
|
INTRO
| PRESS RELEASES
| REPORTS
& REVIEWS | WEEKLY
REPORTS | RELATED
ARTICLES
Think
Twice
Think
Tank Review Project
Think
Twice is one of the nation’s first efforts to serve
as a watchdog to review think tank research on public education
issues and policies, ensuring that published work meets
the quality and standards of university scholarship. As
think tank research becomes increasingly important reference
sources in public policy debates, media and other critics
have called for increased scrutiny to ensure validity and
objectivity (click here
to see related stories).
The
goal of the Think Twice project is to provide the public,
policy makers and the press with timely academically sound
reviews of selected think tank publications. It is a collaboration
of the Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State
University and the Education and the Public Interest Center
at the University of Colorado at Boulder and is funded by
the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and practice. [ Click
Here For Full Description ] |
|
Click
Here To Read Our Legal Statement

Reports & Reviews for 2008
| Report Reviewed: |
The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program
|
| Think Tank: |
Manhattan Institute for Policy Research |
This report claims that Florida’s McKay program of providing private-school vouchers to special education students has resulted in improved educational outcomes for special education students who chose to stay in public schools. The theory behind this conclusion is that increased competition to enroll these students has led public schools to improve services and programs for special education students not choosing to leave. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
May 22, 2008 |
| Reviewers: |
John T. Yun, University of California at Santa Barbara
|
Yun concludes that any possible contribution made by this report is outweighed by research design problems, failure to take into account alternative explanations, and possible selection bias. He cautions against using this report for any decision-making or policy evaluation purposes. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Choice and Education across the States
|
| Think Tank: |
The Heartland Institute |
This report assigns letter grades to states based on how extensive the state’s school choice system is. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
April 29, 2008 |
| Reviewers: |
Wendy Chi, University of Colorado at Boulder
|
Chi concludes that this report offers little or no useful information for policy makers. The report asserts, based on a faulty use of past research, that an increase in school choice will strengthen accountability and improve student achievement. It awards most states low grades, reflecting a desire for more school choice throughout the nation. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s Best Opportunity to Dramatically Improve Students Achievement Lies in Our Worst-Performing Schools
|
| Think Tank: |
Mass Insight Education & Research Institute |
This report puts forth an ambitious proposal aimed at getting chronically underachieving schools to improve academic achievement. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
April 24, 2008 |
| Reviewers: |
Patrick McQuillen, Boston College
|
In his review, McQuillen commends the report for making a “major contribution” to the debate over school reform, but warns that it has an overly optimistic timeline, relies too much on punitive sanctions, offers key recommendations beyond what research can support and pays little attention to the role students might play in the reform process. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy and Portability to Ohio School Finance
|
| Think Tank: |
Thomas B. Fordham Institute |
This report is the latest in a series which argues that state funding should follow children to the public schools (rather than the districts) of their choice; that per-pupil funding amounts should be weighted according to children’s individual needs and circumstances; and that schools should have flexibility in how they spend the funds they receive. A major goal of these proposals is to end funding disparities within and between districts. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
April 7, 2008 |
| Reviewers: |
Bruce Baker, University of Kansas
|
In his review, Baker writes that this report is of higher quality than most past reports on the topic and praises it for avoiding overstatement. However, Baker points out that the report’s primary weakness is its general failure to use relevant, empirical research that might provide policy makers with useful insights. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
How Sound an Investment? Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals
|
| Think Tank: |
Lexington Institute |
This report considers current proposals for federal involvement in prekindergarten (pre-K). It concludes that federally funded preschool program for all children would be unnecessarily expensive, provide little benefit to most children, decrease options for parents and could likely impair the social development of many children. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
March 24, 2008 |
| Reviewers: |
W. Steven Barnett, Director of the National Institute for Early Education Research at Rutgers University
|
Barnett’s review of this report finds that it is misleading, poorly grounded, biased and inaccurate. Barnett concludes that the report oversimplifies the debate, ignores relevant research and falls short of thoughtful policy discussion. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents
|
| Think Tank: |
Mackinac Center |
This report is billed as a guide for Michigan school officials and other interested in privatizing school services. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
February 19, 2008 |
| Reviewers: |
Clive Belfield, Queens College, City University of New York
|
Belfield’s review finds that the report offers little evidence to support its premise that privatizing school services saves money or is otherwise beneficial. Belfield credits the report with offering practical steps for issuing and monitoring contracts, but notes that the report’s usefulness stops there. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure
|
| Think Tank: |
Urban Institute’s National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research |
This study examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools has led to improved student achievement. It concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
January 15, 2008 |
| Reviewers: |
Damian Betebenner, National Center for Improvement of Educational Assessment
|
Thought Betebenner’s review commends the report for its thorough analysis of the data, he observes that a very prominent shortcoming is the report’s overstatement regarding the relationship between the pressure of accountability sanctions and improvements in school achievement. He notes that the report’s title and some of the statements in the body of the report suggest that vouchers and other accountability measures are the cause of the achievement gains despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence that such a causal connection exists. |
|

Reports & Reviews for 2007
| Report Reviewed: |
1) Are Private High Schools Better Academically than Public High Schools?
2) Monopoly Versus Markets: The Empirical Evidence on Private Schools and School Choice
|
| Think Tank: |
1) Center on Education Policy (CEP)
2) Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation |
These two reports come to different conclusions about whether private schools are better than public ones at educating students. The CEP report found no advantage for either public or private schools using the National Education Longitudinal Study database. The Friedman report used the Educational Longitudinal Study database and presents evidence that private schools produce more benefit. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
December 12, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Jaekyung Lee, State University of New York at Buffalo
|
Lee’s review finds that there is little actual difference between the findings of the two reports – and little difference between public and private schools. The most that can be concluded from the two reports taken together is that “students generally learn in public high schools about as well as in private high schools.” Lee also presents his own, independent cross-examination of the two data sources used in the reports. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An analysis of intra-district spending patterns in Ohio
|
| Think Tank: |
Buckeye Institute |
This report argues that funding disparities in high-poverty Ohio schools are the fault of school districts, not the state. Districts, the report contends, have adequate funds but don’t allocate them properly to high-poverty schools under their jurisdiction. The report’s central claim is that district-level policies are responsible for continued spending and achievement gaps. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
October 17, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Bruce Baker, University of Kansas
|
Baker’s review finds that the report’s authors fail to provide evidence to support their central claim. Further, the report contains weak methodology and a scant review of existing relevant research. Baker concludes that the report “is built on the weakest of foundations” and suggests that if taken seriously, “the Buckeye Institute report will only misguide policymaking.
The report’s claims are further undermined by a technical appendix presenting Baker’s analysis of Ohio data. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind
|
| Think Tank: |
Cato Institute |
This report urges scrapping the No Child Left Behind law and replacing it with a national voucher or tax credit system. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
October 8, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Bruce Fuller, University of California-Berkeley
|
Fuller’s review offers praise for the report’s analysis of how NCLB has failed to deliver on its promise of raising student achievement and has resulted in a number of negative consequences for schools including narrowing curriculum and a lowering of the achievement bar. Fuller criticizes the report for its use of “highly selective, even misleading” research to make some of its points. He also points out that the report ignores or downplays research raising serious questions about the benefits of market proposals such as school vouchers. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
The ABC’s of School Choice
|
| Think Tank: |
Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation |
This report, released in the form of a booklet, is designed as a resource for persuading people as to the merits of school choice. The report provides updated information on states that have choice policies in place and begins and ends with a “Frequently Asked Questions” section where the attempt is made to interpret the research on school choice issues for the lay reader. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
September 24, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Christopher Lubienski, University of Illinois
|
Lubienski’s review finds that this report is based on selective and shoddy evidence and makes misleading and false claims.
The reviewer considers the merits of each key factual assertion in the report’s “Frequently Asked Questions” section and points out that there is an overwhelming reliance on a very selective sample of studies from other advocacy organizations that are not peer-reviewed and are highly biased and of questionable quality. Lubienski concludes that the report, as a misleading work of advocacy, offers no useful guidance to policymakers. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Portfolios – A Backward Step in School Accountability
|
| Think Tank: |
Lexington Institute |
This report argues that the current standardized testing system should be retained and criticizes the use of multiple measures, particularly portfolios, to assess school performance. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
September 19, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
William Mathis, University of Vermont
|
Mathis’s review concludes that the Lexington report is ill-founded and of little value as research or policy development. Mathis notes that the report more closely resembles political propaganda than a research report. According to Mathis, It provides no new data, examines only two studies done and includes only results favorable to the report’s conclusions. In addition, the report is problematic because its author presents portfolios as representative of all non-test measures of student performance – which they are not – and concludes that non-test based measures of performance are ineffective. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Michigan Higher Education: Facts and Fiction
|
| Think Tank: |
Mackinac Center for Public Policy |
| This report argues that Michigan ’s colleges and universities did financially fine during a period of sharp cutbacks to higher education between 2000-2004. Further, based on an analysis of a national set of data, the report finds that states with greater appropriations for higher education are more likely to have lower economic growth. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
July 18, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Jose Luis Santos, UCLA
|
| In his review, Santos indicates that the report’s findings and conclusions are poorly grounded and misleading. Though Santos does credit the report with raising a number of important issues, he concludes that the report is basically an advocacy document designed to push policy-makers toward the position that increased state appropriations for higher education are wasteful. Santos’s indicates that the report’s authors “grossly overstate their findings,” and he cautions policy-makers to view the report with great caution. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind?
|
| Think Tank: |
Center on Education Policy |
| This report concludes that since the implementation of NCLB in 2002, on average, student test scores have increased, the achievement gap has narrowed, and achievement gains post-NCLB have increased faster than before NCLB. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
July 2, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
John T. Yun, University of California at Santa Barbara
|
| Yun's review of this report finds that there are important weaknesses in the methodology used and that the wording of the findings and key conclusions in the report imply a much stronger connection between the implementation of NCLB than can be substantiated by the data. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
School
Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs
|
| Think Tank: |
Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation |
| This report concludes that school choice programs
which subsidize private school attendance with public funds have
saved taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars cumulatively over
a 15 year period. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
May 24, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Bruce Baker, University of Kansas |
| In his review, Baker points out that the conclusions
drawn from the report’s analysis are misleading and oversimplified.
In addition, even if accurate, the amount of the savings is insignificant
as it represents less than 1/100th of one percent of annual public
school spending – about 60 cents per child per year. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
State
Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Students
Achievement in Philadelphia
|
| Think Tank: |
RAND Corporation in partnership with Research for
Action (RFA) |
| Report Reviewed: |
School
Reform in Philadelphia: A Comparison of Student Achievement at
Privately-Managed Schools with Student Achievement in Other District
Schools |
| Think Tank: |
Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University
(PEPG) |
| These two reports examine the impact of private and
district management on student achievement in Philadelphia. In 2002,
Philadelphia restructured 86 of its lowest-achieving schools and
shifted the management of some of them to private companies. The
RAND-RFA report concludes that private management has had no impact
on math or reading achievement, while district management had a
positive effect on math achievement but none on ready. The PEPG
report reached virtually the opposite conclusion. It found that
private management has had a positive effect on math and reading
achievement, while district management has had no measurable effect. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
May 7, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Derek Briggs, University of Colorado at Boulder |
| Briggs’s review of both reports finds that both
have flaws and that neither is yet sufficient to make definitive
claims about the effects of Philadelphia’s school restructuring
reform. He indicates that the different conclusions reached in the
reports can largely be explained by the fact that PEPG did not have
the same access to data as did RAND-RFA. He also identifies and
describes the methodological weaknesses in both reports. Briggs
commends the reports for contributing to the understanding of Philadelphia’s
experience, but recommends that neither report be used as a basis
for decision making about school restructuring. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
How Much Are Teachers Paid?
|
| Think Tank: |
Manhattan Institute |
| This report asserts that teachers are paid at a higher
rate and work fewer hours than most white-collar professionals and
puts forward an analysis that finds no correlation between their
measure of teacher pay and student achievement. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
February 19, 2007 |
| Reviewers: |
Sean Corcoran, New York University
Lawrence Mishel, Economic Policy Institute |
| The review shows that the report’s analysis
of the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) data is fundamentally
flawed. Corcoran and Mishel point out that the BLS had explicitly
warned against using the data in the manner in which it is used
and indicate that the defects in the report render it virtually
useless. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Whole
Language High Jinks: How to tell when ‘scientifically-based
reading Instruction’ isn’t
|
| Think Tank: |
Thomas B. Fordham Institute |
| This report asserts that scientific research supports
systematic phonics instruction and contends that ideologically biased
supporters of whole-language instruction have thwarted the advance
of scientifically based reading instruction. |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
February 14, 2007 |
| Reviewer: |
Richard Allington, University of Tennessee |
| In his review of the report, Allington indicates that
the report’s author, Louisa Moats, fails to provide convincing
research to support her position and goes on to say that Moats exaggerates
the findings of the research she does cite and incorrectly dismisses
approaches that are well-supported by research. Further, Allington
points out that Moats’ report is more a promotion of her own
reading products than an unbiased report on reading instruction. |
|

| Report Reviewed: |
Report
Card on Education, 1983-84 to 2004-05 |
| Think Tank: |
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) |
| This report, which promotes ALEC’s policy agenda,
asserts that student achievement has not been improved by increased
spending on education, smaller class sizes or improved teacher salaries.
It concludes that improvement will occur when “accountability,
choice and competition are injected into our current educational
system.” |
| |
| Think Twice Review Date: |
January 8, 2007 |
| Reviewer: |
Gene V Glass, Arizona State University |
| Glass’s review of this report finds that it
falls far short of being valid or useful research. He points out
that data in the report are not analyzed and contradictory studies
are ignored. In fact, Glass points out that the report fails to
cite any research studies at all. He indicates that the report lacks
firmly established facts and credible findings on which policy decisions
could be based and concludes, “In spite of being clad with
myriad numbers and statistics, the Report Card on American Education
is rhetoric, not research.” |
|
| These articles
and/or reports are copyrighted material, the use of which has not
been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making
such material available in our efforts to advance understanding
of educational issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair
use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section
107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C.
Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit
to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research and educational purposes. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes
of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission
from the copyright owner. |
|