Archives for category: Research

One of the most reliable sources for analysis of education research is the National Education Policy Center.

The American Educational Research Association has just honored the NEPC director Kevin Welner for his role in leading the organization and the fine work that it does. If you recall, in addition to its regular reports on research and its reviews of think tank products, NEPC produces an annual Bunkum Award to the worst education research of the year.

BOULDER, CO (April 24, 2017) – NEPC Director Kevin Welner has been awarded the 2017 American Educational Research Association’s Outstanding Public Communication of Education Research Award. The award honors scholars exemplary in their capacity to communicate important education research to the public, including education communities. It recognizes a scholar who has demonstrated the capacity to deepen the public’s understanding and appreciation of the value of education research in civic decision-making.

Welner is a well-known interpreter of education research for general audiences. He appears regularly in the media, presents at public forums, and has authored numerous op-ed essays on education policy topics. His work has been showcased in the Washington Post “Answer Sheet” blog as well as on NPR’s “Here and Now.” In addition he was a keynote speaker at the White House Reach Higher conference “Beating the Odds: Successful Strategies from Schools & Youth Agencies that Build Ladders of Opportunity.”

After learning of his award, Welner commented, “The accomplishments this award recognizes rest on a foundation laid over the past two decades by many others. Alex Molnar’s work at the Center for Education Research Analysis and Innovation (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) and the Education Policy Studies Laboratory (Arizona State University); Jeanne Oakes’s work at the Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (UCLA); and Ken Howe’s work at the Education and Public Interest Center (CU Boulder) have all helped make what I’m doing possible.” Welner went on to note that he works with talented colleagues on the NEPC staff and across the country. “The NEPC staff and NEPC’s 125 fellows make enormous contributions to our collective effort. Providing high-quality research and analysis in support of democratic deliberation about ​education policy is the mission of NEPC. This award tells me that we are on course.”

NEPC co-founder and Publications Director, Alex Molnar, praised Welner, commenting, “I can think of no one more deserving of this award. It is an honor to work with such a talented and ethical scholar whose enduring commitment to equity, social justice, and democratic decision-making enriches our scholarship, improves education practice, and strengthens our civic life.”

I am happy to add Kevin Welner to the honor roll of this blog, an award that is harder to achieve than the Academy Award or an Emmy.

Happily, the New York Times published an article saying that children need to move more. There is actual scientific research proving that immobility is not healthy. It is not healthy for adults but especially not for children, whose bodies are growing.

Some nations, like Finland, realized this a long time ago, so students have recess and outdoor play after every class. Recess! Time to go outside and run and play! The authorities think this is good for the children.

Back in the olden times, most American schools had recess a few times a day, at least once or twice, anyway.

But over the past two decades, the need to raise standardized test scores has dwarfed the importance of movement and play. Test scores are the purpose of schooling, right?

The article includes several references to Apps and videos so that teachers will know how children should move. That’s in case you don’t know or forgot children move.

The Finns have another approach. No videos. No Apps. They open the school doors and let the children go outside, where there is playground equipment. Without any direction, children move all by themselves.

The first Earth Day occurred in 1970, and it raised awareness of the importance of protecting the environment.

Now, more than ever, we must all stand together to support the environment, to defend science, to denounce fake theories, and to protect the earth.

The Trump administration thinks that climate change is a hoax. Trump’s budget makes deep cuts in the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has enjoyed bipartisan support for almost 50 years.

Earth Day is April 22.

Join your friends and neighbors to speak up for clean air and clean water. Join with them to protest the budget cuts to scientific research in many other agencies.

Plan now for April 22.

Every year the National Education Policy Center announces the winner of its not-at-all coveted Bunkum Award for the shoddiest think tank report of the previous year.

This year’s winner is the Center for American Progress, for its report purporting to show that the Common Core standards raise the achievement of poor students.


Winner of NEPC’s 2016 Bunkum Award\

BOULDER, CO (PRWEB) FEBRUARY 23, 2017

The 89th Academy Awards will be celebrated this weekend, which means it’s also time to announce the winner of the 2016 National Education Policy Center Bunkum Award. We invite you to enjoy our 11th annual tongue-in-cheek “salute” to the shoddiest think tank report reviewed in 2016.

This year’s Bunkum winner is the Center for American Progress (CAP), for its report, Lessons From State Performance on NAEP: Why Some High-Poverty Students Score Better Than Others.

To learn who our editors judged to be Bunkum Award-worthy, be sure to watch the 2016 Bunkum Award video presentation, read the Bunkum-worthy report and the review, and learn about past Bunkum winners and the National Education Policy Center’s Think Twice Think Tank Review project:

http://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank/bunkum-awards/2016

About the Think Twice Think Tank Review Project:

Many organizations publish reports they call research – but are they? These reports often are published without having first been reviewed by independent experts – the “peer review” process commonly used for academic research.

Even worse, many think tank reports subordinate research to the goal of making arguments for policies that reflect the ideology of the sponsoring organization.

Yet, while they may provide little or no value as research, advocacy reports can be very effective for a different purpose: they can influence policy because they are often aggressively promoted to the media and policymakers.

To help the public determine which elements of think tank reports are based on sound social science, NEPC’s “Think Twice” Think Tank Review Project has, every year since 2006, asked independent experts to assess strengths and weaknesses of reports published by think tanks.

Few of the think tank reports have been found by experts to be sound and useful; most, however, are found to have little, if any, scientific merit. At the end of each year NEPC editors sift through the reviewed reports to identify the worst offender. We then award the organization publishing that report NEPC’s Bunkum Award for shoddy research.

Find Documents:

Press Release: http://nepc.info/node/8504

NEPC Review: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-CAP-standards

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) Think Twice Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org) provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu

Gene V. Glass is one of our nation’s most distinguished education researchers.

This post is an important analysis of the failure of the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of Education Sciences, which was reorganized during the George W. Bush administration.

As a new administration moves into the US Department of Education, the opportunity arises to review and assess the Department’s past practices. A recent publication goes to the heart of how US DOE has been attempting to influence public education. Unfortunately, in an effort to justify millions of dollars spent on research and development, bureaucrats pushed a favorite instructional program that teachers flatly rejected.

The Gold Standard

There is a widespread belief that the best way to improve education is to get practitioners to adopt practices that “scientific” methods have proven to be effective. These increasingly sophisticated methods are required by top research journals and for federal government improvement initiatives such as Investing in Innovation (i3) Initiative to fund further research or dissemination efforts. The US DOE established the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) to identify the scientific gold-standards and apply them to certify for practitioners which programs “work.” The Fed’s “gold standard” is the Randomized Comparative Trial (RCT). In addition, there have been periodic implementations of US DOE policies that require practitioners to use government funds only for practices that the US DOE has certified to be effective.

However, an important new article published by Education Policy Analysis Archives, concludes that these gold-standard methods misrepresent the actual effectiveness of interventions and thereby mislead practitioners by advocating or requiring their use. The article is entitled “The Failure of the U.S. Education Research Establishment to Identify Effective Practices: Beware Effective Practices Policies.”

The Fool’s Gold

Earlier published work by the author, Professor Stanley Pogrow of San Francisco State University, found that the most research validated program, Success for All, was not actually effective. Quite the contrary! Pogrow goes further and analyzes why these gold-standard methods can not be relied on to guide educators to more effective practice.

Researchers have told us that we need “randomized comparative trials” to reach “research-based conclusions.”

In fact, says Glass and the article he cites, this is not what happens. And the results of these trials turn out to be easily manipulated and falsified.

He writes:

Key problems with the Randomized Comparative Trial include (1) the RCT almost never tells you how the experimental students actually performed, (2) that the difference between groups that researchers use to consider a program to be effective is typically so small that it is “difficult to detect” in the real world, and (3) statistically manipulating the data to the point that the numbers that are being compared are mathematical abstractions that have no real world meaning—and then trying to make them intelligible with hypothetical extrapolations such the difference favoring the experimental students is the equivalent of increasing results from the 50th to the 58th percentile, or an additional month of learning. The problem is that we do not know if the experimental students actually scored at the 58th or 28th percentile. So in the end, we end up not knowing how students in the intervention actually performed, and any benefits that are found are highly exaggerated.

The sad part of the story is that we now have a new administration that is both ignorant of research and indifferent to it. DeVos has seen the failure of school choice in her own state, which has plummeted in the national rankings since 2003, and it has had no impact on her ideology. Ideology is not subject to testing or research. It is a deep-seated belief system that cannot be dislodged by evidence.

Teachers who teach children with multiple disabilities and children who are homeless may think that they have a tough job, but consider what a very hard time Betsy DeVos had in her first week as Secretary of Education, very likely the first paying job she has ever held. She visited a public middle school in D.C., where protestors harassed her and tried to keep her out. When she eventually entered the school, she said nice things to the staff, but after she left she insulted them as being in a “receive” mode. She gave a few interviews and said she hoped to launch more charter schools, more vouchers, more cybercharters, and presumably shrink the number of public schools as she opens up opportunities for students to go anywhere other than public schools.

In one interview, she told syndicated conservative columnist Cal Thomas that she did not think the protests against her were spontaneous. The implication was that those evil teachers’ unions had plotted against her. The other implication was that parents and teachers would welcome her noble presence in their public school, even though she was unimpressed with what she saw. Someone, she said, was trying to make her life “a living hell.” No matter what the plotters do, she pledged she would not be deterred from her mission of “helping kids in this country,” by enabling them to leave public schools for privatized alternatives.

She suggested to Thomas that it might be a good idea to bring tens of thousands of children to the Capitol to demonstrate for charters and vouchers. She said it had worked in Florida. Of course, this is now a standard part of the privatization script, using children as political pawns to demand more public funding for private choices, thus disabling public schools by diminishing their resources.

She pledged to support alternatives to public schools, without citing a scintilla of evidence that these choices would help kids and without acknowledging that the proliferation of choices harms the great majority of children who don’t choose to leave public schools. Her mindset is purely ideological. She did not offer any suggestions about how to help the vast majority of children who attend public schools. She has one idea, and she is sticking to it: choice. The absence of evidence for that one idea from her home state never comes up. Michigan has tumbled in national rankings as choice has expanded.

When Cal Thomas asked what could be done for children who had an “absent father,” she responded that this problem has to be addressed at the classroom level. “It’s not an easy or a single answer, but again it goes back to having the power to influence those things at the classroom level.” It is not clear what she meant or if she herself knew what she meant. How is the teacher in the classroom prepared to make up for an absent father? Is this what passes for profundity?

Then there was this very interesting exchange, in which Cal Thomas and Betsy DeVos exposed their deepest beliefs:

“Q. Throughout most of the public school system, which began in the late 19th century and flourished in the 20th, education included values, McGuffey Readers and even prayer and Bible reading, until the Supreme Court outlawed both in the ‘60s. Do you see a correlation between the loss of American values, a sense of morality, a concept of the transcendent, right and wrong, objective truth that have been banished in our relativistic age and lack of achievement in some places in our schools?

“A. I think it’s a significant factor. Many of the schools I’ve seen, especially the charters, have a focus on character development and again the whole child development. That’s one of the reasons parents are choosing alternatives like this.”

To begin with, public education got its start in the mid-nineteenth century, not the late nineteenth century.

I am one of the few living Americans who has actually read the entirety of the McGuffey readers. Children today would find them dull, simplistic, and obsolete.

The assumption that public schools lack values because they do not have Bible readings and prayers is nonsense. When I went to public schools in Houston in the 1940s and 1950s, we had daily Bible readings and prayers, but the schools were racially segregated. Few teachers had more than a bachelor’s degree. I would say without question that our public schools today have better quailed teachers today and a stronger value system than they did when we read the Bible and prayed every day. As a Jew in a Christian public school system, I ignored the implicit proselytizing, but from the perspective of the decades, I can say that our schools then did not practice what they preached. We never discussed current social or political issues. Too controversial. We were not well prepared for the real problems of our society.

The values of the dominant religion were imposed on me but I never had any wish to impose mine on anyone else.

Now, as we live in a religiously and culturally diverse society, Thomas and DeVos sound like two antiquarians. They want to turn the clock back 100 years, maybe two hundred years.

There is nothing innovative about DeVos’ ideas. She has lived in a billionaire bubble all her life, surrounded by her like-minded kith and kin of rich white Republican evangelicals. She has nothing to teach our teachers or students. She knows nothing about how to improve public schools. Her beloved charters, vouchers, and cybercharters have not proven to be better than public schools, and in many states, are demonstrably worse than traditional public schools with certified teachers.

We live in a big, ever-changing world, and it is far too late to go back to 1920 or 1820, no matter how devoutly DeVos would like to restore the suprenpmacy of whites and evangelical Christians. They too must learn to live and let live.

Laura Chapman, retired educator and crack researcher, comments on the strange case of the millions (billions?) of dollars awarded to charter schools that have never been evaluated as to their use, misuse, or effectiveness:

 

 

I doubt if you will ever find an evaluation report for our charter school investments, from USDE or IES.
USDE shoved money out the door for anything charter–startup, replication (franchising), and facilities and facilities financing.

 
Negative reviews of the grant applications were ignored. I read some of these reviews. Even the questions for the reviewers were rigged to minimize “accountability.”

 
We paid federal dollars for absurdities, including advertising for charter students; cross-country junkets to recruit teachers and leaders; uniforms for the students including backpacks with logos, various goodies for “awards.”

 
I have yet to find any reports from states back to USDE on what happened to the money channeled to states. No federal reports on schools opened, closed, etc. No credible peer-reviewed independent studies on student outcomes.

 
USDE let the charter authorizers and franchisers call the shots. Some of the grant applications had redacted information–unreadable chunks of text blacked out because this information was “proprietary” and might “leak,” offering a competitive advantage to other charters. USDE rolled over on that request from the grant applicants. What was redacted? Test scores and enrollments were redacted.

 
I just checked the 2016 active contracts of USDE bearing on charters. Only two are there, and both have been granted extensions from the original contracts.

 
WESTAT, INC. The purpose of this procurement is to obtain technical services for the U.S. Department of Education Charter Schools Program to support the Credit Enhancement Program with grantee monitoring. Monitoring grant projects means examining policies, systems, and procedures to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, Guidance, grant applications, and performance agreements.

Dates: 9/25/15 to 9/24/17 extended to 9/24/19
Amount: $514,554. This is a very small contract for WESTAT: It is a major subcontractor for many federal agencies.

 
SAFAL PARTNERS, INC. The purpose of this contract is to obtain technical assistance for the U.S. Department of Education Charter Schools Program for a range of activities, including online assistance, meetings, reports, studies, and assistance in a variety of focus areas, that COULD include human capital resources, facilities, authorizing, accountability, students with disabilities, English learners, military-connected children, and others.
Dates: from 9/27/13 to 9/26/17 extended to 9/26/18-
Amount: $12,872,533.
SAFAL Partners leads the National Charter School Resource Center, which hosts other USDE subcontractors. SAFAL Partners appears to be the go-to outfit for charter-friendly research. Clients include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, Education Pioneers, George W. Bush Institute, Teach for America Houston among others.

 
A 2016 report from SAFAL Partners titled “Student Achievement in Charter Schools: What the Research Shows” is a very limited and dubious “comparison” of five studies, with caveats dismissed (e.g., fewer ELL and special education students in charter schools, only math and reading scores, test scores not from the same tests, and more). This report is more PR more than credible research.

Stephen Henderson is the editorial page editor of the Detroit Free Press. He is not anti-charter; his own children attend a Detroit charter school. He is opposed to lies and propaganda. He has written that the charter movement has done nothing to lift the children of Detroit, and that there are as many bad charter schools as public schools. He has written critically of DeVos’s successful efforts to torpedo accountability and oversight of charter schools.

 

When it comes to data and research, he says, DeVos is not to be trusted.

 

He writes:

 

A true advocate for children would look at the statistics for charter versus traditional public schools in Michigan and suggest taking a pause, to see what’s working, what’s not, and how we might alter the course.

 

Instead, DeVos and her family have spent millions advocating for the state’s cap on charter schools to be lifted, so more operators can open and, if they choose, profit from more charters.

 

Someone focused on outcomes for Detroit students might have looked at the data and suggested better oversight and accountability.

 

But just this year, DeVos and her family heavily pressured lawmakers to dump a bipartisan-supported oversight commission for all schools in the city, and then showered the GOP majority who complied with more than $1 million dollars in campaign contributions.

 

The Department of Education needs a secretary who values data and research, and respects the relationship between outcomes and policy imperatives.

 

Nothing in Betsy DeVos’ history of lobbying to shield the charter industry from greater accountability suggests she understands that.

 

If she’s confirmed, it will be a dark day for the value of data and truth in education policy.

This is a project that should interest all readers of the blog as well as state and local school boards and elected officials at every level. It includes a book that reviews education issues around the globe and resources that you may access by clicking the link. The bottom line of a vast amount of research is that privatization is a failed policy, not an innovation. The most effective way to invest public dollars is in improving public schools.

 

Stanford Graduate School of Education Research Center Introduces Cross-National Study Central to Debates about Future of the U.S. Education System

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact: Ralph Rogers
Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education
650.725.8600
ralphr@stanford.edu

 

Stanford, CA – December 13, 2016 – In the midst of the ongoing debate and a potential shift in the U.S. approach to education, the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) is pleased to introduce new research-based evidence and analysis that supports investment in public schools as a better alternative than the privatization of education.

“This book shows how public investment in education outperforms privatization across three continents, addressing this critical question as President-elect Trump’s appointee, Betsy DeVos, considers shifting U.S. education to a voucher scheme,” said Frank Adamson, PhD, the primary editor, chapter author, and Senior Policy and Research Analyst at SCOPE. “This book offers reasoned evidence to policymakers, communities, and families about how investing in public schools produces better and more equitable outcomes than voucher programs.”

SCOPE’s work addresses the question of how results from public investment approaches compare with those from market-based reforms and provides a timely explanation of alternatives based on real evidence derived from policy analysis and actual outcomes in six different countries. In this project, SCOPE has designed and implemented a set of accessible information resources designed to inform the different constituencies involved in this important debate.

The book, Global Education Reform: How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Education Outcomes, with a set of supporting infographics, videos, and research briefs, provides hard evidence supporting investment in pubic schools. Researchers thoroughly investigated the results of experiments with education in Chile, Sweden, and the U.S. and compared their educational outcomes with those of nearby countries with similar economic and social conditions: Cuba, Finland, and Canada (Ontario). At the national levels in Sweden, the U.S., and Chile, market, charter, or voucher systems are associated with greater disparities and lower student outcomes on international tests.

 

SCOPE’s project combined in-depth analysis of the different ends of an ideological spectrum – from market-based experiments to strong state investments in public education. Written by education researchers, including Linda Darling-Hammond, Michael Fullan, Pasi Sahlberg, Martin Carnoy, and others, the authors present long-term policy analyses based on primary and secondary research on the implementation and results of these different approaches.
To best support an open debate on the issue of school reform, SCOPE has created the following set of free information resources:

 
Privatization or Public Investment in Education is a free SCOPE research and policy brief summarizing the findings in the book.
Six Countries. Two Educational Strategies. One Consistent Conclusion is a free infographic presenting an accessible and concise summary of the differences in approaches and outcomes – privatization versus public investment in education.
Our Kids, Our Future: Privatization and Public Investment in Education, a 3-minute video providing an overview of the differences between experimental privatization models and public investment in equitable education systems.
How Privatization and Public Investment Influence Education: A Look at the Research, a more detailed 12-minute video explaining the differences between experimental privatization models and public investment in equitable education systems.
Educational Inequities in the New Orleans Charter School System is a free infographic from SCOPE and the Schott Foundation that explains the impact on students and schools of New Orleans becoming a predominantly charter district after Hurricane Katrina.

 

The Editors
Frank Adamson, PhD, is a Senior Policy and Research Analyst at the Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education.
Björn Åstrand, PhD, is a Senior Lecturer and Dean at Karlstad University in Sweden.
Linda Darling-Hammond, EdD, is the Charles E. Ducommun Professor of Education at Stanford University, the author of over 300 publications, and a former president of the American Educational Research Association.
About SCOPE
The Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education (SCOPE) fosters research, policy, and practice to advance high-quality, equitable education systems in the United States and internationally.

 
These resources can be downloaded or viewed at the SCOPE Global Education Reform web page.

A reader sent this announcement:

BREAKING news from MINNESOTA
CEHD Dean’s Office 
cehddean@umn.edu to CEHD-OFFICIAL 
November 7, 2016
Dear CEHD Faculty and Staff Members:
We are reaching out to you today with an important message related to one of our teacher licensure programs in our college.
The University of Minnesota College of Education and Human Development’s alternative pathway to teaching program for Teach for America corps members will not be renewing the contract we have with TFA. This means that we will not admit new corps members to a 2017 cohort. Reasons for ending the partnership program include an unsustainable funding model for the program and dwindling numbers of corps members.<br 
Corps members currently in the TFA program who are part of the 2015 and 2016 cohorts will continue in their high-quality, University preparation to enable them to be recommended for teacher licensure in May 2017 and 2018, respectively. We appreciate the opportunity we have had to learn from the corps members and this partnership.
This decision will not impact the many other teacher licensure programs and pathways at the University of Minnesota. We are committed to providing multiple pathway programs to teaching. We believe that the best use of our limited resources in moving forward is to focus on innovative curriculum development and ways to prepare teachers in partnership with our K-12 colleagues. As a land-grant research institution, we are committed to working side-by-side with K-12 educators to ensure that teachers are prepared and then supported in their early years of teaching. We will work to prepare teachers who teach in multiple school settings—including rural and high-need schools—so they can meet the needs of Minnesota’s children.
Research indicates that programs such as the Minneapolis Residency Program (MRP), developed with Minneapolis Public Schools to grow their own talent pool of teachers; the Emotional Behavioral Disorder (EBD) Program for special education teaching aides, created with K-12 colleagues across several districts; and the Dual Language and Immersion licensure program for elementary teachers across multiple school districts are the most promising routes to preparing and retaining diverse, high-quality teachers.
If you have questions or concerns, please feel free to reach out to us (Deborah Dillon at dillon@umn.edu).
Sincerely,
Jean K. Quam, CEHD Dean

Deborah R. Dillon, CEHD Associate Dean

College of Education and Human Development

University of Minnesota

104 Burton Hall

Minneapolis, MN. 55455

612 626-9252