Elsewhere in this issue, you read about the "Youngstown Plan," sharpening the teeth of Ohio’s Academic Distress Commission (ADC) protocols for persistently troubled school districts. While newspaper editors and citizen groups in Youngstown have been calling for something stronger than the existing ADC for a while now, it is a singular moment of opportunity that has facilitated the new plan’s rapid adoption. The re-retirement of former Youngstown Superintendent Connie Hathorn and the instatement of a six-month interim supe is a perfect setup for this transition. Youngstown has been in academic and financial trouble for decades, and the district has been formally under the ADC’s thumb for the past five years, yet the needle of success has barely budged.
Meanwhile, in Ohio’s other current ADC district, Lorain City Schools, a new superintendent was named the same day the Youngstown Plan passed. As the vote concluded, the chair of Lorain’s ADC sounded a warning that the new legislation could also become the “Lorain Plan,” which would include the selection of a new CEO and the creation of a new commission light on local appointees. He’s right: Lorain’s ADC, like Youngstown’s, has struggled mightily to succeed in recent years. Other districts, including Dayton and Trotwood-Madison, are also currently at risk of entering the ADC process due to persistent academic struggles.
These changes pale in comparison to the unique structure implemented in Cleveland, which includes mayoral control; an appointed board; a CEO; laws that make parental involvement mandatory; a focus on building-level autonomy; and unprecedented efforts at integration of district, charter, and STEM schools. We have remarked on signs of success and signs that more work remains to be done. The latest report from the Cleveland Transformation Alliance shows an encouraging decrease in the number of kids in failing schools and an increase in the number of students in high-performing schools since 2012. Still, too many students in Cleveland remain too far behind academically to claim success, and even die-hard supporters want to see faster progress.
But when a similar clean-sweep strategy was proposed for Columbus in 2013, no amount of bipartisanship, cooperation between state and local government, or heavyweight education commission members could induce voters in the capital city to accept such immediate and disruptive change to the status quo. Surely the defeat can be blamed on distaste for the district’s scandal-ridden ancien régime. But a dynamic superintendent and a reconfigured board are getting off the mat and taking steps to break out from stagnation. The city should build on the positive momentum and rally community support to expand high-quality schools.
Over the years, we at Fordham have documented the urgent need for excellent schools in Ohio’s urban communities. Too many needy students—we daresay more than fifty thousand Ohio youngsters—remain trapped in bad schools, and therefore denied their one opportunity to succeed academically and have a better chance at a happy life. These children deserve the absolute best from our local and state leaders, and whether it is bold change in Cleveland, a rejection of the bad old days in Columbus, or a new idea coming soon to Youngstown, it is to be hoped that many more children have a brighter future ahead of them.
