News from the NEPC: Weighing In on Calif. School Finance

From Tuesday’s inbox…

Research and analysis to inform education policy and promote democratic deliberation

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

Weighing in on California School Finance Reform Recent Brief’s Argument for ‘Weighted Funding’ is Lacking in Evidentiary Support Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Bruce Baker, (732) 932-7496, x8232, bruce.baker@gse.rutgers.edu URL for this press release:  http://tinyurl.com/lnzdeta  BOULDER, CO  (June 18, 2013) – The Reason Foundation’s recent brief on California Gov. Jerry Brown’s school finance reform plan endorses Brown’s proposal and then uses it to advance additional preferences for reducing the role of school districts and for giving school principals greater autonomy over spending. Yet according to a new review, neither the endorsement of Brown’s plan, nor the call for revising it, are grounded in any data or sufficiently supported by existing research. The report was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Bruce Baker, a school finance expert at Rutgers University. The review is published today by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. Weighted Student Funding for California, by Lisa Snell of the Reason Foundation, praises Brown’s school finance reform plan, which would replace the state’s current school funding system of restricted categorical grants with a system that uses cost adjustment factors tied primarily to students’ income and English learner status. The Reason report also advocates modifying Brown’s proposal, to link the state funds to individual children, so that “money follows the child” regardless of which school he or she is enrolled in. Among other things, this removes spending discretion from school districts and grants a great deal more autonomy to school principals. The report argues that revising the Brown plan in accord with Reason’s recommendations has the potential to more equitably distribute funding across local public school districts. “Yet no data are presented or evaluated to support these claims,” according to Baker, and the report provides little to support its assertions that such a system is more equitable, more efficient, or more transparent. “The report instead offers a highly filtered summary of existing literature on the efficacy of weighted student funding for improving educational equity or school quality,” Baker writes. “While many would concur that California’s funding system is in disrepair, the Reason report offers little precise or valuable guidance for policymakers.” ‘Like’ on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend Find Bruce Baker’s review on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-weighted-student-funding-calif Find Weighted Student Funding for California, by Lisa Snell, on the web at: http://reason.org/news/show/weighted-student-funding-for-califo 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 brief is also found on the GLC website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ . If you are not already subscribed to this newsletter and would like to receive it regularly, click http://nepc.colorado.edu/ and then click the button in the upper right-hand corner that looks like this:

Copyright © 2013 National Education Policy Center, All rights reserved. You’re receiving this email because you have opted in at our website or sent a personal request to be included. Thank you. Our mailing address is: National Education Policy Center School of Education, 249 UCB University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0249 Add us to your address book

News from the NEPC: **Forward-Looking Alternatives on Critical Education Issues

From Thursday’s inbox…

Research and analysis to inform education policy and promote democratic deliberation

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

Forward-Looking Alternatives on Critical Education Issues NEPC Series Offers Research-Based Options for Policymakers Contact:  William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Jamie Horwitz, (202) 549-4921, jhdcpr@starpower.net URL for this Announcement: http://tinyurl.com/lgzndgl Boulder, CO (June 13, 2013) – At a time of growing national recognition of the need for a policy shift to more successful approaches to school reform, the National Education Policy Center (NEPC) at the University of Colorado Boulder has published a series of ten policy briefs identifying affirmative, research-based options for reform in areas including teacher evaluation, early childhood education, and school choice. “The task of reforming reform – of restoring balance and reason to education policies – certainly begins with a broad public awareness that our politicians have made some poor choices over the past couple decades, and we’ve certainly reached that point in the US,” said CU Boulder Professor Kevin Welner, NEPC’s Director. “But the next step is to turn to evidence about research-based best practices.” The series of briefs, entitled Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, address ten important policy areas and effective reform strategies. Along with the recently published book from Oxford University Press, Closing the Opportunity Gap: What America Must Do to Give Every Child an Even Chance, this series sets forth a forward-looking alternative to the current over-reliance on test-based accountability, privatization and school choice. “We encourage policymakers to use these research-based strategies to help strengthen our education system,” said Dr. William Mathis, NEPC’s Managing Director and the author of the series. “The strategies are carefully grounded in the overall evidence base about policies and practices that truly benefit the nation’s children.” The briefs cover the following topics: Teacher Evaluation. The current push to place students’ test scores at the center of such a system is destructive on many levels, including poisonous incentives to narrow curriculum and teach to the test. Researchers advocate balancing performance measures with observational approaches that directly focus on developing and improving teaching. Common Core State Standards. To truly benefit students, the Common Core Standards will have to be accompanied by a political will to provide schools and students the professional support and learning resources necessary to increase opportunities to learn. Preschool Education.  Two years of high-quality early childhood education can close as much as half the achievement gap for at-risk children and is associated with a wide range of positive adult outcomes. Yet overall preschool funding per child served is, in inflation-adjusted dollars, lower than a decade ago. An extended preschool day and year with universal access to enrollment and strong quality controls could make a huge difference for the nation’s children. Public Funding of School Choice. Unconstrained school choice as part of market-driven reform, has proven to be harmful – in terms of segregation and stratification as well as quality and financial abuse. For choice to diversify options, stimulate innovation, and even to reduce segregation, policies must be approached, designed, and implemented as a tool for accomplishing important policy objectives, not considering choice as an objective unto itself. Dropout Strategies. This brief offers several research-based recommendations to address dropout concerns: academic support and enrichment for at-risk students, adult advocates for at-risk students, personalized and supportive learning environments, and instruction that is relevant to the student’s post-high-school options. The majority of dropout risk factors are centered outside the school, requiring strong coordination between schools, and social and health agencies. Effective School Expenditures. When increased spending is grounded in evidence of effectiveness, it will lead to positive outcomes. For example, money should be wisely and carefully directed to the following approaches: enriched learning opportunities after school and over the summer, increased availability of high-quality early education and full-day kindergarten, reductions of class size, and increased funding and program support for economically disadvantaged children and English language learners. English Language Learners and Parent Involvement. The enrollment of English language learners (ELLs) in U.S. schools – most of them native born – has more than doubled in two decades. Their opportunities to learn will be enhanced by policies fostering educationally supportive parenting skills, establishing two-way communications, recruiting families as volunteers and audiences, involving families with homework, including families in school governance, and collaborating with community organizations. 21st Century Skills and Implications for Education. The idea of “21st Century Skills” has been used to mean very different things. In blending the so-called soft skills of teamwork, critical thinking, problem-solving, communication skills and diversity awareness, with the so-called cognitive skills in science, technology, math and reading, “Linked Learning” can prevent the narrowing of curriculum and promote  authentic learning opportunities. Addressing School Environment and Safety for LGBT Students. A 2011 survey found that more than four out of five LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, more than one in three reported physical harassment, and nearly one in five reported being physically assaulted. Thoughtful, deliberate efforts directed toward students, teachers and others can help schools shape healthier environments. Moving Beyond Tracking. Rather than tailoring instruction to diverse needs of students, tracking students by their perceived ability has been found to be harmful to those enrolled in lower tracks and to provide no significant advantages for higher-tracked students. Research has demonstrated that when high-quality, enriched curriculum is provided to all students, the effect benefits both high- and low-achievers. ‘Like’ on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend Find Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options . The website also links to NEPC’s reports and research on other education topics. This collection of briefs is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. For more information about GLC, visit http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ ,    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/ . If you are not already subscribed to this newsletter and would like to receive it regularly, click http://nepc.colorado.edu/ and then click the button in the upper right-hand corner that looks like this:

Copyright © 2013 National Education Policy Center, All rights reserved. You’re receiving this email because you have opted in at our website or sent a personal request to be included. Thank you. Our mailing address is: National Education Policy Center School of Education, 249 UCB University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0249 Add us to your address book

News from the NEPC: Did America Achieve Make Its Case for Another Test?

From Tuesday’s inbox…

Research and analysis to inform education policy and promote democratic deliberation

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

Did ‘America Achieves’ Make Its Case for Another Test? Contact: William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net Martin Carnoy, (650) 856-7722, carnoy@stanford.edu URL for this press release:  http://tinyurl.com/k8mkqez BOULDER, CO (June 4, 2013) – According to a recent report, U.S. high schools should start taking part in yet another standardized test, as a way to spur improvements in achievement. Specifically, the report contends that participating in a new international test will benefit U.S. middle class students. The report, from the advocacy organization America Achieves, is titled Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world’s best?. It contends that U.S. students are performing inadequately in the math and science portions of a prominent international assessment called the Program of International Student Assessment (PISA), run by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The authors of the report consider the PISA results a “wake-up call to America’s middle class.” They contend that in response U.S. high schools should start taking part in a new international test, based on the PISA and also run by the OECD, that will compare the academic knowledge and skills of 15-year-olds around the world. But a review of the report released today finds no evidence to support the report’s arguments. Martin Carnoy of Stanford University reviewed the report for the Think Twice think tank review project and is published today by the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. Carnoy points out that with its report, America Achieves promotes the idea that individual school participation in such international tests offers a valid means of improving school effectiveness and the effectives of national education systems. Yet he notes that the report itself fails to support this claim, and the claim is also not supported by PISA reports or the broader literature on school improvement and educational reform. The America Achieves report “is not grounded in research but rather is an assertion that measurement, by itself, is an effective reform tool.” And it makes that assertion without ever explaining how the test in question would be linked to curricula or strategies tailored to teaching mathematics and science, or to specific teacher professional development strategies. “Thus the report is of no utility to policymakers,” Carnoy concludes. ‘Like’ on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend Find Martin Carnoy’s review on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-middle-class-or-middle-of-pack . Find Middle Class or Middle of the Pack: What can we learn when benchmarking U.S. schools against the world’s best?, published by America Achieves, on the web at: http://www.americaachieves.org/docs/OECD/Middle-Class-Or-Middle-Of-Pack2.pdf . 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/ . If you are not already subscribed to this newsletter and would like to receive it regularly, click http://nepc.colorado.edu/ and then click the button in the upper right-hand corner that looks like this:

Copyright © 2013 National Education Policy Center, All rights reserved. You’re receiving this email because you have opted in at our website or sent a personal request to be included. Thank you. Our mailing address is: National Education Policy Center School of Education, 249 UCB University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0249 Add us to your address book

News from the NEPC: **Research Counsels Schools to End Tracking

From Thursday’s inbox…

Research and analysis to inform education policy and promote democratic deliberation

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

Research Overwhelmingly Counsels an End to Tracking Brief Reiterates Harm from “Ability Grouping” in School, Prescribes Pathway to Access for All Students Contact:  William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/qa6cof3 BOULDER, CO (May 30, 2013) –The final installment in a series of short briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research reviews the evidence about “tracking” students – that is, enrolling students in particular classes, curricula and courses of study based on perceived ability. Rather than achieving its purported goal – to tailor instruction to the diverse needs of students – tracking has, over decades of extensive research, been repeatedly found to be harmful to students enrolled in lower tracks and to provide no significant advantages for higher-tracked students, writes Dr. William Mathis, the author of the series. Mathis is managing director of the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. Mathis also points to the overwhelming research finding that tracking stratifies students by race and by parental wealth. What this means, he explains, is that tracking is one of the primary mistakes that schools make if they hope to close achievement gaps. Children with the most limited opportunities to learn outside of school are then given lesser opportunities within the school. “Whether known as sorting, streaming or ability grouping, an expansive body of literature conclusively shows tracking is harmful and inequitable and remains an unsupportable practice,” Mathis says. Summing up the research, Mathis writes that lower-track classes “tend to have watered-down curriculum, less-experienced teachers, lowered expectations, more discipline problems, and less- engaging lessons.” But, he continues, it doesn’t have to be this way: “When high-quality, enriched curriculum is provided to all students, the effect is to benefit both high-achieving and low-achieving students.” Successful examples of non-tracked or heterogeneous grouping can be found in school within and outside the U.S. Mathis describes research showing that the younger the age at which tracking occurs, the greater the differences among a country’s students on the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) by age 15.  And tracking is not associated with higher overall PISA performance. Yet despite the evidence of its harm, tracking is still pervasive. Attempts to eliminate the practice often meet stiff resistance from teachers and parents who believe they or their children have benefited from a tracked system. “The teachers assigned to high-track classes tend to be more experienced and therefore can exercise more power,” Mathis writes. “The parents who are able to secure high-track placement for their children are disproportionately likely to be white, well-educated and politically vocal and therefore similarly able to pressure schools to keep higher-track classes for their children,” segregated from lower-income students, students of color, or both. Mathis concludes with a series of recommendations drawn from an NEPC brief authored by Carol Burris, Kevin Welner, and Jennifer Bezoza, calling for the elimination of curricular tracking that separates students by race, socio-economic status, or assumptions about their learning ability. The detracking reform described in the earlier NEPC brief is a multi-step process. For instance, it calls upon states to require schools and districts to identify and describe their tracks and placement policies. It also calls upon states as well as non-governmental groups to connect educators and communities with researchers able to advance best practices in serving diverse populations. ‘Like’ on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend This new brief by William Mathis is part of Research-Based Options for Education Policymaking, a multipart brief that takes up a number of important policy issues and identifies policies supported by research. Each section focuses on a different issue, and its recommendations to policymakers are based on the latest scholarship. The brief is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find William Mathis’s brief on the NEPC website at:  http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options . Find the earlier brief, Universal access to a quality education, with a comprehensive set of recommendations for moving to a non-stratified school environment, at  http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/universal-access . 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 brief is also found on the GLC website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ . If you are not already subscribed to this newsletter and would like to receive it regularly, click http://nepc.colorado.edu/ and then click the button in the upper right-hand corner that looks like this:

Copyright © 2013 National Education Policy Center, All rights reserved. You’re receiving this email because you have opted in at our website or sent a personal request to be included. Thank you. Our mailing address is: National Education Policy Center School of Education, 249 UCB University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0249 Add us to your address book

News from the NEPC: Safe at School for LGBT Students

Another item from Thursday’s inbox…

Research and analysis to inform education policy and promote democratic deliberation

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

Safe at School New Brief Airs Policies for Full Inclusion of LGBT Students  Contact:  William J. Mathis, (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net URL for this press release: http://tinyurl.com/lrtm2sv BOULDER, CO (May 23, 2013) –The ninth in a series of short briefs summarizing current relevant findings in education policy research discusses the continuing need to ensure schools are safe for all students and examines the particular challenges faced by those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered (LGBT). The paper is written by Dr. William Mathis, managing director of the National Education Policy Center, housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education. Mathis notes that LGBT youth “are disproportionately at risk of an unsafe and unhealthy school environment.” A 2011 survey found more than 4 out of 5 LGBT students reported being verbally harassed, more than 1 in 3 reported physical harassment, and nearly 1 in 5 reported being physically assaulted – yet nearly two-thirds of these students never reported the incidents to school authorities, in some cases because they feared that would exacerbate the harassment they experienced. Consequences range from much higher rates of school absence and greater risk for dropping out to higher rates of homelessness and suicide for LGBT youth. The lives of LGBT students have actually improved substantially over the last decade and a half, coinciding with changes in public opinion to become more supportive of LGBT persons as well as increasingly supportive school policies. Nonetheless, “the problems facing these youths in the nation’s schools are still substantial,” Mathis writes. Schools have an obligation to ensure a safe and supportive learning environment for all students, including LGBT students. This  is a well-established legal principle that is rooted in both the U.S. Constitution and federal statutes guaranteeing equal access to education. Improved state level legislation would further advance society’s basic goal of confirming that schools “provide healthy learning environments for all students.” The policy brief concludes with a summary of steps schools and educators can take in pursuit of the goal of fully including LGBT students, incorporating professional development, crafting and carrying out school disciplinary policies, and reaching out to LGBT educators as resources in helping to bring about changes in school climate. The brief also points to model legislation, published previously by NEPC, to further effect a more inclusive public education system. ‘Like’ on Facebook Follow on Twitter Forward to a Friend The brief is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. Find William Mathis’s brief on the NEPC website at: http://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/options 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 brief is also found on the GLC website at http://www.greatlakescenter.org/ . If you are not already subscribed to this newsletter and would like to receive it regularly, click http://nepc.colorado.edu/ and then click the button in the upper right-hand corner that looks like this:

Copyright © 2013 National Education Policy Center, All rights reserved. You’re receiving this email because you have opted in at our website or sent a personal request to be included. Thank you. Our mailing address is: National Education Policy Center School of Education, 249 UCB University of Colorado Boulder, CO 80309-0249 Add us to your address book