Showing 209 reports filtered by "Education Policy" sorted by date added . Show All Reports
Computers and Technology, Education and Literacy
Provides an overview of information technology's potential to enable better assessments of student achievement. Outlines promising models for testing complex skills, cognition, and learning and for utilizing such assessments to improve instruction.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Children and Youth, Education and Literacy, Race and Ethnicity
Presents ten objectives with action plans for improving access to quality education for Roma children, including collecting data, fighting racism, implementing desegregation policies, expanding access to preschool, and training bilingual teachers.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: Europe (Central), Europe
Education and Literacy, Government Reform
Explains how defined-benefit pension plans create barriers to attracting, retaining, and distributing effective teachers equitably. Proposes reforms including changing the benefit formula or structure, limiting political pressure, and phasing in changes.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Education and Literacy
A report from Harvard's Program on Education Policy and Governance and the journal Education Next finds that only 6% of U.S. students in the high school graduating class of 2009 achieved at an advanced level in mathematics compared with 28% of Taiwanese students and more than 20% of students in Hong Kong, Korea, and Finland. Overall, the United States ranked behind most of its industrialized competitors. The report compares the mathematics performance of high achievers not only across countries but also across the 50 U.S. states and 10 urban districts. Most states and cities ranked closer to developing countries than to developed countries. However, the study has three noteworthy limitations: (a) internationally, students were sampled by age and not by grade, and countries varied greatly on the proportion of the student cohort included in the compared grades; in fact, only about 70% of the U.S. sample would have been in the graduating class of 2009, which makes the comparisons unreliable; (b) the misleading practice of reporting rankings of groups of high-achieving students hides the clustering of scores, inaccurately exaggerates small differences, and increases the possibility of error in measuring differences; and (c) the different tests used in the study measured different domains of mathematics proficiency, and the international measure was limited because of relatively few test items. The study's deceptive comparison of high achievers on one test with high achievers on another says nothing useful about the class of 2009 and offers essentially no assistance to U.S. educators seeking to improve students' performance in mathematics.
This brief is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), and is one of a series of briefs made possible in part by funding from The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Education and Literacy
A report on teacher evaluations recently released by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has been refuted by one of the nation's leading economists, who found the widely published report to be seriously flawed. The Gates Foundation last month released the first report of its "Measures of Effective Teaching" (MET) project, which aims to develop a reliable method for evaluating teachers. The report was thoroughly reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by University of California at Berkeley economist Jesse Rothstein, former chief economist at the U.S. Department of Labor. Rothstein, who is also former senior economist for the Council of Economic Advisers, found the Gates Foundation's MET report to be based on flawed research and predetermined conclusions.
The review was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
Rothstein's analysis found the MET report draws conclusions that are not supported by its own facts, with some data in the report pointing "in the opposite direction" from what is indicated in its "poorly-supported conclusions."
Rothstein found several instances of conclusions not supported by data. One striking example: The MET report's data suggest that many teachers whose students have low math scores rank among the best at teaching "deeper" concepts. Yet the MET report draws the conclusion that teachers whose students score highly on standardized math tests "tend to promote deeper conceptual understanding as well."
Rothstein also found that the MET report relies heavily on standardized test scores and student surveys, which are insufficient measurements of teacher effectiveness, as teachers facing high-stakes testing will emphasize skills and topics geared toward raising test scores, while de-emphasizing those that aren't on the test. High-stakes student surveys, meanwhile, can be distorted by mischievous adolescents who may not answer honestly if they know their responses can affect teachers' compensation and careers, while teachers may be compelled to alter their practice to cater to student demands, Rothstein reported.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Western) / California
Education and Literacy
This brief explores the financial resources of New York City charter schools. It also addresses differences in student population characteristics and student outcomes across New York City (NYC) charter schools, and evaluates how financial resources translate to other schooling inputs, such as more or less experienced teachers and smaller or larger class sizes.
These schools are examined within the broader context of school funding equity and factors that other research has shown to have the potential to advance or disrupt educational equity. In American public education, funding equity involves multiple levels, linked to the multiple levels of our school systems. State systems govern local public school districts, with schools nested within districts. Public charter schools are either nested within districts or operate as independent entities.
NYC charter schools are of particular interest to national audiences mainly because they have been used to argue that charter schools outperform public schools and that New York's experience with charter schools suggests a transferable, nationally scalable policy option. Three studies concerning NYC charter schools in particular are frequently cited: Dobbie & Fryer, 2009; Hoxby, Murarka and Kang, 2009; and CREDO, 2009.
It is important to note, however, that the NYC context may be unique in terms of the role played by philanthropy and so-called venture philanthropy. Significant philanthropic attention has been focused on charter management organizations like the Knowledge is Power Program (KIPP) and Achievement First, which manage charter schools in NYC and elsewhere. NYC charter schools are both touted and blasted in the popular media as being the new favored charities of, for example, wealthy hedge fund managers. The extent that NYC charters have become philanthropic favorites means that NYC charter schools may be quite different from those in places like Missouri or Arizona, distant from the NYC philanthropic culture. In fact, even charter schools in Albany and Buffalo or across the river in New Jersey may be insulated from this unique financial setting. Therefore, additional philanthropic resources may explain a great deal of the claimed success of NYC charter schools. If this is the case, attempts to replicate or scale up these supposed successes would be more difficult and costly than assumed.
This brief offers concrete information about NYC charters and their finances to help ground these important policy discussions.
This brief is published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), and is one of a series of briefs made possible in part by funding from The Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-New York-New York County-New York City
Education and Literacy
A review of the Brookings Institution report, Charter Schools: A Report on Rethinking the Federal Role in Education finds that it relies on a limited body of research, misstates key issues and makes some recommendations not supported by the evidence. The review, by Western Michigan University professor Gary Miron, was produced by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado at Boulder School of Education, with funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
The Brookings report consists of a summary of evidence from five studies of student achievement in oversubscribed charter schools, plus two studies about charter school revenues. It also draws on information from exchanges between the six co-authors at a day-long Brookings conference. It ends with recommendations intended to help shape the federal role in charter school policy.
The evidence presented on student achievement suggests that charter schools are more effective at raising student achievement in popular urban charter schools. The evidence presented on revenues suggests that charter schools are short-changed in terms of the funding they receive.
Miron points out that the five studies of student achievement in oversubscribed charter schools cited in the report, "cannot validly be generalized to less-popular charter schools." Overall, the research on charter student achievement is much less positive. Even more troubling, he finds that the two studies on charter school funding cited in the report are used to justify recommendations that are "poorly developed and based on a narrow and misleading view of the evidence."
Miron criticizes the Brookings report for unquestioningly accepting the assertion by charter advocates that charter schools get some 20% less per pupil in public revenues than traditional public schools. In truth, he explains, "differences in revenues can largely be explained by higher spending by traditional public schools for special education, student support services, transportation, and food services." Moreover, there is great variation within the charter sector. Contrary to the Brookings recommendation, Miron concludes, "Recommendations regarding charter school finance should be targeted at the creation of better state funding formulas that are more sensitive to the diverse programs schools offer and the diverse needs of students that schools serve."
As a result of the shortcomings of its data and analyses, the report's recommendations related to charter school facilities and charter school finance inappropriately support policies intended to expand the number of charter schools in the short run at the expense of policies that will strengthen charter schools in the longer run.
The report is on stronger ground, Miron finds, in three areas: its call for the federal government to support and encourage the collection of more data and for charter school lotteries to be overseen by independent agencies; its proposal to set aside a portion of federal charter school funding for charter school authorizers and to make federal charter school funding contingent on rigorous oversight; and its call for a careful examination of unintended consequences in existing federal regulations on charter schools.
In the end, Miron says, federal policies that will strengthen charter schools in the long run "need to be based on a more representative body of evidence and a process of formulating recommendations that includes more voices and more than a day of conversations."
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States (Midwestern) / Michigan
Education and Literacy, Energy and Environment
The report calls on decision-makers to increase investments and on concerned stakeholders to plan and act in cooperation -- so that all children go to a school with child-friendly water, sanitation and hygiene facilities. The Call to Action campaign incorporates six key action points, one of which calls for improved monitoring of WASH in Schools programs. National monitoring systems for WASH in schools are often weak; many countries do not have even basic data on the WASH situation in schools. This lack of information on the status of WASH in schools hampers planning and resource allocation decisions, and makes it difficult to ensure accountability and evaluate progress. This package is designed to help address the WASH in Schools monitoring deficit at the national level. It is designed as a resource for WASH and Education professionals and practitioners to strengthen national monitoring systems and to improve the quality of monitoring at the project level.
August 1970
Geographic Focus:
See More Reports
