The Education Gadfly Weekly

If you’ve been following headlines in Ohio, you’ve likely noticed that there’s an ongoing kerfuffle regarding an overhaul of the state’s K–12 education governance system. The governance change, which was first proposed last December but officially became law as part of the state budget this summer, transfers the majority of the powers and duties assigned to the state board of education to a revamped executive branch department known as the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW). Unlike the previous department, which was overseen by a state superintendent who answered to the state board, the DEW will be led by a director appointed by the governor.

Opponents to the move filed a lawsuit in September, claiming that the overhaul was unconstitutional. They also requested a preliminary injunction to prevent the revamped department from operating as the lawsuit made its way through the courts. A temporary restraining order was granted and then extended. But on October 20—the day the extended order expired—the Franklin County Common Pleas Court denied the preliminary injunction request. The judge ruled that the plaintiffs have grounds to sue, so the case isn’t officially over. But for now, the DEW is free to hit the ground running.

Given the sheer amount of work to be done in the wake of the budget bill, running is exactly what the department will have to do. Here’s a look at three issues its leaders should prioritize in their inaugural months.

Priority one: Addressing concerns over public engagement

Two of the primary complaints put forth by opponents are that eliminating the state board would reduce transparency and provide parents and citizens with fewer opportunities to voice their concerns about education. Magistrate Jennifer Hunt noted in her ruling that the department has systems in place to provide transparency, and that even if school board members no longer have the power to act on constituents’ concerns, they can still voice them to the new director. As I noted in this piece, the overhaul also doesn’t change the fact that Ohio parents still have considerable influence over education policy, particularly at the local level.

However, even if the governance revamp won’t diminish the ability of parents and citizens to voice their concerns, they’ve been told it will by some pretty prominent sources. They’re likely concerned, and the department’s leaders shouldn’t take those concerns lightly. In fact, state officials and administrators should go out of their way to reassure parents and community members that their voices will still be heard, public office-holders will still be accountable for student outcomes, and transparency is still a priority.

To their credit, lawmakers have already taken the initial steps to do exactly that. The budget contained a provision requiring the director of DEW to convene a public meeting at least once every other month where department staff will present information about significant new or existing initiatives or policies, changes to state or federal law that will impact the department or its stakeholders, and any rules the director plans to adopt or change. An opportunity for public discussion must follow the presentation, which gives parents and constituents a regular opportunity to voice concerns and offer feedback. Department leaders could also consider conducting a statewide listening tour with a few stops in each of Ohio’s five regions, not only as a visible effort to engage the public, but also as a way to collect a list of grassroots issues the department should pay attention to moving forward. Lastly, the department could invest more time and effort into publicizing the public comment periods it offers for various plans and decision points. Many parents may not realize that they already have these opportunities available to them or that they can sign up for regular email updates from the department.

Priority two: Early literacy

The same budget bill that created the DEW also established important early literacy reforms. For instance, starting in fall 2024, Ohio public schools will be required to adopt curricula and instructional materials that align to the science of reading—an evidence-based approach that emphasizes explicit phonics instruction. Discredited curricula, including approaches like “three-cueing,” will be prohibited (although there is currently another lawsuit challenging this provision). State lawmakers set aside approximately $170 million to assist schools with replacing outdated curricula and offering aligned professional development for teachers. Reading coaches will be dispatched to the districts that need them most, and teacher preparation programs will be required to train prospective educators in the science of reading.

These are ambitious reforms that could boost Ohio’s literacy outcomes. As such, rigorous implementation should be a top priority for the DEW. My colleague Aaron Churchill recently outlined seven implementation steps that state leaders should take. They include keeping low-quality options off the state’s approved lists of curricula and materials (and ensuring that schools have access to the lists as soon as possible so they can make timely decisions), wisely allocating the state funding that was set aside to subsidize the purchase of new materials, bolstering teacher professional development, and strictly enforcing the requirements outlined in law. Although there will inevitably be bumps along the road, checking off these seven boxes would put Ohio well on its way toward improving the reading skills of its students.

Priority three: Career-technical education

Ohio has an established and vibrant career-technical education (CTE) sector. State law requires every public school to ensure that students in grades 7–12 have the opportunity to enroll in CTE programming in state-approved career fields. These courses and programs provide students with the opportunity to explore various jobs, participate in work-based learning, earn high school and college credit, obtain a high school diploma, and attain industry-recognized credentials that can lead to well-paying jobs or additional educational opportunities.

Given all this potential, it makes sense that the recent state budget included a quarter billion dollars in new state funding to expand the capacity of CTE providers and increase participation in high-quality programs. But now that the department has been transformed into the Department of Education and Workforce, leaders and staff will need to do more than just spend the CTE dollars they’ve been allocated.

They could start by improving transparency around CTE, perhaps by spotlighting providers with the best student outcomes or working to link students’ K–12 and higher education records with workforce outcomes, such as wages, career fields, and employment records. Doing so would help identify which CTE programs should be expanded or improved. The DEW should also consider conducting informational campaigns that reach out to students and families and ensure that they are aware of all the CTE options available to them. Increasing industry engagement by offering additional incentives for employers to participate in career exploration and work-based learning opportunities could also pay dividends. The bottom line is that the DEW needs to take seriously its increasing responsibility to support workforce development and take action to expand and improve the state’s CTE sector.

***

Overhauling Ohio’s education governance model will be complex and difficult. But such a huge change is necessary after years of disorganization and inaction. Now that the DEW has been cleared to operate, department leaders and staff should waste no time tackling the issues outlined above. They’re obviously not the only items that matter to parents and advocates. But getting off to a good start in these three areas, in particular, will go a long way toward setting the agency—and by extension Ohio students—up for success.

Too many students in Ohio are off-track—way off-track—in terms of meeting grade-level math and reading standards. Last school year, 32 percent of students statewide scored “limited”—the lowest achievement mark—on state math exams, while 20 percent scored at that level in English language arts (ELA). In big-city districts such as Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton, a staggering 45 to 50 percent of students scored limited, while numbers were just as grim in places like Lima, Lorain, and Middletown. Even in some affluent districts, 10 to 20 percent of students scored limited on last year’s assessments.

Let us pause and consider what a “limited” result entails. In somewhat polite terms, the state describes limited students as demonstrating “minimal command” of academic standards and having no more than an “emerging ability” to read, write, and do math at grade level. Without serious interventions, such students are on pathways to illiteracy and innumeracy as adults. Many will struggle to secure decent jobs, and tragically some are likely to end up on public assistance or in the criminal justice system.

State leaders have a responsibility to ensure that all Ohio students have the supports and interventions necessary to exit high school with core academic skills. Recognizing this duty, policymakers have pursued multiple avenues to bolster student learning. These include a transparent state rating system that puts healthy pressure on schools to boost achievement. It’s also included attempts to turn around low-performing schools and districts. Ohio has ratcheted up funding—especially for high-poverty schools—to make sure that students have access to extra supports. Just this year, Governor DeWine and the legislature enacted bold literacy reforms that now require schools to adopt high-quality curricula aligned to the science of reading, as well as millions set aside for teacher professional development.

These are all crucial efforts. But more still needs to be done, especially in the aftermath of the pandemic which has only increased the number of low-achieving students in the state.[1] To that end, Ohio Senator Andrew Brenner introduced legislation (SB 162) in late September that would further advance statewide efforts to ensure that struggling students get the help they need. The bill has four key elements.

1. Requires schools to provide academic interventions to any student who scores limited on state math and/or ELA exams. One pandemic-era lesson is that, if supplemental services are optional for schools and students, many of the students who most need the extra supports won’t get them. SB 162 would remove uncertainty about whether schools offer (and low-achieving students receive) interventions. Instead, all public schools would be required to provide students with academic supports starting in the year following a limited result on a state exam. Interventions would continue until students score above limited on a state or diagnostic assessment that applies to her grade level.
    
2. Provides schools with flexibility about specific interventions. Recognizing that students may need varying types of support, SB 162 is not overly prescriptive about what interventions schools must provide. The bill does list some possibilities such as high-dosage tutoring, extended learning time, and other “academically-centered” supports. And it also wisely stipulates that all interventions must be “evidence-based” and that ELA interventions, in particular, must align to the science of reading. The bill also aptly notes that interventions are not to supplant core classroom instruction. Beyond those guidelines, schools have leeway to decide how to structure interventions for low-achieving students.
    
3. Calls on the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to conduct reviews of schools’ interventions. One concern is that this requirement could become another check-box routine for schools. To guard against this, SB 162 requires DEW to randomly select 5 percent of Ohio districts,[2] charters, and STEM schools each year, and conduct an onsite review of their academic interventions. These reviews would examine the types of interventions that schools provide as well as include an assessment of their quality. A publicly available report of each school’s interventions must be completed within six weeks of the review. This audit-type provision is crucial, as it can motivate schools to take the initiative seriously. The public reporting could help identify and disseminate best practices, while also flagging schools implementing low-quality interventions and offering recommendations for improvement.
    
4. Requires parental notification and ongoing engagement. As surveys from Learning Heroes indicate, parents may be unaware that their child is performing at such dangerously low levels. Some may not receive their child’s state assessment results or have a clear sense of what they mean; others may be misled by their child’s grade-inflated report cards. Importantly, SB 162 requires schools to notify parents that their child scored limited and that he or she will receive academic interventions. The bill also requires schools to update parents periodically about the interventions their child receives, another potential check—this time from parents—on the quality of the services provided by schools.

Overall, SB 162 is a solid piece of legislation that would help address academic failure. While a strong start, the bill could be strengthened in three ways: (1) Add consequences if schools are not taking their responsibility seriously and failing to provide interventions to limited students. This would signal the importance of intervening, while also help to ensure that schools take immediate steps to serve low-achieving students if they are not doing so. (2) Remove the provision allowing schools to “exit” students from interventions based on a diagnostic test result. This would guard against “gaming” through use of potentially-less-rigorous diagnostics, and also maintain a clear target that must be met before schools are released from their obligation to intervene. (3) Given the importance of carrying out rigorous intervention reviews, legislators should consider adding a modest appropriation that would support DEW’s efforts.

* * *

It’s downright troubling that so many Ohio students have such great difficulty with reading, writing, and arithmetic. Even more scandalous is the fact that struggling students tend to remain stuck at such low levels as they progress through school. According to state data cited by Senator Brenner, almost two in three of the students who posted a “limited” score on last year’s state exams scored at that very same level in the year prior. We must do better as a state to make sure that struggling students don’t fall through the cracks. If passed, SB 162 would be another important step forward in ensuring that all Ohio students are on-track to a brighter future.

“Social promotion,” the practice of pushing struggling students from one grade to the next regardless of their academic readiness, can have damaging long-term effects. Socially promoted students are at risk of falling further and further behind, which can lead to frustration and diminished social-emotional wellbeing. Studies consistently find that children who are socially promoted in elementary school continue to struggle as they move through middle school, and they drop out of high school at much higher rates, likely leading to a lifetime of hardship as adults.

Recognizing the harms of pushing students through school systems, national and state leaders have sought to eliminate the practice. President Bill Clinton once challenged American schools to “abolish social promotion.” As Texas governor, President George W. Bush advocated for policies that required schools to retain low-achieving students in certain grades.

Here in Ohio, Governor John Kasich championed the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, legislation that passed in 2012. The initiative required schools to retain and provide intensive interventions to third graders with severe reading deficiencies. During the years in which this policy was in effect,[1] approximately 5 percent of third graders were retained. A recent study—consistent with findings from other states—indicates that retained students in Ohio benefitted from the extra time and support.

Despite the common sense, as well as the rigorous evidence supporting early-grade retention, state lawmakers succumbed to political pressure and gutted the Third Grade Reading Guarantee earlier this year via the state budget bill. With the requirement scrapped for 2022–23, retention was virtually non-existent across Ohio. Figure 1 shows that 439 out of 605 school districts retained not a single third grader, and another 123 districts retained less than 2 percent. Only a handful of districts (forty-two) had retention rates above 2 percent in 2022–23. By way of comparison, 224 districts held back more than 2 percent of third graders in 2018–19, the last year the requirement was in effect; almost fifty districts retained more than 10 percent of their third grade class that year.

Figure 1: Third grade retention rates across Ohio districts, 2018–19 and 2022–23

Such vanishingly low retention rates in 2022–23, which were also seen after 2021–22 when a similar Covid-era “safe harbor” from state requirements was in place, would be warranted if only a few students were struggling to read. But that’s not the case. On the contrary, tens of thousands of students are scoring limited, the lowest mark on state exams. Such students earn just a quarter of the points possible on the assessment,[2] and are described as having “minimal command” of grade-level standards. Unless they receive serious intervention and supports, students at this level likely face a future with little opportunity for upward mobility.

And yet, Table 1 shows a dozen districts that retained no third graders, despite more than one third scoring limited on their English language arts (ELA) exams. Urban districts such as Garfield Heights, Trotwood-Madison, and East Cleveland retained no third graders, while 36 to 42 percent scored limited. Similar results are seen in the small-town districts of Middletown and Lorain, as well as rural districts such as Mount Gilead and Clay. Such students, whose kindergarten and first grade years were disrupted by the pandemic, would certainly benefit from the extra time and support associated with retention. 

Table 1: Districts with zero retentions, despite large percentages of limited students

Though not among those with zero retentions, the Ohio Eight urban districts—locales with persistently low student achievement—promoted nearly all third graders, too. This occurred despite 30 to 40 percent scoring at the limited level on their ELA exams. Only Cleveland reported a relatively large number of retentions (8 percent), but that’s still far below its fraction of limited-scoring third graders. Moreover, as evident from the table, last year’s retention rates in the Ohio Eight were far lower than those in 2018–19—despite the growing percentage of limited students in seven of the eight districts. 

Table 2: Ohio Eight districts third grade retention rates versus limited students, 2022–23 and 2018–19

These data are obviously disturbing. In many districts, anywhere from 20, 30, to 40 percent of third graders did not demonstrate even basic literacy skills on a state exam. Yet nearly all of them were promoted. Are these students receiving reading interventions this year? Will schools continue to push them along as they move into middle and high school? How many will drop out and fall through the cracks? Of course, retention doesn’t solve everything. But if Ohio had kept a reading guarantee in place for the 2022–23 school year, we’d have more confidence that schools were intervening to support struggling readers.

Unfortunately, this school year (2023–24) could be just as bad. That’s because the state is transitioning to a modified third-grade retention policy that requires schools to retain third graders who fall short of state reading standards—but, thanks to a new Texas-sized loophole, allows schools to consult with parents and receive sign-off for promotion.[3] Given schools’ aversion to holding students back, many of them are likely to pressure parents into making such requests. It wouldn’t be surprising to see social promotion continue unchecked in the absence of a strict retention requirement. 

While a return to a mandatory retention policy is theoretically possible (and would be laudable), it’s more likely that policymakers will need to find some middle ground that can help protect the interests of students who still need significant help in reading. Here are two ways to do that:

1. The Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) should make sure that schools are carefully following the parental and intervention protocols outlined in the new retention law. The state’s modified retention policy requires the principal and reading teacher of a low-achieving third grader to consult with her parents before promotion to fourth grade. Through an audit-type process, DEW should verify that such consultations are occurring and that schools have evidence of a parental request for the child to move forward. DEW should also define and confirm that students promoted under this exemption receive “intensive reading instruction” in fourth grade, as called for under the revised policy.
2. State legislators should tweak the Early Literacy component of the report card to ensure it does not incentivize social promotion. Under current policy, schools receive credit in the Early Literacy dimension of the report card when they promote students from third to fourth grade (i.e., their “promotional rate”). Including this measure may have been OK when there was a clear promotional standard. But including this rate under the revised policy is now more problematic, as it further incentivizes schools to push the parents of low-achieving children into making a promotional request. Conversely, schools choosing to take the tougher—though more student-centered—approach of retention are unfairly penalized because their Early Literacy rating is based in part on promotional rates. Lawmakers should either remove the promotional rate from the report card,[4] or slightly modify statute to refer to the percentage of students who meet the state reading promotional bar (not the number of students actually promoted).

Just like handing out high school diplomas, universal promotion from third to fourth grade tends to make adults feel good. But there is nothing right about passing along children who can’t read. The Third Grade Reading Guarantee, in its original form, used to be a critical checkpoint ensuring that struggling readers got more help. That policy is in tatters, and the data reveal an unacceptable picture of widespread social promotion. Now we can only hope that state policymakers, school leaders, and parents will step up and work to root out social promotion, even in the absence of a requirement. Fingers crossed.

The aspiration of early childhood education (ECE) is kindergarten readiness for its young learners, followed by strong academic achievement in elementary school and an array of positive social-emotional outcomes along the way (and beyond). Researchers have found evidence to support the positive impacts of ECE across these dimensions over the years, but the holy grail—evidence that the academic benefits persist rather than fade out over time—remains elusive. A recent study out of Oklahoma, however, touts an important breakthrough.

Researchers from the University of Oklahoma-Tulsa looked at a group of seventy-five children. Thirty-seven were randomly assigned as infants to participate in an “enhanced” Head Start program called Educare beginning in 2006, while the remaining thirty-eight participated in other ECE programs. Although that’s a small sample size, these seventy-five children were a subset of a much larger randomized-control trial comprising all of the various Educare sites, of which there are twenty-five across the country. The Educare program, which began with one school in Chicago in 2000, uses high-quality teaching practices, intensive family engagement, and data utilization to enhance the learning environment for students, and includes embedded professional development for staff. Additional features include year-round, full-day services; lead teachers with bachelor’s degrees; and dedicated family support staff with small caseloads and bachelor’s-level training.

Students in both groups began in infant care/ECE at around nineteen months of age and remained until the start of kindergarten. Control group students’ care and education arrangements ran the gamut—including public preschool, Head Start, community-based childcare centers, and family care—and changed occasionally up until the start of formal education. Most treatment group students also had other caretakers and educators outside of Educare prior to kindergarten, but were steady enrollees in Educare throughout. The treatment group consisted of slightly more boys than girls; the control group slightly more girls than boys. All families in both groups reported income below the federal poverty line based on family size, and all lived in under-resourced communities in and around Tulsa.

Children were followed through the end of third grade. Data included measures of executive function and assessments of early academic skills in literacy, language, and math collected through one-on-one administration of standardized tests twice per year. Different testing instruments were used based on students’ developmental level. Parents were surveyed each spring starting in kindergarten and continuing through third grade to provide information about the home, children’s activities, relationships between children and parents, and parental stress. Teachers completed surveys in the fall and spring of each year to provide information about students’ social-emotional development, behavior, and relationships at school. Classroom quality (K–3 only) was observed and rated each winter for both the treatment and control group, focusing on the areas of emotional support, classroom organization, and instructional support using the Classroom Assessment Scoring System.

Children in the treatment group demonstrated statistically significant increases in vocabulary, oral comprehension, and math scores as compared to their control group peers from preschool through third grade, after controlling for child and family characteristics and the limited range of classroom quality metrics. Additionally, treatment students attained scores at the national average in these three areas at the end of third grade, indicating that Educare graduates narrowed the gap with their more affluent peers across the nation.

Results on the behavioral dimensions were more mixed, with children in the treatment group showing higher skills on one of the two measures of executive function but equal outcomes in the area of social-emotional skills. Parents of children who attended Tulsa Educare reported fewer behavior problems when the children were preschoolers than parents of children in the control group, although teachers reported no differences in behavior in elementary school.

Does this meet the holy grail criteria of persistent positive effects for increased student achievement? The lead author of the study and the local Educare’s communications consultants seem to think so. The model appears solid, as does the consistency of attendance for the children in the treatment group. Having low-income students performing at the national average in certain aspects of third grade achievement is a positive finding, but it feels too early to declare full victory on these grounds. The switch from “learning to read” to “reading to learn” is a typical point at which fadeout begins—not covered here—not to mention the fact that these boys and girls had not yet hit the academic buzzsaw of pandemic-mitigation school closures by the time the analysis stopped. Only time—and more data—will really tell the tale.

SOURCE: Diane M. Horm, Shinyoung Jeon, Moira V. Clavijo, and Melissa Acton, “Kindergarten through Grade 3 Outcomes Associated with Participation in High-Quality Early Care and Education: A RCT Follow-Up Study,” Education Sciences (August 2023).

In a new report and accompanying factsheet, authors Jason Bedrick, Jay Greene, and Lindsey Burke of the Heritage Foundation look into concerns that the recent rapid increase in private school choice programs (vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and ESAs) in many states will exert inflationary pressure on private school tuition and risk bumping this important educational option out of reach of many families once again.

Those concerns are rooted in basic economics—subsidies in a competitive market almost always lead to higher prices—and are all but confirmed in the higher education sphere. A review of the research literature by the Martin Center in 2017 “suggests that federal student aid increases university tuition rates, perhaps by as much as 60 cents on the dollar.” As of 2017, that research concludes, the price of college tuition and fees had risen an astounding 1,335 percent since 1978. In inflation-adjusted dollars, the national average cost of college tuition and fees has risen 239 percent since 1980.

But is that happening, or likely to happen, in the K–12 sphere? In accord with Heritage’s traditional leanings, Bedrick, Greene, and Burke lean toward no.

Their tuition data come from the online clearinghouse Private School Review, whose mission is to “make private school as accessible as possible” to families by providing free and factual information about schools across the country “and the opportunities they offer.” Among this trove of data is the average overall, elementary, and high school tuition charged in each state each year. Bedrick and colleagues look at tuition changes over ten years—from 2013 to 2023—and first compare rates of tuition inflation in states that implemented school choice policies before the 2013–14 academic year against those that had no such policies until 2022–23. A second comparison looks at states who adopted new choice policies at various points within the decade.

States that had no private school choice policies before 2022–2023—there were twenty-one of these, dubbed “never choice” states—saw private school tuition overall increase by nearly 28 percent, on average, between 2013 and 2023. By contrast, the twenty states plus Washington, D.C., that had adopted school choice before 2013–2014 (dubbed “always choice” states) saw tuition increase by about 15 percent over the same period. The difference was even starker when limiting the analysis to high school tuition. Always-choice states saw high school tuition increase by about 8 percent, while never-choice states increased by a whopping 35 percent. This is simply a descriptive picture of trends, but it immediately cuts against the concern that vouchers and other subsidies will automatically increase inflationary pressure on private school tuition.

For the eight states that adopted private-school choice policies between 2013–14 and 2022–23, the researchers compared the rate of tuition increases, adjusted for inflation, before and after the policies were adopted. On average, the annual change in tuition in those states before adopting school choice was 2.1 percent, while the average annual change after adopting school choice was -1.5 percent. In other words, the rate of change in tuition actually decreased. As one extreme example, the rate of tuition inflation in Kansas prior to adopting school choice was 8 percent; after adopting school choice, that rate was -4.4 percent. This seems stunning at first glance, but read on for another take.

One additional point to consider: Even in those states where tuition continued to increase following the introduction of subsidies, the boost was generally less than the rate of inflation, which is tantamount to actually cutting the cost in terms of families’ household balance sheets. The most significant declines in tuition inflation were seen at the elementary school level, with smaller and non-significant reductions at the high school level. Bedrick and his colleagues are quick to point out that these findings do not represent schools cutting tuition in response to vouchers and other subsidies. Rather, they are indications that the competitive market pressures introduced by school choice hedge against any inflationary pressure that may result from parents’ increased purchasing power.

Simply put, this analysis indicates that the astronomical increases seen in the higher education sphere are unlikely to occur in the K–12 sphere. The researchers speculate that it’s because school choice subsidies in all forms tend to be worth more, on average, than the cost to the private school of enrolling one additional child—even where the scholarship values are less than the private schools’ average cost per pupil. When private schools get additional revenue from choice subsidies that exceed their marginal costs, it reduces their per pupil cost and allows them to keep tuition low. In higher education, there are far more tuition supports at play which add to the pressure. This is more pronounced in elementary schools (larger and more numerous, with more extra seats) than in high schools (smaller and fuller), which is also borne out in the data. The same dynamics are not at work in higher education.

But we cannot ignore several caveats shouting out here. First is the use of a single average tuition rate across a whole state. Huge variation will be seen from cities to small towns to rural areas based on supply and demand. The averages are useful to a point, but not always in accord with the sticker prices families really have to pay, ESA or not. Second is the fact that those averages include many schools that don’t take ESAs or vouchers even if they exist. Ohio is the poster state for that situation, with its priciest (and best) private schools usually not accepting voucher students due to the dollar amounts far below their big tuition bills. Third is the fact that a state “having private school choice” is likely too simplistic a metric for such an analysis. Kansas, singled out above as an exemplar of the authors’ conclusion, has only a small tax credit scholarship with minimal funding and low participation even today. A rigorous analysis cannot equate that with the far more robust private school choice landscapes in, say, Ohio or Florida.

This analysis is a start, but more and better is required to really answer the important questions raised.

SOURCE: Jason Bedrick, Jay Greene, Ph.D., and Lindsey Burke, Ph.D., “Does School Choice Affect Private School Tuition?” Heritage Foundation (August 2023).

Ohio has long been a pioneer in school choices for students and families.  It is home to one of the nation’s first private-school scholarship programs, focused on Cleveland. Ohio was also an early adopter of public charter schools, which today serve roughly 120,000 students. Just this year,  lawmakers took historic steps forward by creating a universal private-school scholarship and increasing charter funding to more closely match local districts. But even with these measures in place, educational choice remains a contentious issue.

What’s next for the Buckeye State on education choice? How can state policymakers continue to empower parents and expand options for more children who need and seek them, while also promoting academic excellence and strong civic values in all schools? Is there a way forward in resolving the ongoing and sometimes acrimonious debates about choice?

The Buckeye Institute, School Choice Ohio, and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute are pleased to announce an in-person event featuring Ashley Berner of Johns Hopkins University. Dr. Berner is author of Pluralism and American Public Education: No One Way to School. She draws on international research to illustrate “educational pluralism,” a structure for public education in which governments empower choice by design—and academic accountability by design.

Join us on October 17th at the Athletic Club of Columbus to learn more about this important concept used by most of the world’s democracies, and how it might be the way forward for Ohio.

The event will feature a presentation by Dr. Berner, followed by a conversation with Fordham’s President Emeritus and nationally-renowned education thought leader, Chester E. Finn, Jr.  Audience engagement will be encouraged as the event explores where Ohio is on the path to educational pluralism and—perhaps more importantly—where it should be on the path.

Full video of the event is here:

NOTE: Today, the Ohio Senate Education Committee heard testimony on SB 162, which is an effort to improve academic intervention services for underperforming students in all public schools across the state. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided proponent testimony. These are his full written remarks.

I am here today to testify in support of Senate Bill 162. Too many students in Ohio are off-track—way off-track—in terms of meeting grade-level math and reading standards. Last school year, 32 percent of students statewide scored “limited”—the lowest achievement mark—on state math exams, while 20 percent scored at that level in English language arts (ELA). In big-city districts such as Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton, a staggering 45 to 50 percent of students scored limited, while numbers were just as grim in places like Lima, Lorain, and Middletown. Even in some affluent districts, 10 to 20 percent of students scored limited on last year’s assessments.

Why is this such a big deal? These students are performing well below grade level standards, and many would rightly be considered functionally illiterate or innumerate. Without improvement before leaving high school, a significant number of these students—as adults—will suffer unemployment, require public assistance, or wind up in the criminal justice system.

For these reasons, we commend Chair Brenner for introducing this important legislation. It’s a serious effort to address an important issue. Moreover, coming out of the pandemic, the time is right to expand efforts to help our most struggling students. Key strengths of SB 162 include the following:

1. Focus: The bill rightly requires schools to provide academic interventions to every student who scores limited on state math and/or ELA exams. Requiring services is the key. One pandemic-era lesson is that, if supplemental services are optional for schools and students, many of the students who most need the extra supports won’t get them.

2. Duration: There isn’t a specific period of time for interventions, and that’s a good thing. Student support should continue until students score above limited on the state assessment.

3. Flexibility: Recognizing that students may need varying types of support, SB 162 is not overly prescriptive about what interventions schools must provide. The bill smartly requires interventions to be evidence-based. However, beyond basic guidelines, schools have leeway to decide how to structure interventions for low-achieving students.

4. Accountability: The requirement for the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to conduct onsite reviews at 5 percent of districts, charters and STEM schools is a good hedge against a school using interventions that either aren’t evidence-based or are implemented less than faithfully. Also, a publicly available report of each school’s interventions must be completed within six weeks of the review. This audit-type provision is crucial to help identify and disseminate best practices and to flag schools implementing low-quality interventions.

5. Parental notification and engagement. SB 162 requires schools to notify parents that their child scored limited and that he or she will receive academic interventions. In my view, this might be the most important requirement in the bill. Surveys from Learning Heroes indicate that parents are often unaware that their child is performing at such dangerously low levels. Some may not receive their child’s state assessment results or have a clear sense of what they mean; others may be misled by their child’s grade-inflated report cards.

Overall, SB 162 is a strong piece of legislation that would help address a critical issue in Ohio. However, the underlying problem is huge and the solution proposed is a massive undertaking. To get it right, we have a few suggestions for improvement.

1. Add consequences: If schools are not taking their responsibility seriously and failing to provide interventions to students scoring limited, there should be a negative consequence. Otherwise, this bill may simply be ignored.

2. Modify how a student exits support status: Remove the provision allowing schools to “exit” students from interventions based on a diagnostic test result. This would guard against “gaming” through the use of potentially less-rigorous diagnostics and also maintain a clear target—based on the state assessment—that must be met before schools are released from their obligation to intervene.

3. Adjust onsite review targets: Rather than selecting a district for a random onsite review, which would be hard for DEW to properly staff not knowing what districts would be selected (some are much larger than others), focus reviews on 5 percent of school buildings in the state (about 175).

4. Intervention tracking: While some reporting of the intervention used for limited students is required, it should be tracked in a manner (e.g. using EMIS) that would allow for research on which interventions were most impactful.

5. Interventions need to be additive for impacted students: The flexibility of the interventions could create some unintended loopholes. For example, could a district offer an extended school year by offering more than the minimum number of hours required under law—which the vast majority of districts already do? As written, that seems possible. Students scoring limited need to be provided services above and beyond what all students are provided. After all, in the example given, the students scored limited after participating in the “extended school year.”

6. Limit interventions to those that are evidence-based: While the legislation in one division of the bill requires “evidence-based” academic interventions, a subsequent division allows “any other academically centered support service that the district or school determines will improve the student's academic performance.” If a district solely determines whether an intervention can be used, then it isn’t evidence-based. We recommend removing this language.

7. Report availability: The onsite review reports are currently required to be made available on the district’s website. To expand access, we recommend they also be made available on each reviewed schools’ state report card page.

* * *

It’s troubling that so many Ohio students have such great difficulty with reading, writing, and arithmetic. Even more disheartening, from Chair Brenner’s sponsor testimony, is the fact that almost two in three of the students who posted a “limited” score on last year’s state exams scored at that very same level in the prior year.

We can do better, and we must do better for our struggling students. Senate Bill 162 is a good first step, but we believe that we need to be even bolder to give every Ohio student the opportunity for lifelong success.

Thank you again for the opportunity to speak with you today. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have.