A new Think Twice review released today finds that a recent report on the effect of Florida's class-size reduction reform on student achievement does not actually study the impact of class-size reduction.
The Impact of a Universal Class-Size Reduction Policy: Evidence from Florida's Statewide Mandate, written by Matthew M. Chingos for the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University's Kennedy School, was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Jeremy Finn of the University at Buffalo-SUNY. Finn, a statistics expert, was a lead researcher of Tennessee's Project STAR, a large, randomized experiment in class-size reduction (CSR). In 2002, Florida voters passed a constitutional amendment mandating CSR throughout that state's schools.
The Chingos study compares student test scores in districts that already had average class sizes smaller than required by the amendment with student scores in districts with average class sizes larger than required by the amendment. Districts that already had smaller class sizes received the same additional funding but could use the money as they saw fit, while those with larger class sizes were required to use the state CSR funds to reduce class sizes. Chingos concludes that "mandated CSR in Florida had little, if any, effect on cognitive and non-cognitive outcomes" in the students examined. Finn, however, points out that the study doesn't actually address the effect of CSR on student achievement. Instead the study compares the results of schools that reduced class size with a group of schools that received monies to use as they wished. Both sets of districts in the study had small class sizes. According to Finn, the study's finding would more accurately be stated as "administrative discretion in spending state class-size reduction funds did not affect students' academic performance."
Finn's review also points out that there are other flaws in the Chingos study: It uses the broad brush of school and district averages rather than student-level information about class sizes and test scores. Also, the actual class-size differences between the two groups were too small to make an educational difference; both of the groups had small average class sizes.
Finn concludes, "Despite its title, this report does not address the issue of class-size reduction. By being presented as an evaluation of Florida's mandated class size limits, it may lead parents, educators, or policy makers to draw faulty conclusions about the impact of the program."
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America / United States
A new study finds that charter schools typically get less funding than traditional public schools. And it also reveals that the primary reason charters tend to get less funding is because traditional public schools must offer far more special education, transportation and student support services. Spending on those programs and services -- often not available in charter schools -- accounts for much or all of the difference in funding each receives. This finding is one of several that Professor Gary Miron and his co-author Jessica Urschel make in Equal or Fair? A Study of Revenues and Expenditures in American Charter Schools, released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. The study comes amid a growing debate over the question of whether charter schools are inadequately funded compared with traditional public schools. In recent years, numerous charter school advocates have cited the purported funding gap to help explain charter schools' achievement results compared with traditional public schools. Miron and Urshel point out that, compared with traditional public schools, charter schools spend proportionally more on administration -- in the percentage of overall spending that goes to administrative costs, as well as in the salaries they pay administrative personnel. Overall, however, charter schools spend less than traditional public schools: less on instruction, less on student support services and less on teacher salaries and benefits. Equal or Fair? is the most comprehensive study to date on the question. It uses data from the U.S. Department of Education on revenue sources and spending patterns of charter schools and traditional public schools and districts across the nation. It also examines patterns across nine different comparison groups, ranging from traditional public schools to various sub-groups of charter schools. "On first appearance, charter schools receive less revenue per pupil ($9,883) than traditional public schools ($12,863)," Miron and Urschel find. Yet, they add, this direct comparison "may be misleading." States vary considerably in the way they channel funds to charter schools. Moreover, public schools provide -- and receive funds for -- certain services that most charter schools do not provide (or spend far less on) including special education, student support services and transportation and food services. This largely explains the differences in revenues and expenditures for charters compared with traditional schools. "When charter schools and traditional public schools have similar programs and services and when they serve similar students, funding levels should be equal in order to be considered fair," they write. "However, as long as traditional public schools are delivering more programs, serving wider ranges of grades, and enrolling a higher proportion of students with special needs, they will require relatively higher levels of financial support. Under these circumstances, differences or inequality in funding can be seen as reasonable and fair."
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Children and Youth, Education and Literacy
Recently, testimony from three public hearings in Massachusetts suggested that excessive disciplinary action for non-violent offenses, such as tardiness and truancy, exacerbates the dropout crisis. Testimony indicated that students already behind in school are often forced to miss additional days through suspensions, which leads to a loss of credits and an inability to catch up. Some parents, educators, education stakeholders, and coalitions, including the Massachusetts Graduation and Dropout Prevention and Recovery Commission, have called for a closer look at school discipline policies and practice. Many observers have come to believe that fully understanding the role of discipline is an essential step in tackling the problem of why some Massachusetts students are not staying in school. It is within this context that the Rennie Center for Education Research & Policy embarked upon its examination of school discipline in Massachusetts.
Act Out, Get Out? Considering the Impact of School Discipline Practices in Massachusetts reviews why discipline policies are necessary, laws governing these policies, and national research on the effects of disciplinary removal. The brief then describes overall trends in the disciplinary removal (suspensions and expulsions) of Massachusetts public school students over time (school year 2005-2006 through 2008-2009) and findings from a more in-depth analysis of discipline data from the 2007-2008 school year. Key findings from data about the 2007-2008 school year include: 1. For the most serious infractions, those involving illegal substances, violence and criminal activities the most common reason for disciplinary removal is violence; 2. Out-of-school suspension is the most frequently used form of disciplinary removal; 3. The number of disciplinary removals peaks at 9th grade and declines in 10th through 12th grade; 4. Particular segments (low-income, special education, male, black, Hispanic) of the student population are removed at disproportionately high rates.
This policy brief highlights essential questions that need to be answered in order to fully understand how discipline policies are being carried out and to tease out the relationship between disciplinary removal, the achievement gap, and dropping out of public schools in Massachusetts. The final section of the brief puts forth considerations for policymakers and K-12 school and district leaders. The brief suggests there is a need for more detailed and complete record keeping of school discipline data as well as for more schools and districts to implement school-wide preventative approaches and alternative education programs for students who have been removed. The brief also questions the extent to which of out-of-school suspensions are used for non-violent, non-criminal offenses, particularly those for Pre-Kindergarten and Elementary School aged students.
The brief was the subject of discussion at a public event on May 26, 2010.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Northeastern)-Massachusetts
In her review, Gulosino finds that the report assumes the positive impact of autonomy, but provides no empirical evidence to support this. She indicates that the report is of very little value to anyone concerned with charter schools including policy makers, school leaders, parents and charter supporters.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
Children and Youth, Education and Literacy
This paper estimates the impact of gifted and talented program participation on academic achievement and peer composition for a sample of 8th grade students. Gifted education provides children that have been identified as having high ability in some intellectual respect with a supplemental curriculum to their traditional school course work. Participation in gifted programs is not random, so OLS estimates are biased by the presence of unobserved heterogeneity which is correlated with participation status as well as outcomes. To obtain causal estimates, I use an instrumental variables approach where the instrument is a self-constructed measure of how well each child fulfills the criteria his/her school uses to admit students into the gifted program, relative to the child's peers. The IV estimates indicate that, in the short run, participation is associated with a significant increase in math standardized test score performance. In the long run, participation is found to increase the probability a child takes Advanced Placement classes. There is no evidence that participation influences the composition of a child's peer group.
August 1970
Geographic Focus:
Altemus concludes that the report's claim that public education is overpriced is much overstated because it counts capital expenditures twice. Altemus indicates when this error is eliminated, the report's main argument collapses rendering it virtually useless for policymaking.
August 1970
Geographic Focus:
Scott's review of this report finds that it lacks the evidence to support the call for an expansion of school choice. Scott identifies three major shortcomings in the report: it relies too heavily on research in progress and research produced by advocacy organizations; it neglects prior research concerning the nature of parental choice; and it fails to acknowledge that unconstrained school choice has segregative effects.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States
A survey of Milwaukee Kindergarten teachers finds nearly all (97%) report they can generally tell early in the school year which children attended preschool and which did not. Teachers also feel that those who attended preschool typically perform much better in Kindergarten and at least somewhat better after that. The survey of 77 teachers of five-year-old Kindergarten (K5) in the Milwaukee public school district (MPS) also finds that most teachers (93%) feel children with preschool or four-year-old Kindergarten (K4) backgrounds are somewhat to much better prepared to enter K5 than their peers. In addition, the majority (83%) feel spending time in preschool or K4 is very important prior to entering K5. These findings hold true for teachers in schools with higher-than-average enrollments of low-income children, as well as teachers in schools with fewer low-income children.
August 1970
Geographic Focus: North America-United States (Midwestern)-Wisconsin-Milwaukee County-Milwaukee
