Based on the presumed success of school choice programs, Expanding the Education Universe: A Fifty-State Strategy for Course Choice seeks to take choice a step further. Each student would design a personal program of online and off-line courses chosen from a marketplace of curricula developed by for-profit and not-for-profit vendors, as well as school districts or other public entities. Such course choice would, the report contends, alleviate transportation problems, provide greater options, and circumvent the restricted offerings even in choice schools. The proposal is presented in the form of a “guide” to addressing practical policy issues and implementation problems. However, the report assumes, without solid evidence, that course choice, electronic educational provisions, and the like are viable, effective, and proven methods. No direct research is presented, and relevant related research that might support the efficacy of the method is not included. Accordingly, the piece rests entirely on assumptions and assertions. Given the lack of supporting evidence and detail, policymakers and the public have little basis for assessing the benefits and liabilities of a program that potentially has enormous financial costs and educational quality implications for public education.

Over the past decade, big city school systems have scaled-up choice initiativ­es with remarkable speed. In School Choice and School Performance in the New York City Public Schools, Brookings contends that school choice and competition contributed to improved test scores and graduation rates in New York City since the universal high school choice reform began in 2004. However, after the report’s lengthy introduction describing and extolling choice and competition, only four pages are dedicated to discussing results, and many of those contentions are problematic. Brookings uses data from several recent reports to conclude that Bloomberg’s school reform strategy has paid off academically for the district’s students, including low-income and historically disadvantaged students. However, these conclusions are mainly based on causal interpretations of correlational data, and the findings are presented selectively. Similarly, the report’s recommendations section, based on Brookings’ Education Choice and Competition Index, promotes the expansion and development of Bloomberg’s programs, without a logical link to the evidence presented. Consequently, the paper belongs more in the genre of weakly supported advocacy pieces rather than research.