The Education Gadfly Weekly

American education policy is littered with hypotheticals. If we allocated even more money, we could improve outcomes. If we found the latest ed-tech gadget, we could unlock individualized learning within a one-size-fits-all system. It reminds me of the saying, “If ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ were candies and nuts, we’d all have a Merry Christmas.” Jon Valant, writing for the Brookings Institution, must think it’s Christmas in June. He imagines that giving parents choices will lead to hypothetical rich villains committing hypothetical fraud and abuse.

America’s students have been through a lot of very real challenges, particularly over the last several years. As Congress considers a once-in-a-lifetime chance to pass school choice in every state, it is essential to weigh evidence from the real world—not hypothetical scenarios—that overwhelmingly supports the value of school choice tax credits.

The School Choice Tax Credit Opportunity

This year we have what might be a once-in-a-generation opportunity to capitalize on what has been a real movement at the state level. Congress can supercharge educational choice in every state in our nation through a school choice tax credit. The reconciliation package approved by the House contains a version of the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) and, as the Senate now formulates its tax and spending plan, signs point to the inclusion of a school-choice tax credit in its version.

The beauty of the plan is how it will unlock school choice for families who might not otherwise have a chance at educational freedom. Even families in blue states such as California and New York, with legislatures that won’t pass any form of school choice, will be one step closer to accessing the schools in which their children will thrive. This will be a game changer for those families and a powerful complement for families in states that have embraced school choice.

Though some details are not yet settled, we know generally how this program will operate when passed. Taxpayers across the country will be able to contribute a percentage of their income to a Scholarship Granting Organization (SGO). Those contributions will count against their federal income tax liability. Next, the SGO gives scholarships to students. And those scholarships can be used to pay for a range of educational needs including tuition, tutoring, on-line courses, etc.

Valant’s Parade of Horrible Hypotheticals

Really great, yes? Well, not according to the Brooking Institution’s Jon Valant, who’s done some good work over the years, but this time is dead wrong. His critique of the pending tax credit consists almost entirely of horrible hypotheticals rather than anything resembling analysis or reasoned disputation. He outlines some supposedly sketchy tax dodges and discriminatory policies of the nonprofit SGOs that would fundraise and administer the school choice scholarships at the state level. These are familiar arguments against school choice but they’ve been rebutted and rebutted and rebutted—time and time again.

But, in good faith, it’s worth a further discussion for those who might wonder if the hypotheticals could come to pass. It is true that SGOs can, and likely will, be mission-driven organizations seeking to support students in specific ways. For instance, an SGO could form with the express goal of providing K–12 scholarships to students in Detroit, MI, the second-lowest performing urban district in the country according to the National Assessment of Educational Progress, so that city’s children can get supplemental tutoring and access better technology. The group might decide that $3,000 scholarships satisfy this need. Michigan does not offer a state-level tuition tax credit scholarship and the federal bill would be a boon for Wolverine families. Perhaps Valant worries that such a mission is too narrow, yet opposing the tax credit program effectively stifles a real need at the local level. Moreover, every SGO bears the burden of convincing donors that its mission is worthy of financial support. Poorly run organizations or disreputable actors are not likely to be supported by discerning donors.

Another Valant worry is around testing. Setting aside the logistical and political impracticality of requiring and administering a nation-wide test, there will be so many programmatic differences in the emphases and uses of the scholarship funds that it’s naïve to think that any single test would even be relevant, much less any comparisons based on it.  Mandating a test also assumes that parents aren’t already well-positioned to determine whether the needs of their children are being met. In the time it would take to satisfy those who seek some sort of universal testing, we will lose another generation of students to schools that, by multiple measures, are not serving them well.

Proven Models in the States

Far from opening the floodgates to fraud, as Valant frets, school choice tax credit programs have demonstrated success across the country: a record of fiscal success and—most importantly—a record of lives changed. In Florida, for instance, more than a million students have benefited from the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program since its inception in 2001, with studies showing improved college enrollment rates, particularly among low-income and minority students. 

Valant seems eager to dismiss this wealth of relevant data, suggesting that there is little comparison between “small” tax credit programs in the states and a federal program that he says could become “one of America’s costliest, most significant federal education programs.”

Yet there’s very little difference between the federal program being considered and existing scholarship programs in 19 states.

State-level tax credit programs are not only producing positive academic outcomes, they’re doing so with strong public accountability—which a federal school choice tax credit would also have. Participating nonprofits are subject to annual audits and must adhere to transparent reporting rules. They must also distribute 90 percent of their funds for scholarships, else they cannot participate, and safeguards are tied to existing federal law providing eligible uses for 529 plans, ensuring that scholarships can only be used for legitimate education-related expenses.

Critics like Valant are quick to point to isolated examples of waste being caught and addressed but are more hesitant to discuss the massive scope of fraud and waste documented and often unaddressed in the public education system—or the fact that public schools caught up in this type of waste often just keep getting more taxpayer dollars. 

The U.S. Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General has uncovered hundreds of millions of dollars in misallocated or misspent federal education funds over the last decade. According to a 2022 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, lapses in oversight have led to persistent misuse of federal Title I dollars. No educational sector is immune to bad actors, but the evidence shows that school choice tax credit programs are no more vulnerable—and often, in fact, are better policed—than their traditional public counterparts.

A school choice tax credit of $10 billion would represent a fraction of total federal education spending, which exceeds $80 billion annually. To put that in context: the federal government spent over $30 billion in 2023 on Title I alone. Title I has mixed results, to put it gently. By contrast, a modest investment in school choice has the potential to change lives, improve the public education system through injecting competition, and unlock a tested model for improving long-term achievement.

From Hypotheticals to Hope

When the goal is improving educational outcomes, the question we should ask is not “what might go wrong?” but “what is working, and how can we extend it?” A school choice tax credit would offer a chance to build on the lessons of successful state programs and expand opportunity to students nationwide. It deserves a fair hearing, grounded in facts—not fear.

Shaka Mitchell is a senior fellow at the American Federation for Children.

On the latest episode of Nat Malkus’s The Report Card podcast, Andy Rotherham and Rick Hess offered a helpful way to think about the present state of federal education policy. They described it as running on two very different tracks at once—a metaphor that goes a long way toward explaining the disarray and dysfunction coming out of Washington these days.

On track one is an ascendant populist faction—led by figures aligned with the Heritage Foundation and other right-leaning groups influential in the current administration. These are the folks calling the shots, mostly through the lens of culture war. Their approach to education policymaking is clear: don’t back down, lean into the fight, and use every lever available to go on offense—particularly against perceived ideological enemies (or those deemed insufficiently doctrinaire). Whether it’s reinterpreting federal civil rights law, going after elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia, or launching federal investigations into states, schools, and districts, the through-line is political confrontation.

Track two is where traditional conservatives ride—policy veterans and institutionalists with deep knowledge of the system, trying to translate the populist energy into something coherent, or at least manageable, for people at the state and local level trying to improve America’s schools. This group includes serious and capable leaders like Penny Schwinn, Trump’s nominee for Deputy Secretary of Education; Kirsten Baesler, Trump’s nominee for Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education; and the Fordham Institute’s Amber Northern, a respected education researcher recently brought on in a temporary capacity to help reform the Department’s Institute of Education Sciences.

The recent confirmation hearing for Schwinn demonstrated where the two tracks might cross—and how easily they could cause a crash. Schwinn presented herself as pragmatic and results-oriented, in line with her admirable work as Tennessee’s education chief. Yet she faced a coordinated pre-hearing pressure campaign from right-wing hardliners who questioned her ideological purity—levying spurious claims that she tacitly endorsed critical race theory, allowed porn in schools, and pushed intrusive child well-being checks during the pandemic. The hearing itself was relatively uneventful, suggesting those concerns may have been largely resolved behind the scenes. But the episode served as a reminder of the treacherous terrain that reformers like Schwinn must navigate—caught between ideological jihadists demanding unwavering fealty and pragmatic right-of-center leaders focused on governing and improvement.

Even so, the “normie” Republicans have logged some quiet wins. Chief among these was the Trump administration’s move to boost funding for the federal Charter Schools Program (CSP) by $60 million in 2025, and its proposal to do the same in next year’s budget—marking the first increase to CSP in years. Similarly, buried deep within the administration’s budget proposal was an affirmative statement in support of statewide assessments. These are modest moves, but in the current climate, they amount to concrete signals that some corners of the administration are still fighting for traditional reform priorities.

The split, however, is real, made worse by ambiguity from the president himself. At a White House ceremony earlier this spring, Trump signed an executive order aimed at dismantling the Department of Education. The event had all the trappings of Trumpian theater (flanked by schoolchildren sitting at desks), but even he seemed unsure of the script. “It sounds strange, doesn’t it?” he said aloud. “Department of Education. We’re going to eliminate it.” For a president who rarely hedges, it was a remarkably tentative moment—less a firm policy pronouncement than a half-hearted nod to his base. The moment highlighted one of the central challenges of the current dynamic: not that a clear education agenda is being derailed, but that no real agenda exists—just a stream of improvisation, symbolism, and reaction.

It would be one thing if these two camps were jockeying for position under a president with a clear vision for education. But unlike his long-held views on trade or immigration, Trump has never shown much interest in education policy beyond using it to fight elite culture. His positions shift constantly—sometimes within the same day—depending on the context or the crowd. To be fair, the previous administration wasn’t much better when it comes to education vision and agenda. President Biden rarely engaged on education and effectively outsourced the agenda to the teachers unions, adopting their priorities wholesale. His administration was dominated by ultra-progressives and union allies, with Secretary Cardona proving all but invisible. In both cases, education policy has taken a back seat—used by Trump mainly as a cudgel, and under Biden, handed over to unions and ideological allies with little regard for effectiveness or results.

The result is a federal education agenda defined less by what it builds than by how precariously it stands. Populists may be setting the tone, but their confrontational style makes it difficult to see how their efforts—some of which tap into legitimate frustrations—will endure once they’re no longer at the switch. At the same time, traditional conservatives are trying to execute serious (if modest) policy work in what Hess aptly described as a Category 4 political hurricane—doing their jobs amid tumult, volatility, and shifting winds from the top. Without presidential clarity or commitment, even well-crafted efforts risk being swept away by a future Democratic administration.

Our country can ill afford this dynamic. It’s been nearly a decade since the executive branch offered steady leadership on education. In that absence, two tracks have emerged: one defined by grievance and spectacle, the other trying to impose order and coherence. But with loyalty to Trump as the coin of the realm, the second track is left chasing the first: reactive, overmatched, and increasingly irrelevant. If this continues, the whole enterprise risks going off the rails.

Executive Summary

For many years, the conventional wisdom was that teachers’ experience had little bearing on their effectiveness after a few years on the job. This perception has sometimes been used to justify underinvestment in policies aimed at retaining teachers. Yet most rigorous studies over the past two decades have found that, on average, teachers continue to improve as they accumulate additional experience, especially in environments that support professional learning and collaboration. 

Key Questions

In this brief, we address three key questions about the value of teaching experience:

Question 1: Do teachers keep improving after their first few years on the job?

Answer: Yes, though generally not as quickly as they do in the first few years.

Question 2: Under what conditions are teachers most likely to improve?

Answer: Teachers are most likely to improve when they work in supportive schools where they can collaborate with experienced colleagues and have stable teaching assignments.

Question 3: How can we retain experienced and effective teachers, especially in our highest-poverty schools?

Answer: By creating high-retention pathways into the teaching profession, cultivating supportive and collegial work environments, and paying teachers in these schools well.

The Bottom Line

The common refrain that teaching experience doesn’t matter after the first few years in the classroom is not supported by the evidence. Rather, it has become increasingly clear that teachers continue to improve well into the second decade of teaching, albeit more gradually than they do initially.

Recommendations

1. Make high-quality preparation and mentoring affordable and accessible, especially for teachers in high-need schools.

2. Provide quality professional learning opportunities to support teachers’ continued growth.

3. Prepare school administrators for the task of creating positive, professional, and collaborative working environments.

4. Strengthen policies that encourage a more equitable distribution of experienced teachers.

Introduction

Much research and policymaking in the United States has been guided by an assumption that teachers’ experience has little bearing on their effectiveness after a few years on the job.[1] However, while nearly every study that has examined the question has concluded that teachers improve quickly early in their careers, there has been debate about the extent to which teachers continue to learn as they gain additional experience in the classroom.

In hindsight, some of this debate may have been attributable to the fact that early analyses were “cross-sectional,” meaning they compared distinct cohorts of teachers with different experience levels in a particular school year (see the left panel in Figure 1).[2] In addition to whatever gains are associated with experience, differences in cohorts’ average effectiveness can be a function of other factors. For example, if more effective teachers leave teaching sooner, more experienced cohorts may appear to be less effective than later cohorts. In contrast, the construction of data systems that track individual teachers longitudinally has enabled analyses that include “teacher fixed effects” and thus effectively compare teachers to themselves over time (see the right panel in Figure 1).

Figure 1: Teacher fixed effects analyses provide more accurate evidence about the effects of teaching experience.

Note: This figure has been reproduced with permission from Kini, Tara, and Anne Podolsky. "Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research." Learning Policy Institute (2016). https://doi.org/10.54300/625.642.

Still, even some comparatively recent studies have taken suboptimal approaches to modeling experience. For example, some studies only examine the benefits of teaching experience for the first few years of a teacher’s career (e.g., years 0-5) and thus fail to capture subsequent improvement.[3] Consequently, it has taken some time for a new consensus on the subject to emerge.

A deeper understanding of when and by how much teachers typically improve is potentially relevant to any number of policy questions. For example, how much weight should principals and policymakers give to experience as opposed to other attributes? How much does it matter that inexperienced teachers are concentrated in schools that serve higher proportions of lower-income students and students of color?[4] And in what ways might policy and resources be focused on building the effectiveness of both novice and veteran teachers?

To better inform policymakers on these and other questions, this brief summarizes the latest research on the returns to teaching experience. As discussed in the sections that follow, the bottom line is that most teachers continue to improve after their first few years on the job, albeit more gradually, and that supportive and collaborative teaching conditions can facilitate that improvement.

Question 1: Do teachers keep improving after their first few years on the job?

Answer: Yes, though generally not as quickly as they do in the first few years.

Table 1 summarizes the findings of 23 studies that have examined the relationship between teacher experience and teacher performance with longitudinal datasets that allowed the researchers to explore whether a given teacher became more effective at boosting student achievement over time. Of these studies, the overwhelming majority found a positive and statistically significant relationship between experience and student achievement in a teacher’s first five years.[5] Moreover, 15 of the 22 studies that examined this relationship in the next decade of a teachers’ career found evidence of further improvement, as did six of the eleven studies that considered the returns to experience between 16 and 25 years. In contrast, two of the nine studies found evidence of improvement beyond 25 years.

Table 1: Summary of analyses of teaching experience and student achievement

Importantly, almost every study that has examined the issue has found that the average teacher seems to improve more quickly at the start of his or her career and more slowly later on. For example, a 2017 study of teachers in North Carolina found that they improved about two to four times faster in their first five years than they did in the next five years, depending on the model and the subject.[7] Moreover, both this study and an earlier study of teachers in North Carolina and Florida found that teachers’ effectiveness began to decline after 28 years on the job.[8]

Still, the preponderance of the test-based evidence suggests that, in addition to improving rapidly in their first five years on the job, the average teacher also improves more gradually for at least the next decade. Moreover, this conclusion becomes harder to dispute when publication date and methods of the studies are taken into account. For example, eight of the 10 studies that have been published in the last decade—which tend to have more rigorous methods than earlier efforts—suggest that teachers continue to improve.

For more information on how specific studies were coded, see the Appendix.

Other measures of student success

In addition to boosting test scores, a growing body of research suggests that more experienced teachers produce other academic benefits.[9] For example, one North Carolina study found that middle school students with more experienced English Language Arts teachers spent more time reading for pleasure.[10] Similarly, at least two studies have found that students with more experienced teachers have fewer disciplinary offenses.[11] And two recent studies find that students with more experienced mathematics teachers are more likely to complete college and pursue higher levels of postsecondary education.[12]

Perhaps most strikingly, students with more experienced teachers are less likely to miss school.[13] For example, the North Carolina study found that a typical English teacher with 21 years of experience reduced student absenteeism by 14.5 percentage points compared to a typical teacher with one year of experience.[14] Importantly, highly experienced teachers provided the largest benefits to higher risk, chronically absent students.

Question 2: Under what conditions are teachers most likely to improve?

Answer: Teachers are most likely to improve when they work in supportive schools where they can collaborate with experienced colleagues and have stable teaching assignments.

A growing body of research suggests that teachers exhibit more improvement in some circumstances than they do in others. Specifically, research suggests that at least three conditions are associated with comparatively rapid improvement.

First, several studies have found that teachers who teach the same grade level and subject area for multiple years improve more quickly than those with less relevant prior experience.[15] For example, a study of a large urban school district in California found that elementary teachers were frequently required to switch grades, particularly in low-achieving schools with high proportions of students of color, and that this grade switching was associated with smaller returns to experience and higher rates of turnover among teachers.[16] Similarly, a study of North Carolina high school students found that “about a quarter to a third of the returns to years of experience are actually specific to the subject that the teacher taught.”[17]

In addition to this finding, research indicates that teachers whose colleagues are more experienced are more effective than those whose colleagues are less experienced, suggesting that more experienced teachers provide important benefits to their school community beyond increased learning for the students they teach.[18] For example, one study of 3rd to 5th grade teachers in North Carolina found that those whose peer teachers had more experience improved more quickly, with novice teachers seeing the biggest benefits.[19] In fact, the study found that the quality of a teacher’s peers in the previous two school years affected his or her current students’ achievement.

Finally, some research suggests that teachers’ rates of improvement depend on the supportiveness of their professional working environment. For example, one study of the Charlotte-Mecklenberg School District found that by their 10th year on the job, teachers in more supportive schools—characterized by a trusting and orderly environment, with collaboration among teachers, school leaders who support teachers, and time and resources for teachers to receive meaningful feedback and improve their instruction—had become substantially more effective than teachers in schools that had few of the above characteristics (see Figure 2).

Figure 2: Teachers improve more quickly in more supportive schools.

Note: On average, teachers working in schools at the 75th percentile of professional environment ratings improved their effectiveness in teaching mathematics 20% more than teachers in schools at the 25th percentile after five years. This gap almost doubles after 10 years. This figure is adapted from Kraft and Papay (2014) and has been reproduced with permission from Kini, Tara, and Anne Podolsky. "Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research." Learning Policy Institute (2016). https://doi.org/10.54300/625.642.

Question 3: How can we retain experienced and effective teachers, especially in our highest-poverty schools?

Answer: By creating high-retention pathways into the teaching profession, cultivating supportive and collegial work environments, and paying teachers in these schools well.

Creating high-retention pathways into the teaching profession

Research suggests that strong preparation increases the likelihood that teachers will remain in the profession.[20] In addition to courses in teaching methods, learning theory, and the selection of instructional materials, a comprehensive preparation program typically includes opportunities to observe others teaching, at least a semester of student teaching, and individualized feedback from experienced professionals.[21] Teachers who enter the profession without such preparation are two to three times more likely to leave the profession after the first year than those who are comprehensively prepared.[22] They are also disproportionately concentrated in low-performing schools that serve large proportions of low-income students and students of color.[23] 

With fewer experienced teachers in these schools, novices are less likely to receive strong mentoring in their initial years. According to one study, teachers who don’t receive high-quality mentoring and induction supports are twice as likely to leave the profession early as those who do.[24] Meanwhile, teachers who have the opportunity to participate in high-quality induction programs seem to improve more quickly.[25]

Notably, some recent research suggests that preparation programs that include an “internship” clinical placement, defined as a full year of co-teaching with the same mentor teacher, may be better at training teachers to be continuous learners.[26] This approach, which is common in newer residency models that seem to boost teacher retention,[27] also typically includes the application of curriculum and teaching methods learned during coursework, as well as additional mentoring.

Cultivating supportive and collegial work environments

Teaching conditions—which also define learning conditions for students—are a strong predictor of teachers’ decisions about where to teach and whether to stay.[28] And unfortunately, many studies have found that working conditions are worse in high-poverty schools and likely contribute to high rates of teacher turnover in these schools.[29]

When prompted, teachers consistently cite two factors related to working conditions as key to their career decisions: First, many teachers cite administrative support as the top reason for leaving or staying in the profession or in a given school.[30] For example, a recent study in Tennessee found that the schools where teachers improve fastest are led by stronger principals, as measured by their administrator observation ratings.[31] Second, many teachers report that their career decisions are shaped by their sense of connectedness to a team with a common purpose.[32] Providing opportunities for teacher collaboration and input into decision-making is one way to encourage such collegiality.

Improving compensation for teachers in high-need schools

Teachers’ salaries affect the quantity and quality of individuals preparing to be teachers and the rates at which teachers quit.[33] Furthermore, inequities in teacher salaries among districts within the same labor market leave some high-need, under-resourced districts at a strong disadvantage in hiring and retention.[34]

Funding reforms that bring additional resources to under-resourced districts can improve teacher experience and qualifications by raising salaries and reducing class sizes.[35] Similarly, additional stipends for teachers in high-poverty schools have succeeded in recruiting and at least temporarily retaining teachers,[36] and in some cases boosting student achievement.[37]

Still, such strategies—which have often been short-lived—must be continued for their effects to endure. For example, a 2013 study of the Talent Transfer Initiative, which paid a $20,000 bonus over two years to highly effective teachers to teach in schools with low average test scores, found increased retention rates during the 2-year period that teachers received the bonus. However, after the program ended, there was no difference between the retention rates of bonus recipients and other teachers.[38]

In practice, research suggests that working conditions may trump the sort of pay increases that teachers in high-poverty schools are likely to receive.[39] For example, Massachusetts teachers who received a $20,000 signing bonus that was paid out over 4 years reported that working conditions played a larger role in their mobility decisions than financial incentives.[40]

Recommendations

1. Make high-quality preparation and mentoring affordable and accessible, especially for teachers in high-need schools.

To attract prospective teachers to the fields and locations where they are needed most and ensure that they are fully prepared, governments should expand their existing investments in service scholarships, loan forgiveness programs, and urban and rural teacher residencies, all of which can boost retention and performance.[41]

2. Provide quality professional learning opportunities to support teachers’ continued growth.

While professional learning opportunities can take many forms, research suggests they are most likely to improve teachers’ practice when they (1) focus on specific curriculum content, (2) actively engage teachers, (3) are collaborative, (4) provide models of effective practices, (5) offer coaching and support from experts, (6) incorporate time for teachers to receive feedback and reflect, and (7) occur over a sustained period of time.[42]

States, districts, and schools can support quality professional learning by implementing standards that guide the design and funding for teachers’ professional development, and by providing the requisite financial and human resources including expert teachers who can serve as mentors and coaches.[43]

3. Prepare school administrators for the task of creating positive, professional, and collaborative working environments.

Increasing opportunities for collaboration and for a more productive working environment is smart policy for two reasons. First, these opportunities support increased teacher retention. Second, the benefits of experience to effectiveness are greater for teachers in strong professional working environments.[44]

Collegiality is hard to legislate, but there are nonetheless concrete steps that policymakers can take. For example, district and school leaders can facilitate scheduling changes to allow for regular blocks of time during which teachers who teach the same grade level or subject area can collaborate and benefit from each other’s expertise, which research finds can enhance effectiveness.[45] In addition, for beginning teachers especially, these opportunities are strengthened when teachers have the opportunity to teach the same grade level or subject area for several years.[46]

Ultimately, implementing these steps effectively requires strong leadership. And in fact, several studies have found that support from principals and other school leaders is one of the best predictors of teacher retention[47] and that better-prepared principals have lower rates of teacher turnover in their schools.[48] Accordingly, federal and state policymakers should promote quality school leadership through the development of strong principal preparation programs that equip administrators with the tools they need to create supportive learning environments.

4. Strengthen policies that encourage a more equitable distribution of experienced teachers.

As described above, states and districts can improve the distribution of more experienced teachers with policies that make resources more equitable across districts and schools in ways that attend to student needs. For example, retention bonuses and stipends for effective teachers in high-poverty schools can make a difference so long as the payments last, as can targeted investments in housing, childcare, and tax incentives for teachers in these communities.

In addition to such investments, states and districts can also support retention through career ladders, which boost compensation for accomplishments like National Board Certification, gaining additional skills and credentials, mentoring other teachers, and providing various kinds of school leadership.

Appendix

Table A: Summary of the evidence on teaching experience and student achievement

Endnotes

About this Study

This brief was made possible through the generous support of our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation. We are deeply grateful to the authors, Anne Podolsky and Linda Darling-Hammond, for their diligence and their willingness to share their expertise on this important topic. We also extend our gratitude to external reviewer John Papay for his thoughtful feedback on an early draft. At Fordham, we would like to thank Michael J. Petrilli, Amber M. Northern, and David Griffith (who managed the project) for reviewing drafts; Victoria McDougald for her role in dissemination; Stephanie Distler for developing the cover art and coordinating production; and our research assistants, Heena Kuwuyama, Ali Schalop, and Jill Hoppe.

At LPI, Anne and Linda would like to thank their colleague Tara Kini, who was part of the research team that conducted the original research published in the Journal of Professional Capital and Community.

This terrific “working paper” by distinguished AEI demographer Nicholas Eberstadt concludes with a fascinating (and worrying) appraisal of educational performance in China—perhaps no surprise, since he and his team wrote it with support from the Pentagon’s Office of Net Assessment.

Along the way, however, it’s also a tour-de-force of analysis of education-related factors that are associated with the prosperity of many countries—and the other factors that play a role, particularly in explaining and augmenting the education factors.

The project was undertaken to “examine ‘knowledge capital,’ the economically productive knowledge and skills of national populations: how such potential differs between nations; how it affects levels of national productivity; and the determinants of that potential internationally.” It relies on a host of data sources—especially, for our purposes, international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS—and deploys a number of analytic methods (some of them involving a fair bit of conjecture or assumption).

Among Eberstadt’s key findings—which draw on multiple sources—before getting to the China part:

• “[A] country’s student test scores provide highly meaningful information about both current differences in national economic potential (per capita productivity) and also national economic potential ten years in the future.” In other words, much as Hanushek and others have been demonstrating, a country’s prosperity tomorrow is linked to how its students do today.
• “[A] difference of 100 points on a country’s mean scores in student achievement tracks with about a 25-percentage point difference in national per capita productivity levels ten years hence.” In other words, the linkage mentioned above is strong and durable.
• “[T]aken together, measured academic achievement and measured educational attainment can explain close to thirty percent of the overall productivity disparity between the world’s most productive and its least productive economies.” In other words, combining test scores and the amount of education that the people of a country get is a 30-percent window into whether it has a strong or weak economy.
• “Two major trends are currently transforming the global terrain of knowledge capital—and both will shape the global economic balance. The first of course is the continuing expansion of education….This will mean the skills and knowledge of working age populations that power national economies on the whole are set to increase in the decades immediately ahead. But the second trend—less familiar but no less real—is skills decay in adult populations.” Almost nobody pays attention to how skills age, decay, and become obsolete.
• “Socioeconomic factors—levels of national schooling, income, urbanization, and ‘business climate’—could account for up to 70 percent of inter-country differences in mean achievement scores. But…by adding two additional factors, our models turned out to predict up to 90 percent of the academic achievement differences between countries. The first of these was geography….The second was cognitive ability. International differences in measured IQ levels provide meaningful independent predictive information about differences in national academic achievement, even after socioeconomic factors and geography are taken into account.”

That’s a lot, as the author pivots from how educational achievement bears on prosperity to the factors that account for a country’s educational achievement. Note that they’re not looking at the inner workings of a country’s education system but rather at how much education a country’s people get, gauged both by years of it and test scores. So this paper isn’t about how to fix education but about why it matters and what is associated with achievement.

Finally—the last quarter of a sixty-page paper—Eberstadt returns to “the mystery of China’s performance in academic achievement tests.” Why does China do so well on PISA—and can those data be trusted?

This is a gnarly topic.[1] The bottom line is that the results reported by OECD for China are profoundly misleading. That’s mostly because the only Chinese fifteen-year-olds who participate in PISA live in just four cities and do not represent their age cohort across that vast land, but it’s also because China is secretive and controlling such that it’s impossible even to know whether the test-takers are representative of those four big cities. Eberstadt’s “modelling” of how China as a whole would compare with other countries places it between Kenya and Cambodia based on 2009-15 data. He notes that education in China, as in many places, has been improving and its performance is now more likely on par with places like Turkey and Malaysia.

Be warned: “The true contours of knowledge and skills in the Chinese population will have a direct and powerful influence on the balance of power over the coming generation. But the cloud of empirical uncertainty surrounding China’s true terrain of knowledge capital has not yet been dispelled—indeed, as yet it has barely been pierced.”

SOURCE: Nicholas Eberstadt, “Knowledge, Skills, and the Global Balance of Power: What International Standardized Achievement Tests Tell Us about National Economic Potential and Prospects,” American Enterprise Institute (May 2025).

Overall college attendance has declined in recent years, with persistent and widening gaps in access and retention along racial and socioeconomic lines. The early-college high school (ECHS) model—where students can earn both a high school diploma and either an associate degree or transferrable credits—offers a promising solution. Research shows that ECHS programs increase postsecondary enrollment and degree completion, particularly among underrepresented students, while also reducing time to degree.

A recent EdWorkingPaper reinforces these findings. The authors analyze the long-term costs and societal benefits of ECHS programs relative to traditional high schools and find that ECHS programs deliver significantly higher payoffs without costing more. In fact, the study reports a 48:1 benefit-cost ratio, significantly exceeding earlier estimates of 15:1 (2021) and 17:1 (2019).

The research team used data from North Carolina, a national leader in early- college implementation. In the Tar Heel State, four-year ECHS programs are housed in stand-alone buildings on college campuses and are legally required to prioritize enrolling students from populations often underrepresented in higher education. Unlike traditional high schools, North Carolina’s ECHS programs are jointly funded by district allocations and host colleges. The researchers compared costs and outcomes for 2,345 students randomly selected to attend one of nineteen early colleges (the treatment group) with 1,728 students who applied but weren’t admitted due to space limitations and instead attended traditional high schools (the control group). The study measures total educational costs from ninth grade through six years post-high school graduation and yields three main findings.

First, ECHS programs cost approximately $6,000 more per student to deliver a high school diploma, primarily due to the addition of college-level instruction and advising. Yet among all students who earned associate or bachelor’s degrees—both ECHS and traditional students—those from ECHS programs incurred roughly $10,000 less in total societal costs compared to their traditional high school peers, yielding about $4,000 in net savings. While earlier studies attribute these savings to faster degree completion, this study points to a different source: ECHS students take more college credits during high school at lower-cost institutions. For example, among UNC System graduates, ECHS students attempted twenty-five fewer UNC credits and about forty more affordable North Carolina Community College System (NCCCS) credits. In addition to the societal savings, students and families also experience greater savings in degree costs—$14,545 for a two-year NCCCS degree and $13,114 for a four-year UNC degree.

Second, when considering all students, regardless of degree completion, total societal costs for ECHS and traditional high school students are nearly identical six years after graduation. While the direct cost advantage of ECHS disappears for students who do not earn a degree, ECHS students generate, on average, nearly $16,000 more in societal benefits over these six years than traditional school peers. The researchers anticipate these benefits derive from higher tax contributions and reduced reliance on public assistance, highlighting the value of increased educational attainment. In short, ECHS programs deliver a better return on investment than traditional schools.

Third, ECHS programs generate net societal benefits across all subgroups—first-generation and non-first-generation students, students from and not from underrepresented racial/ethnic backgrounds, and economically disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged students. These gains are statistically significant for all groups except for non-first-generation students, for whom the impact is only marginally significant. Societal benefits are especially pronounced for economically disadvantaged students, highlighting ECHS’s potential to reduce educational disparities and deliver substantial societal returns.

While the study draws on prior research to estimate these net benefits, it omits key data on degree attainment and earnings. In other words, we know ECHS programs yield societal benefits for all subgroups, but lack the underlying data critical for understanding exactly where those benefits come from. For example, how do earnings six years after high school graduation compare for Hispanic students who attended an ECHS versus those who attended a traditional high school? Without this context, it is difficult to assess the impact of ECHS programs on student outcomes, particularly for groups historically underrepresented in higher education. Disaggregated data on degree attainment and earnings data by race and socioeconomic status are essential for evaluating program effectiveness and understanding how ECHS impacts outcomes across demographic groups.

ECHS programs strengthen the transition from high school to college, helping students earn valuable credentials faster and at a lower cost. By earning college credits in high school, students can bypass general education courses and stay focused on their career goals. Amid a $1.7 trillion student debt crisis, ECHS programs also reduce the need to borrow—particularly for low-income, first-generation, and minority students—by shortening time spent in college and covering a substantial portion of required credits at no cost to the student or their family. Though ECHS programs require upfront investment from states and districts, they yield long-term savings by boosting college completion and increasing earnings.

As states and districts consider adopting ECHS models—like North Carolina has done at scale—future research should explore not only barriers to expansion, but variation in program design. Barriers include difficulties transferring ECHS credits across state lines, limited capacity for strong academic advising, and the need for sustainable funding to support students in this more rigorous alternative to traditional high school. ECHS programs are not monolithic; they vary widely in structure, including where they are housed, whether students take classes with traditional college students, and whether instruction is delivered by college faculty or high school teachers. Design choices influence both student experience and outcomes, so understanding which versions of ECHS drive the strongest results and evaluating the best fit for different local contexts is essential for effective expansion.

In short, early college high schools offer a promising and more equitable pathway from high school to college, though important questions remain. Evidence of their benefits is growing, yet we still need to understand how outcomes vary across different models, who gains access, and what happens to students who do not complete their ECHS programs. Regardless, the case for strengthening pathways between high school and postsecondary education grows stronger, especially as traditional models continue to fall short.

SOURCE: Brian Phillips, Julie A. Edmunds, Fatih Unlu, Elizabeth Glennie, and Christine Mulhern, “The Costs and Benefits of North Carolina’s Early College High School Model,”  Annenberg Institute at Brown University (February 2025).

On this week’s Education Gadfly Show podcast, Linda Darling-Hammond and Anne Podolsky of the Learning Policy Institute—authors of our latest Think Again brief, “Do the Returns to Teacher Experience Fizzle Out?”—join Mike and David to discuss whether teachers really stop improving after just a few years on the job. Then, on the Research Minute, Adam shares a study examining the extent of school board turnover and whether it is linked to school performance.

Recommended content: 

• “Think Again: Do the returns to teacher experience fizzle out?” —Anne Poldolsky and Linda Darling-Hammond, Learning Policy Institute, for Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• “Effective Teacher Professional Development” — Linda Darling-Hammond, Maria E. Hyler, and Madelyn Gardner, Learning Policy Institute
• “The voices we don't hear: Teachers who gave up” —Robert Pondiscio, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
• “High Turnover with Low Accountability: Local School Board Elections in 16 States” — Vladimir Kogan, Stéphane Lavertu, and Zachary Peskowitz, EdWorking Paper (May 2025)

Feedback Welcome: Have ideas for improving our podcast? Send them to Stephanie Distler at [email protected].  

Cheers

• New York’s Vertex charter school offers a better approach to addressing inequities, replacing DEI with renewed focus on student agency. —Robert Maranto, EdWeek
• Florida’s private school choice programs keep Catholic schools open; New Yorkers hoping to expand options and opportunities for low-income students should pay attention. —The New York Post
• Montgomery County (MD) Public Schools approved the literature-rich and research-based Core Knowledge Language Arts curriculum for middle schools, expanding on its earlier approval of CKLA for pre-kindergarten through fifth grade. —Bethesda Today
• Successful reforms in D.C. and Dallas show that linking teacher pay and evaluation to student performance can improve learning outcomes. —Eric A. Hanushek and Margaret E. Raymond, The Washington Post

Jeers

• Four-day school weeks are bad for student learning and don’t help with teacher recruitment or retention—but K–12 leaders still love them. —The 74
• Despite legislation intended to allow students to choose schools across district boundaries, students with disabilities across Nebraska face systemic rejection from traditional public schools. —The 74 Million
• D.C.’s chronic absenteeism problem, and failure by local government to combat it, led to a shocking increase in youth crime. —The Washington Post

• A look inside South Korea’s “cram school” culture, where preparation for hyper-competitive college entrance exams now begins in kindergarten. —The Washington Post
• “Who really benefited from billions in education R&D?” —Mark Schneider, American Enterprise Institute
• Denver public school enrollment is predicted to drop 8 percent by 2029, suggesting more future school closures on top of the seven that have already closed in the past year. —Chalkbeat
• A “Make America Healthy Again” plan to fight obesity targets ultra-processed school foods like Domino’s pizza, but evidence shows overly healthy meals often leads kids to skip lunch. —The Atlantic