NEPC Review: 'Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement' (Center for Education Policy Analysis, University of Colorado Denver, September 2024)
Saved in:
| Title: | NEPC Review: 'Systemwide and Intervention-Specific Effects of Denver Public Schools' Portfolio District Strategy on Individual Student Achievement' (Center for Education Policy Analysis, University of Colorado Denver, September 2024) |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Robert Shand, University of Colorado at Boulder, National Education Policy Center (NEPC) |
| Source: | National Education Policy Center. 2024. |
| Availability: | National Education Policy Center. School of Education 249 UCB University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. Tel: 303-735-5290; e-mail: nepc@colorado.edu; Web site: http://nepc.colorado.edu |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 14 |
| Publication Date: | 2024 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative Opinion Papers |
| Education Level: | Elementary Education Secondary Education |
| Descriptors: | Educational Improvement, Educational Change, Public Schools, Demography, Research Reports, Review (Reexamination), School Districts, Elementary Schools, Secondary Schools, Organizational Change, Research Methodology |
| Geographic Terms: | Colorado (Denver) |
| Abstract: | The Center for Education Policy Analysis (CEPA) at the University of Colorado Denver recently published a report that attempts to assess the effect of a "portfolio district strategy" on student performance in the Denver Public Schools. This report addressed criticism of a previous CEPA report on Denver's reform strategy, including that it misattributed academic gains to the portfolio reform by inadequately addressing possible alternative explanations, especially student demographics that had changed during the reform period. While the new report does convincingly demonstrate that the gains are not significantly due to changing demographics, it fails to address other critiques of the prior study, including (1) that the portfolio model was undertheorized, with unclear mechanisms of action and insufficient attention to potential drawbacks; and (2) that circumstances, events, and resources besides the portfolio reform and student demographics were changing concurrently with the reform. Additionally, the report's sweeping conclusion--that Denver's reform is the most effective in U.S. history--is unsupported. The improved outcomes in Denver during this time period are impressive, but the authors seem overly determined to cite a package of favored reforms as the cause. Therefore, although the new report provides some additional suggestive evidence in support of the portfolio reform, its conclusions are exaggerated in both magnitude and certainty. Further study is needed before policy implications become clear. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | ED677415 |
| Database: | ERIC |
Be the first to leave a comment!
