A Manhattan Institute report presents results of a survey of U.S. adults aged 18-20 to determine the extent to which eight concepts the report equates with “critical social justice” (CSJ) theory—which the report frowns upon—are taught in schools. Because these CSJ concepts are being taught beyond public schools, the report argues that school choice is an ineffective option for shielding children. Given that the report's methods do not adequately isolate exposure in school from the many other sources in which young people encounter these eight concepts, and that no causal relationships are established, there is no support for the report’s highly intrusive policy recommendations.

Suggested Citation: Sleeter, C. & Garcia, D.R. (2023). NEPC review: School choice is not enough: The impact of critical social justice ideology in American education. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved [date] from http://nepc.colorado.edu/review/csj

The Manhattan Institute’s How to Regulate Critical Race Theory in Schools: A Primer and Model Legislation manufactures a case against Critical Race Theory (CRT), building on a foundation of right-wing talking points. The report offers model legislation to counter the purported CRT-inspired indoctrination in schools. This review examines some of the ways that the report mischaracterizes CRT. The review also explains how and why the model legislation might, if adopted, lead to anti-discrimination lawsuits. For these reasons, the Manhattan report does not provide serious guidance to lawmakers interested in understanding or legislating about issues related to race in schools.

A report from the Hoover Institution seeks to offer evidence-based guidance for policymakers in shaping more equitable outcomes from school choice programs. This review examines the report's claims, its representation of the research, and its use of research in forming those recommendations. The review finds that although the report is useful as a snapshot of the current status of choice programs in the United States, its use of research is often problematic. Some of the research is misrepresented, many claims are made without citations to evidence, and some of the recommendations bear no connection to the evidence provided in the report. As such, the report is, as intended, a political guidebook for conservative policymakers that fails to offer evidence-based guidance on making choice more equitable.

The Heritage Foundation’s report, Focusing on School Safety After Parkland, was published following the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School. The report highlights a handful of cherry-picked, pro-gun research but depends mainly on anecdotal evidence to support its findings that teachers should be armed, schools hardened, family and social services expanded, and discriminatory discipline practices de-emphasized. Yet the report’s credibility is harmed by the limited and biased presentation of research evidence and the omission of educator and student perspectives. The problems with supporting research and the questionable methods prevent generalizability and call the paper’s usefulness into question. The end result is a poorly refereed, one-sided defense of positions taken by gun advocates. That said, the report does provide conservative perspectives that can serve as a springboard for broader discussions about the impact of value-laden policies on promoting a broader sense of safety in schools.

A report published by the Progressive Policy Institute calls for aggressively closing more public schools and expanding charter schools and charter networks. It highlights reforms adopted by Denver Public Schools, notably a “portfolio model” of school governance, and argues that these reforms positively impacted student test scores. However, causality cannot be determined, and the report did not attempt to isolate the effect of a multitude of reforms—including charters, performance pay, and a new performance framework—from larger complex forces shaping student demographics in the city. Written in a reportorial voice, the only data presented are in the form of simple charts. The lack of conventional statistical analyses thwarts the reader’s understanding. The report also characterizes the reform’s adoption as a “political success” born of a healthily contentious electoral process. In doing so, it downplays the role of outside forces and moneyed groups that influenced the form of reforms, and it disregards missed opportunities for meaningful engagement with community stakeholders. Finally, while the report acknowledges the district’s failure to close achievement gaps and admits limitations with the evaluation system, it never explains how a successful reform could generate a widening gap in performance between student groups by race and class.

Update: David Osborne, the report’s author, has posted a response to the review. The response can be found at: http://www.progressivepolicy.org/blog/response-national-education-policy-center/

Terrenda White’s rejoinder to the author's response to her review is posted immediately below the review.