In 2002, voters in Florida approved a constitutional amendment limiting class sizes in public schools to 18 students in the elementary grades, 22 students in middle grades, and 25 in high school grades. Analyzing statewide achievement data for school districts from 2004-2006 and for schools in 2007, this study purports to find that "mandated [class-size reduction] in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes." The study has four flaws that, taken together, invalidate it as an evaluation of class-size reduction:
1) The data used are drawn from grades 3 and 4 to 8, where the likelihood of finding class size effects is small.
2) The differences in class sizes of two comparison groups (treated and untreated) range from about 0.5 to about 3.0 students, all too small to make a difference educationally.
3) School and district average class sizes are used in the analysis rather than the actual sizes of classes in which students were enrolled.
4) The comparison is between two sets of districts, both with small classes, differing only in whether state funding was used in a focused or general way. This study actually found that administrative discretion in spending state class-size reduction funds did not affect students’ academic performance.

Suggested Cite:

Finn, J. (2010). Review of "The Impact of a Universal Class-Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida’s Statewide Mandate." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-class-size-florida

This report concludes that autonomy is a prerequisite for innovative and effective charter schools to emerge. Especially important is freedom from external bureaucratic control. Yet there is nothing in this report that addresses levels of autonomy in relationship to financial performance, resource allocation practices, academic results, and other key school characteristics and outcomes. Beyond anecdotal evidence, the authors fail to empirically demonstrate whether and how authorizers’ constraints have had an adverse impact upon any of the examined four key areas of school autonomy: staffing, instructional programming, governance, and culture.

Suggested Cite:

Gulosino, C. (2010, May 26). Review of "Charter School Autonomy: A Half-Broken Promise." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-charter-school-autonomy

The Center on Education Policy (CEP) report, Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners?, finds that some states have seen increases in the number of English language learners (ELLs) meeting proficiency standards under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), while others have seen decreases. The report notes some limitations in the data it uses. The CEP report, however, has some specific weaknesses in its research methods that undermine its findings. The CEP report seriously underestimates the significance of language of instruction as a source of error in ELL achievement test scores. Further, it errs in implying that its findings justify an inference of a causal relationship between observed changes in percentages of ELLs meeting achievement benchmarks and improvements in academic achievement for ELLs. Given the limitations in the data, it is inappropriate to draw conclusions from the data summarized in the CEP report.

Suggested Cite:

MacSwan, J. (2010). Review of "Has Progress Been Made in Raising Achievement for English Language Learners?" Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-progress-ELL

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 Cite:

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

The CATO Institute’s Policy Analysis "They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools" contends that the figures most commonly associated with spending on K-12 public education do not include all relevant expenditures. It also cites survey evidence suggesting that voters underestimate the cost of education and, when presented with a higher per-pupil expenditure figure, will support lower spending. The report notes that education is the largest spending category in combined state and local budgets, and it examines spending in five of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas plus the District of Columbia. The heart of the analysis is a comparison, within each of the selected districts, of three alternative calculations of school spending. An estimated private school cost is also calculated and presented. The report presents large "real" costs per pupil. However, the spending numbers calculated for the report actually double count, adding in both capital construction and debt service. The use of flawed data renders the report to be of limited value in policymaking.

Suggested Cite:

Altemus, V. (2010, May 5). Review of "They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-they-spend-what

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 Cite:

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

A recent report from the Reason Foundation argues for significant changes in how public education is organized and delivered in large cities. The report argues that city schools should move toward a "portfolio" of schools model. In such a model, the district does not necessarily operate schools, but instead focuses on closing low-performing schools and opening new ones under the management of autonomous people or corporations. The report cites improvements in student achievement in New Orleans that have accompanied a substantial shift in the city towards charter and autonomous schools. However, the heavy reliance on New Orleans is a significant weakness in this report, as there are myriad reasons unrelated to the portfolio approach that likely explain some or all of the gains, including substantial population shift of low-income children post-Hurricane Katrina and a significant increase in resources. The findings from New Orleans are supplemented by examples from other cities, but these examples and other arguments throughout the report rest not on systematic research but instead on carefully selected examples intended to support a particular perspective.

Suggested Cite:

Bulkley, K.E. (2010). Review of "Fix the city schools: Moving all schools to charter-like autonomy." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-fix-city-schools

The Education Trust research report "Stuck Schools" suggests a framework for identifying chronically low-performing schools in need of turnaround. The study uses Maryland and Indiana to show that some low-performing schools make progress while others remain stagnant. The report has four serious problems of reliability and validity, however. First, the norm-referenced methodology guarantees "failed" schools independent of any true performance or improvement level by the school. Second, the report’s reliance on state assessment data is misleading, and some schools’ reported growth may be an artifact of regression to the mean and ceiling effects as well as instructional and testing practices. Third, the use of a linear growth model is questionable, since schools may not follow a strictly linear pattern of improvement. Fourth, the label of "stuck" becomes problematic given that there is no research-based guidance on how to improve schools other than vague prescriptions. In conclusion, the report’s methods are so simplistic, arbitrary and ill-fitting with its own assumptions that it is more harmful to sound policymaking than helpful. There remains an outstanding question of how to help struggling schools after identification, but we need to know first whether the identification is based on reliable and valid measures, and if so, what school factors account for these differences.

Suggested Cite:

Lee, J. (2010). Review of "Stuck Schools: A framework for identifying schools where students need change—now." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-stuck-schools

This review examines a research study that compares high school graduation rates of students who used vouchers to attend private high schools in Milwaukee and students who attended public high schools in that same city. The study reports that for the most recent year of data, a sample of voucher students had estimated graduation rates 12 percentage points higher on average than a sample of public school students. Overall, the trend favoring voucher students was observed in five of the previous six years. The analysis is technically accurate and makes defensible assumptions as necessary for the final calculations. However, although the results are descriptively useful, any real claims about whether the voucher program is actually causing higher graduation rates would depend on a much stronger research design.

Suggested Cite:

Cobb, C. D. (2010). Review of “Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2008.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-graduation-rates-choice

A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, America's Private Public Schools, has received considerable attention and includes some controversial recommendations. The report's authors suggest the existence of what they term "private public schools," and they argue that the existence of these "exclusive" public schools justifies the support of publicly funded vouchers to private schools. While the report's analysis does support the contention that there are public schools with extreme isolation by class, the authors inappropriately use this finding as the basis to argue that private schools should be publicly funded through vouchers or tax credits -- a conclusion with extremely tenuous logic and one that is unsupported by their analysis. Ultimately, this report has some utility in providing a point of departure for discussions about how we as a society wish to allocate schooling opportunities to students. However, methodological and data problems and the omission of important substantive contextual information about socioeconomic segregation undermine the report's credibility. In addition, the central findings of the authors are disconnected from their ultimate recommendations. And those recommendations do not provide workable solutions or shed any new light on the difficult problem of de facto income segregation. In pursuing such a flawed argument, the authors miss a chance to seriously address this important issue and spur an informed debate on national priorities for public schooling.

Suggested Cite:

Yun, J. T. (2010). Review of "America’s Private Public Schools." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-Americas-Private-Public

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 Cite:

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.

The issue brief entitled "Connecticut's Charter School Law & Race to the Top" by the Connecticut Coalition for Achievement Now (ConnCAN) recommends changes to the state's charter school law that it argues would improve funding equity and are essential to closing the state's achievement gaps. The brief's specific proposals deserve careful attention, particularly its recommendation to tie charter school funding levels to student needs. The brief, however, offers no evidence for the claim that expanding charter schools would raise the achievement of low-income students, and it presents one-sided arguments for its policy positions that ignore important considerations. The brief does not provide the thoughtful discussion of the state’s educational goals and how charter schools might further these goals needed to improve charter school policy.

Suggested Cite:

Bifulco, R. (2010). Review of "Connecticut’s Charter School Law & Race to the Top!" Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-Connecticut-Charter

"Expanding Choice in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education" presents a seemingly egalitarian prescription for the federal government to expand school choice. An examination of the arguments and evidence for increasing choice, however, reveals at least three important shortcomings. First, the authors tend to overuse research that is still in progress and research produced by advocacy organizations and think tanks, leading them to be overly optimistic about particular school choice reforms’ effects on educational achievement, access and equity. The second oversight is the neglect of important scholarship, causing the authors to fail to acknowledge the complex social and political dynamics informing parental choice processes as well as choice schools’ practices that limit and shape their student enrollments. A third shortcoming emerges from this omission: the authors do not sufficiently consider issues of diversity, including the social categories of race, ethnicity, special education, and English Learners. They fail to acknowledge that some school choice reforms have had segregative effects. As such, in the singular pursuit of their goal to universally expand school choice the authors miss an opportunity to affirm the federal role in ensuring the creation of diverse, equitable, and high-quality choice schools that would produce individual and societal benefits.

Suggested Cite:

Scott, J. (2010). Review of "Expanding Choice in Elementary and Secondary Education: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education," Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-expanding-choice

The South Carolina Policy Council Education Foundation report, "How School Choice Can Create Jobs for South Carolina," argues that school choice, in the form of vouchers to attend private schools, would create significant job opportunities in five poor, rural counties of South Carolina. The report, however, relies almost exclusively on results of an earlier study that has significant limitations in its methodology and execution, rendering its findings unreliable. The report also introduces questionable assumptions while extrapolating these findings to the five focus counties -- assumptions that drive the outcomes but are unlikely to hold in practice. As a result of its uncritical acceptance of an earlier flawed study and in its introduction of additional untenable assumptions, the report offers findings that are unlikely to be valid and is of little use in informing policymakers and the public about the effects of vouchers.

Suggested Cite:

Roy, J. (2010). Review of “How School Choice Can Create Jobs for South Carolina.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Re-search Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/Review-How-School-Choice