News from the NEPC **Reports, Reviews Offer Little to Commend Milwaukee Voucher Schools

Not specifically focused on K-12 online learning, but I did want to pass this on…

Is this email not displaying correctly?  View it in your browser.

Reports, Reviews Offer Little to Commend Milwaukee Voucher Schools Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 282-0058, wmathis@sover.net Casey D. Cobb, (860) 486-6278, casey.cobb@uconn.edu URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/7agpr5w Boulder, CO (April 19, 2012) – Three recent reports on the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), produced by the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas use largely sound methods, but the data they assemble provide little to support the 22-year-old school voucher program. Those are the conclusions of three separate reviews released today of the reports. The reviews are all written by Casey D. Cobb of the University of Connecticut. They are published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. The three reports were produced by the School Choice Demonstration Project, which has conducted a five-year longitudinal growth study of the Milwaukee voucher program. Milwaukee’s program, which was created by state legislation in 1990, enables low-income residents of the Milwaukee Public School district (MPS) to enroll at taxpayer expense in private schools that have been certified by the state Department of Public Instruction. The reports under review are Nos. 29, 30, and 32, two of which offered what superficially appear to be positive findings: A sample of elementary and middle school MPCP students outperformed a matched sample of Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) students in reading in the fifth year of the program. The MPCP sample also showed trends of outscoring the MPS sample in math, but these were not statistically significant (No. 29). Voucher students who attended a private school in 8th or 9th grade in 2006 “were more likely to graduate high school,” “enroll in a four-year post-secondary institution,” and “persist in that four-year institution beyond the first year of enrollment” (No. 30). Comparisons of the test performance of MPCP students with that of a sample of students from the Milwaukee Public Schools revealed mixed findings with no clear pattern (No. 32). For example, a sample of low-income MPS students scored higher than MPCP students on average in 4th grade reading, math, and science, and in 8th and 10th grade math. The MPCP students scored higher than the MPS sample in 8th and 10th grade reading and science. In his reviews, Cobb found that the study comparing voucher and MPS elementary and middle school test-scores (No. 29) used sound and appropriately qualified methods. But he also cautioned that the study overgeneralized its findings. The report’s authors acknowledged that their findings were surprising in light of earlier data showing no differences between MPCP and MPS samples, and the report suggested that the jump in the final year may be due to the introduction of a high-stakes accountability policy for the private schools just before the fifth year. But in his review, Cobb observes that the failure of math scores to similarly jump for the voucher students raises questions about that explanation – as well as about what if anything can be learned from the study as a result. Regarding the study comparing graduation and post-secondary enrollment and persistence rates of MPS and MPCP students (No. 30), Cobb raised methodological concerns. By 12th grade, he notes, roughly three out of four of the original 801 MPCP 9th graders were no longer enrolled in a participating private school. The sample attrition “severely clouded” the inferences that could be legitimately drawn about MPCP’s real impact on graduation rates. Additionally, only one of the findings in the study’s most carefully controlled analytic models was statistically significant by conventional measures. Both limitations, Cobb writes, prevent broad conclusions about whether MPCP really improves graduation and higher education continuation rates over MPS. Of the third study, on comparative test performance of MPCP and MPS students in grades 4, 8 and 10 in reading, math, and science, Cobb agrees that it reveals mixed findings with no clear pattern. MPS students scored higher than MPCP students in fourth grade in all three areas, and in eighth and 10th grade in math. MPCP students, however, scored higher than MPS students in reading and science in those two upper grades. “The results are not particularly useful beyond providing a snapshot of how MPCP students and a comparison group of low-income MPS students performed on a battery of state exams,” Cobb writes. Moreover, a supplementary analysis identifying more “very low” performing MPS schools employed “arbitrary cut scores” and was potentially biased by unequal group sample sizes, he adds. None of the three reports, Cobb concludes, provide substantial support for the voucher program. To some extent, this is because of specific methodological or analytical shortcomings. But it’s also because the data and the reports simply fail to demonstrate that voucher schools are associated with improved outcomes. Find Casey D. Cobb’s reviews on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-Milwaukee-Choice-Year-5. Find the three reports from the Milwaukee School Choice Demonstration Project on the web at: http://www.uaedreform.org/SCDP/Milwaukee_Research.html. The Think Twice think tank review project (http://thinktankreview.org) of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. The Think Twice think tank review project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence.  For more information on the NEPC, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/. This review is also found on the GLC website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/

follow on Twitter |   friend on Facebook

Sent to mkbarbour@gmail.com — why did I get this? National Education Policy Center · School of Education, 249 UCB · University of Colorado · Boulder, CO 80309-0249

News from the NEPC: Report on Teachers in Digital Age Lacks Rigor of Evidence

This showed up in my inbox on Tuesday.

Is this email not displaying correctly?  View it in your browser.

Report on Teachers in Digital Age Lacks Rigor of Evidence Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 282-0058, wmathis@sover.net Luis A. Huerta,  (212)-531-1638, huerta@tc.columbia.edu URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/bslolbm Boulder, CO (April 3) — The Fordham Institute’s Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction, an advocacy document outlining a vision for how technology might transform the teaching profession, provides little or no empirical research evidence to support its central claim that digital age technologies will improve the education system, according to a new review. The report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Luis Huerta of Teachers College at Columbia University. The review is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. Huerta writes in his review that the report’s rationale is based on claims that the current education system lacks the capacity to support revolutionary changes needed to unleash the technological innovations of online learning that will yield increased effectiveness and efficiency. The report explains that effective teachers are central to the demands of online instruction and will be even more necessary in the digital age than in the current system. It asserts that the elements that constitute effective teaching can be broken down into discrete skills and then packaged and distributed to a wider group of learners via digital media. Harnessing the talents of effective teachers will be critical in both meeting the needs of students and in making teaching a “true profession” (p. 2) through increased specialization and tiered salary structures, the report asserts. Huerta notes that while the report addresses an important topic, the empirical research evidence to support its fundamental premise is insufficient and inadequate. Consequently, he concludes,  the report amounts to only a vision of what changes might be necessary as the digital revolution comes of age in public education. Find Luis Huerta’s review on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-teachers-digital-age Find Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction, by Brian and Emily Hassel on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/teachers-in-the-age-of-digital-instruction.html The Think Twice think tank review project (http://thinktankreview.org) of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. The Think Twice think tank review project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence.  For more information on the NEPC, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/. This review is also found on the GLC website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/

follow on Twitter |   friend on Facebook

National Education Policy Center · School of Education, 249 UCB · University of Colorado · Boulder, CO 80309-0249

A few hours later, I received this notice:

NEPC Again Directs Criticism at Fordham Institute Series
Education Week News
… combative tone than Wayne State University professor Michael Barbour’s criticism of a paper by former Edison Learning founding partner John E. Chubb.

Check out both items….

Creating Sound Policy For Digital Learning: A Working Paper Series From The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

My colleague Cathy posted this to her Google+ account some time ago.

Click on the image or visit http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-issues/publications/creating-sound-policy-for-digital-learning.html

The comment about citing research – and I would add making any mention of the process or methodology that they used – is a common complaint about this neo-liberal series on how policy needs to be changed in order to allow K-12 online learning as a tool to privatize public education.  Interestingly, the National Education Policy Center has commissioned reviews from more progressive scholars on the last two reports in this series – both of which underscore the lack of methodology or process, the failure to cite methodologically reliable and valid research (or really peer reviewed research of any kind) or the misuse or misunderstanding of that research.

Unfortunately, the only reviews of the first three that I can find come from other neo-liberal think tank personnel or the conservative media.  Anyway, I have linked in all five reports and the reviews of the two final reports below (full disclosure: I am the author of the final NEPC review).

• Quality Control in K-12 Digital Learning: Three (Imperfect) Approaches
• School Finance in the Digital-Learning Era
• Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction
• The Costs of Online Learning / NEPC review
• Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning / NEPC review

So, where do you fall?  A neo-liberal who is trying to privatize public education or in the progressive camp who is trying to ensure a broad, quality education for all students?

News from the NEPC; Freer Rein for Online Learning Programs? Review Finds No Evidence To Support Unrestricted Expansion

This item of mine showed up in my inbox overnight…

Is this email not displaying correctly?  View it in your browser.

Freer Rein for Online Learning Programs? Review Finds No Evidence to Support Unrestricted Expansion Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 282-0058, wmathis@sover.net Michael Barbour,  (313) 577-8349, mkbarbour@gmail.com URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/75r9wj7 Boulder, CO (March 22, 2010) – Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning, the fifth and final paper in the Fordham Institute’s series examining digital learning policy, proposes steps to move the governance of K-12 online learning from the local district level to the less restrictive state level and to create a free market for corporate innovation in K-12 online learning. In a new review of the report for the Think Twice think tank review project, Michael K. Barbour of Wayne State University finds that its central premise—that K-12 online learning will lead to increased student achievement—lacks support. Reviewer Barbour has been involved with K-12 online learning in Canada, the United States and New Zealand for more than a decade as a researcher, teacher, course designer and administrator. His research focuses on the effective design, delivery and support of K-12 online learning, particularly for students located in rural jurisdictions The review is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. Barbour observes that the body of research to date suggests that there is no learning advantage for virtual schools. Further, no evidence is presented that supports the wisdom or efficacy of centralizing governance at the state level or that moving to a market model is a superior, productive or economical practice, he writes. Barbour observes that the recommendation that virtual schools should be funded at the same per-pupil amount as traditional public schools raises the question of profiteering, given Fordham’s claim that virtual schools operate more economically—a claim for which is limited evidence. The report, he concludes appears to be ideologically motivated and designed to open up the $600 billion market of K-12 education to for-profit corporations. Find Michael Barbour’s review on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-overcoming-governance Find Overcoming the Governance Challenge in K-12 Online Learning, by John E. Chubb on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/overcoming-the-governance-challenge-in-k-12-online-learning.html The Think Twice think tank review project (http://thinktankreview.org) of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. The Think Twice think tank review project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence.  For more information on the NEPC, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/. This review is also found on the GLC website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/

follow on Twitter |   friend on Facebook

National Education Policy Center · School of Education, 249 UCB · University of Colorado · Boulder, CO 80309-0249

News from the NEPC: Review Questions Report Promoting New Orleans as School Reform Model

As New Orleans is also often used as an example within the K-12 online learning community, I felt it appropriate to share this…

Is this email not displaying correctly?  View it in your browser.

Review Questions Report Promoting New Orleans as School Reform Model Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 282-0058, wmathis@sover.net Kristen L. Buras (404) 413-8030, kburas@gsu.edu URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/78flp7v Boulder, CO (March 20, 2012) —  In its report, The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute criticizes local urban governance structures and presents the decentralized, charter-school-driven Recovery School District (RSD) in New Orleans as a successful model for fiscal and academic performance. Reviewing the report for the Think Twice think tank review project, Kristen Buras of Georgia State University writes that the report ignores the distinctive history of New Orleans and fails to provide evidence for its claims. The review is published by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. Buras, a native of New Orleans, is coauthor of Pedagogy, Policy, and the Privatized City: Stories of Dispossession and Defiance from New Orleans. Her research on educational reform in New Orleans has been published in Harvard Educational Review and Race Ethnicity and Education, and in edited books such as Schooling and the Politics of Disaster and The Assault on Public Education. In her review, Buras notes that the Fordham report, which is written by Nelson Smith, lacks any consideration of the chronic under-funding and racial history of New Orleans public schools before Hurricane Katrina. No evidence is provided that a conversion to charter schools would remedy these problems. The report also misreads the achievement data to assert the success of the RSD when the claimed gains may be simply a function of shifting test standards. The report touts the replacement of senior teachers with new and non-traditionally prepared teachers, but it provides no evidence of the efficacy of this practice. Additionally, the report claims public support for the reforms, Buras writes, yet other indicators reveal serious concerns over access, equity, performance, and accountability. “Ultimately, the report is a polemic advocating the removal of public governance and the replacement of public schools with privately operated charter networks,” Buras concludes. “It is thin on data and thick on claims, and should be read with great caution by policymakers in Ohio and elsewhere.” Find Kristen Buras’s review on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-louisiana-recovery-buckeye. Find The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State, by Nelson Smith, on the web at: http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/the-louisiana-recovery-school-district.html. The Think Twice think tank review project (http://thinktankreview.org) of the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. NEPC is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. The Think Twice think tank review project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The mission of the National Education Policy Center is to produce and disseminate high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. We are guided by the belief that the democratic governance of public education is strengthened when policies are based on sound evidence.  For more information on the NEPC, please visit http://nepc.colorado.edu/. This review is also found on the GLC website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/.

follow on Twitter |   friend on Facebook

National Education Policy Center · School of Education, 249 UCB · University of Colorado · Boulder, CO 80309-0249