The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool?

Very little evidence supports the contention that establishing national academic standards for K-12 schools will improve the quality of American public education, and the standards push may distract attention from other vital school reforms, concludes a new policy brief, The "Common Core" Standards Initiative: An Effective Reform Tool? The brief, authored by William J. Mathis, was released today by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice. "Without addressing both the in-school and out-of-school influences on test scores, common core standards are not likely to improve the quality and equity of America's public schools," Mathis explains. The Obama administration has embraced "common core" standards and has pressured states to adopt them by stating that federal Title I aid will be withheld from states that do not adopt standards such as those being developed by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. In addition, states that adopt the standards have a major advantage on their Race to the Top applications. Standards advocates argue that common standards are necessary for keeping the nation competitive in a global economy. But Mathis points out that research does not support this oft-expressed rationale. No studies support a true causal relationship between national standards and economic competitiveness, and at the most superficial level we know that nations with centralized standards generally tend to perform no better (or worse) on international tests than those without. Further, research shows that national economic competitiveness is influenced far more by economic decisions than by test scores. Mathis also raises questions about the rapid development of the common-core standards, the lack of field testing, and the overarching need for any high-stakes consequences to be "valid," pursuant to established professional guidelines. Given these concerns, he says that the prospect of positive effects on educational quality or equality "seems improbable.

NCLB's Ultimate Restructuring Alternatives: Do they Improve the Quality of Education?

Across the nation, the final stage of school restructuring is being reached by an inexorably increasing number of schools. Under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law, if a school does not make its adequate yearly progress targets after four previous years of being "in need of improvement," it must implement a fundamental restructuring plan. The restructuring options are as follows: (1) turn the school operations over to the state, (2) turn the operations over to a private company, (3) reopen as a charter school, or (4) reconstitute the school by replacing some or all of the teachers, staff and administrators. There is a fifth alternative of applying "any other" fundamental school restructuring, an option now receiving new attention.It is essential that we know how these restructuring options work in practice -- particularly as the law is now due for reauthorization. This brief reviews the independent research on the ultimate sanctions and provides recommendations designed to enhance school improvement.Overall, there is little or no evidence to suggest that any of these options delivers the promised improvements in academic achievement

Race to the Top: An Example of Belief-Dependent Reality. A Response to Race to the Top Leaves Children and Future Citizens Behind

Although the federal government claims otherwise, Race to the Top is not research based. Rather, its foundation is in ideology and belief-based realism. The overall effort is fundamentally antiscientific and distracts valuable and needed attention, resources, and focus from the nation\u27s real problems of social, economic, and educational deprivation

Review of Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Standards

Mathis applauds the report's useful summary and critique of the research on national standards, but says its conclusion that the free market is the best way to reform education is simply unsupported. Mathis writes that, as logic, this conclusion, "is the equivalent of saying that since elephants can't fly, frogs will.

EVALUATING INCENTIVE PAYMENT PROGRAMS THROUGH AGGREGATE PRODUCTION RESPONSE: THE CASE OF MOHAIR

Production Economics,

THE ECONOMICS OF CARCASS BEEF PRODUCTION: AN APPRAISAL OF FLORIDA'S FEEDLOT POTENTIAL

Livestock Production/Industries,

NEPC Review: Ripple Effect: How Expanding School Choice Programs Can Lead to More College Graduates and a Stronger Economy (Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, January 2020)

A report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty claims a chain of benefits will purportedly follow if the current cap on voucher enrollment for the state of Wisconsin is increased from four percent to 20%. The resulting improvement in graduation rates will, the report asserts, result in the employment of more people at higher wages, leading to increased personal wealth and government income of $3.2 billion over 20 years.The obvious failing of this logic is how this projected “ripple effect” will occur. Causal links are weakly explained and lack support. The claims cannot be verified because the methods are not described and, in key areas, the numbers literally do not add up. Other prominent unaddressed issues include social stratification, inequitable selection effects, the cost of running two school systems, and the effects on learning. With a large number of relevant variables at play and the study’s apparent reliance on descriptive methods, interpretations of the data are subjective and untrustworthy, and ultimately, the report offers no assistance to policymakers or others

The Accuracy and Effectiveness of Adequate Yearly Progress, NCLB's School Evaluation System

This report examines the controversies surrounding the implementation of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and the proposals to improve it. The report concludes that AYP is fundamentally flawed and the author recommends that it be suspended until its merits can be confirmed or refuted by scientific evidence. The report is available at: http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/documents/EPSL-0609-212-EPRU.pd

NEPC Review: Portfolios: A Backward Step in School Accountability

This self-described "research study" and following press release are intended to influence the debate over the direction of the reauthorization of NCLB, offering a defense of the current test-based accountability system against the inclusion of "multiple measures." The report presents a review of the research on portfolios in large-scale school accountability systems, concludes that portfolio assessment is severely flawed, and then characterizes portfolios as a proxy for all non-test-based measures of student performance. The report has several glaring weaknesses, however. The literature review cherry-picks two studies, both conducted 13 years ago and, on the basis of those studies, concludes that portfolios are not reliable and are too expensive for large scale accountability systems. Yet other large-scale studies of portfolios &ndash; some of which are discussed in one of the two studies that the report itself relies on &ndash; come to different conclusions but are not examined or even mentioned. An even bigger problem with this new report (which is repeated in the press release), however, is the author&rsquo;s decision to present portfolios as somehow representative of all non-test-based measures of student performance &ndash; which they clearly are not. This results in a document that is of little value for research or policy development.</p

NEPC Review: Behind the Curtain: Assessing the Case for National Standards

President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have called for national "common core" curriculum standards. Some have argued that national standards are essential for reform, as they provide coherence, rigor, logic and organization. Others have contended they will narrow the curriculum, seize control from local districts and states, and distort the purposes of education. The Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey argues that national standards will have only limited, if any, effect. The report contends there is only a weak theoretical case in favor of national standards and that the structure of schooling might be the real problem. It concludes that market models are the best way to reform education. While providing a useful summary and critique of the research on national standards, the non-sequitur in the report (standards do not work; therefore the free market will) presents readers with a conclusion not supported by the report’s evidence. Thus, the fundamental policy conclusions are not sustained