of “parent power” underlying the national debate on education reform. One conception, embraced uncritically by the authors and the new wave of well-funded national advocacy organizations, sees parents primarily as “consumers” of educational services who seek better choices in a more privatized education marketplace. An alternative, dismissed and overlooked by the authors but embraced by a long tradition of community organizers and public education advocates, views parents as the citizen owners-managers of a public education system that is a central institution of democratic civic life. These competing visions arise from sharply different histories and politics and give rise to dramatically different prescriptions for reform. The report suffers from an inadequate and slanted literature review; highly selective sampling; a serious lack of objectivity; disturbing characterizations of urban parents as “ignorant,” under-engaged and resistant to change; and a failure to contend with empirical evidence that challenges their views on “what parents want.” Its failure to adequately examine and document the full range of “grass-roots activism,” organizing, and history reflects both its blinders and its narrow political objective: to provide a briefing paper for the side it has chosen in what it calls “the fight.”
Teacher Job Satisfaction Plummets — Survey
Blueprint Reviews Now Available Online
NEPC Review: Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking "Last Hired, First Fired" Policies (National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ), February 2010)
This recent brief from the National Council on Teacher Quality is concerned with the question of what factors should be considered when school districts must decide which teachers to lay off during periods of tight budgets. Most districts, according to the brief, base these decisions primarily on long-standing "Last Hired, First Fired" teacher seniority policies. The main point of this brief is to argue that seniority is not a fair, useful, or cost effective criterion; instead, teachers' quality and performance could and should be the main criteria used to make these employment decisions. The brief's arguments and recommendations are straightforward, reasonable and commonsense. However, proposals to measure, recognize and reward differences in teacher quality and utilize these in employment and promotion decisions are neither new nor unique. As the history of education reform has shown, implementing such proposals is challenging and often reform attempts have met little or no success. To its credit, this brief recognizes some of the many hurdles and difficulties that need to be overcome or addressed. A useful contribution of the brief is to document wide variations among districts in their layoff criteria and mechanisms and to summarize specific options and concrete alternatives used in particular districts.
Suggested Citation: Ingersoll, R. & Merrill, L. (2010). Review of "Teacher Layoffs: Rethinking 'Last Hired, First Fired' Policies." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-teacher-layoffs
NEPC Review: Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Standards (February 2010)
President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have called for national "common core" curriculum standards. Some have argued that national standards are essential for reform, as they provide coherence, rigor, logic and organization. Others have contended they will narrow the curriculum, seize control from local districts and states, and distort the purposes of education. The Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey argues that national standards will have only limited, if any, effect. The report contends there is only a weak theoretical case in favor of national standards and that the structure of schooling might be the real problem. It concludes that market models are the best way to reform education. While providing a useful summary and critique of the research on national standards, the non-sequitur in the report (standards do not work; therefore the free market will) presents readers with a conclusion not supported by the report’s evidence. Thus, the fundamental policy conclusions are not sustained.
Suggested Citation: Mathis, W.J. (2010). Review of "Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Standards." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-Behind-the-Curtain
NEPC Review: The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs (December 2009)
The Intercollegiate Studies Institute report, The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree and Civic Learning on American Beliefs, suggests that college is failing to provide an adequate education in civic knowledge and is also influencing graduates to become less supportive of American values. Desirable "civic learning" about American values is associated with positions and attitudes that are anti-abortion, pro-free-market economics, consistent with fundamentalist Biblical interpretations, and otherwise generally associated with contemporary conservative political positions. The bulk of the report focuses on contrasts of college graduates and non-graduates on these political values, based on a civics test administered as a telephone survey. "Civics knowledge," as they define it, is presented as of greater value than college education. The study suggests that more educated people are more liberal, yet the omission of basic information about the researchers’ polling methods, their fundamental analytic techniques and their actual results renders any such conclusions insupportable. Consequently, the report offers no valid information that could inform policy makers or the public.
Suggested Citation: Marchant, G. J. (2010). Review of "The Shaping of the American Mind: The Diverging Influences of the College Degree & Civic Learning on American Beliefs." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-shaping-American-mind
Reviews Worth Sharing: Leaders and Laggards: A State-by-State Report Card on Educational Innovation (November 2009)
This review of the Leaders and Laggards report, republished here with permission of the author, was written by Bob Williams independently, not as part of the Think Tank Review Project. Williams focuses on aspects of the report concerning alternative teacher certification and teacher tenure. He notes that the report’s authors appear to begin with the premise that "improving education requires weakening teacher tenure and union influence while supporting alternative certification and national programs to place inexperienced people ... into teaching positions with minimal training." Williams explains in this commentary how the report distorts the data in order to create state-by-state ratings that fit the authors' pre-determined agenda.
Reviews Worth Sharing: Tracking and Detracking: High Achievers in Massachusetts Middle Schools (December 2009)
A new report authored by Tom Loveless and published by the Fordham Institute misleads in an attempt to convince policymakers to maintain tracking policies. The report combines weak data with questionable analyses to manufacture a flawed argument against detracking. This review was written by Kevin Welner independently, not as part of the Think Tank Review Project. It is available to subscribers of the journal "Teachers College Record," at http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentID=15872
Welner’s review describes how the Loveless report combines weak data with questionable analyses to manufacture an argument against detracking. Better treatment of these same data would, in fact, likely show that high-achieving Massachusetts middle school students in heterogeneous, untracked classrooms do as well or better than those in tracked classrooms – certainly in language arts (English) and maybe even in mathematics. He concludes that the report misleads in an attempt to convince policymakers to maintain tracking policies.
NEPC Review: Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2009 (April 2009)
The new Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2009 from the Reason Foundation provides a simple framework for touting the successes of states and urban school districts that grant greater fiscal autonomy to schools. The report defines the Weighted Student Formula (WSF) reform extremely broadly, presenting a variety of reforms under the WSF umbrella. Accordingly, when the report concludes that WSF is successful and should be widely replicated, it is difficult to sort through the claims and recommendations. Moreover, the approach and recommendations lack critical inquiry, thought, or empirical analysis. Perhaps most disturbing is the fact that in a third of the specific districts presented in the report, the evidence of success provided predates the implementation of the reforms, and the Reason press release makes the outright claim that past improvements are somehow a function of yet-to-be-implemented reforms. While the report does provide some reasonable recommendations, they are overshadowed by others. Overall, the policy guidance provided by the Reason report is reckless and irresponsible.
Suggested Citation: Baker, B. (2009). Review of “Weighted Student Formula Yearbook 2009.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-Weighted-Student-Formula-Year…
NEPC Review: "Plotting School Choice" and "In Need of Improvement" (November 2008)
Two recent reports by Education Sector set out to examine the viability of proposals to revamp the No Child Left Behind choice provisions to allow students in failing schools to choose a school outside of their home school district. The findings of the reports are weakened by foundational assumptions about capacity and competition for space, as well as a failure to present alternatives. Further, the reports do not systematically consider the role of geographic variation, causing a potential underestimation of the impact of inter-district choice for those urban contexts where policy advocates believe it is most necessary. Instead of an analysis based on such definite assumptions, policy makers would be better served by an array of assumptions and analyses, presenting the full scope of potential outcomes.
Suggested Citation:
Holme, J.J. & Richards, M.P. (2008). Review of “Plotting School Choice" and "In Need of Improvement." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-plottingschool-choice
Fellows’ Education Letters to the President
NEPC Review: High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB (Thomas B. Fordham Institute, June 2008)
A recent report from the Fordham Institute considers potential instructional policies for high-achieving students that should be considered in the forthcoming reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. The report finds: 1) achievement growth among high-achieving students has been slower than that of low-achieving students; 2) this trend can be traced to state accountability practices; and 3) teachers would support new policies targeted to high achievers. This review examines several premises of the report’s conclusions, both implicit and explicit. It concludes that evidence regarding the effects of accountability is inconsistent. It also concludes that teachers have a more nuanced view of allocating resources to high- and low-achievers than is recognized in the report.
Suggested Citation: Camilli, G. (2008). Review of “High-Achieving Students in the Era of NCLB.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-high-achieving-students
NEPC Review: The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida's McKay Scholarship Program (Manhattan Institute, April 2008)
A new report published by the Manhattan Institute for Education Policy, The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program, attempts to examine the complex issue of how competition introduced through school vouchers affects student outcomes in public schools. The possible contributions of this report, however, are outweighed by research design problems, failure to take into account alternative explanations, and unsubstantiated assumptions about the direction of possible selection bias. Together, these problems call into question the findings and render the conclusions drawn from those findings highly suspect.
Suggested Citation:
Yun, J. T. (2008). Review of “The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-effect-of-special
NEPC Review: The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s Best Opportunity to Dramatically Improve Student Achievement Lies in Our Worst-Performing Schools (December 2007)
Seeking to turn around the five percent of U.S. schools that have proven chronically underachieving, a new report from Mass Insight, The Turnaround Challenge, puts forth a proposal aimed at getting these schools and their students on track toward genuine academic achievement. To do so, the authors propose a comprehensive strategy that includes three main elements: conditions, capacity and clustering. Regarding conditions, the report advocates creating a “turnaround zone” within which schools are accorded greater autonomy and given incentives to act. Regarding capacity, the report suggests state-developed programs and policies to bring quality educators into the reform process at all levels while more leadership roles are created at the school site. Regarding clustering, it recommends a network of districts or schools that work in concert to facilitate change. There are many promising aspects to this report and its ideas deserve serious consideration, but this review identifies several concerns. The underlying research base is limited, the proposed timeline for enacting “significant change” in schools (two years) seems unrealistic, the approach is overly punitive, and the report says little about what role students will play in the reform process.
Suggested Citation:
McQuillan, P. (2008). Review of "The Turnaround Challenge." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-turnaround-challenge
School Choice: Evidence and Recommendations
How Legislation and Litigation Shape School Choice
Accountability, Rigor, and Detracking
NEPC Review: End It, Don't Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind (September 2007)
This new report from the Cato Institute begins with a solid analysis of No Child Left Behind's difficult-to-discern effects on student achievement, concluding that the law has narrowed the curriculum while failing to boost test scores. The report also includes a useful, though one-sided, review of current debates on Capitol Hill, focusing on proposals that the authors believe offer little more than tinkering with the current law. This prompts the question of why major players have yet to back out of this short-term policy quagmire and ask, what would an effective federal role look like? Despite this provocative thinking, the authors ultimately fall back on the Cato creed: shrink the central state and expand market choice in every sector of human activity. The report suffers from two key weaknesses. First, the authors ignore historical evidence showing that state-led accountability efforts, extending through the late 1990s, were associated with significant gains in achievement and narrower racial gaps. Rather than asking how Washington might learn from the states' apparent success, the authors infer from NCLB's limitations that any federal education policy will fail. Second, the authors' failure to subject market-based approaches to the same critical analysis applied to NCLB leads them to endorse a very narrow range of policy alternatives.
Suggested Citation:
Fuller, B. (2007). Review of "End It, Don't Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-end-it-don%E2%80%99t-mend-it-what-do-with-no-child-left-behind