What does it cost to retain a less-than-proficient student and provide him or her with remediation and additional support? In a new research brief, Boston University professor Marcus Winters says the amount is lower than previous analysts, including himself, have estimated and goes on to show why.

Key to Winters’s framework is that cost accrues both to the taxpayers who fund the additional time and work and to the students who are held back, as they are likely delayed from entering the job market because of their extra time in school. Winters asserts that previous analyses did not account for these timeframes properly, as taxpayers don’t fund extra education for a retained student until she stays in school beyond her expected high school graduation date. In other words, a youngster who repeats third grade was always going to be on the school’s roster that second year, but as a fourth grader rather than a third grader. Although it is possible that she will remain a grade level behind for eight more years and thus require that extra year of taxpayer-funded education, data suggest that one of several other outcomes is likely to occur before then: catching up and rejoining her previous grade cohort, leaving that system for another (such as a private school or an out-of-state district), or dropping out of school entirely.

Laying aside the relative undesirability of some of these outcomes, the math speaks for itself. Allocating a full year of additional funding as a necessary cost of retention is incorrect. The same goes for the cost of lost wages to the student herself. Winters and other analysts include not only the first year of lost wages (due to a delayed grade twelve) but also multiple additional years of decreased raises afterward due to delayed entry. Even assuming that catching up with wage growth is impossible, a retained student is still more likely to enter the workforce—one way or the other—less than a year behind expectation. Calculations must be made accordingly.

To illustrate, Winters returns to previously published analyses of Florida’s third grade retention policies. A study that looked at the first cohort of third graders retained in Florida in 2002–03, on which Winters was an analyst, indicated clearly that students who remained in their schools through graduation were only delayed by 62.8 percent of a year. Yet the cost calculations assumed a full year’s delay. Rerunning those numbers with the proper delay factor—and even including the full reported cost of interventions intended to boost student achievement—yields a taxpayer cost 34 percent lower than originally estimated. Lost wages were similarly overestimated in the previous analyses.

While there are adjunct costs to holding students back, the benefits could easily outweigh those costs. Yes, a retained student might spend a few less months in the labor market, but the career earnings potential of being able to read fluently (as opposed to being illiterate) should easily surpass those fleeting losses. That’s what retention—and robust support—aims to do for students who are struggling to read.

Retention policies should go hand in hand with a robust set of supports in place to make sure that those who are off track can make up ground as quickly and simply as possible. While there are adjunct costs to holding students back, these have been exaggerated in previous research and can be minimized even further by a focus on boosting student achievement. Future discussions of the merits of retention policies should proceed from this more realistic assessment.

SOURCE: Marcus A. Winters, “The Cost of Retention Under a Test-Based Promotion Policy for Taxpayers and Students,” American Education Research Association (AERA) Journal (December 2022).

Cheers

• One writer proposes an Advanced Placement course about the technological breakthroughs that helped produce the Great Acceleration and Enrichment of the past 200 years. —James Pethokoukis
• “Black students need better schools, not lower standards.” —Jason Riley
• In a surprising reversal of policy, New Jersey will allow public charter schools in the state to add an additional 2,299 students to their rosters. —North Jersey
• Career-based pathways are one reason that student graduation rates are up in Oakland high schools. —The Oaklandside

Jeers

• New York City schools will be allowed to grade their own students’ Regents exams, despite evidence of grade manipulation in the past. —Chalkbeat New York
• Two decades of stagnant student test scores suggest that the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) has been pushing faulty analysis for its member countries. —Education Next

• A new study makes a compelling case that there is racial bias in K-12 student referrals and discipline, although socio-economic status could account for much of the disparities. —Brookings Institution
• “After the release of NAEP revealed the worst-ever decline in math scores, the Khan Academy founder is sounding the alarm.” —The 74
• Advances in artificial intelligence and big data could lead to a “Big Bang” in education research. —Mark Schneider
• To fortify the American Dream, the federal government should focus on programs that address the barriers to intergenerational social mobility. —Scott Winship
• Donald Trump, Ron DeSantis, and other possible Republican presidential candidates are making education issues central to their campaigns despite mixed results in 2022. —New York Times

Since first taking office in 2019, Governor DeWine has consistently prioritized policies aimed at expanding and improving career-technical education (CTE). His first budget included several policies intended to give high schoolers a head start on earning industry-recognized credentials (IRCs), including an incentive program that awarded high schools with additional funds when students earned a qualifying credential. Two years later, he doubled down on IRC funding and programs like TechCred, which helps Ohioans earn technology-focused credentials and aids businesses in upskilling their employees.

Now, with his second term under way, DeWine is strengthening his focus on CTE. Consider the table below, which highlights allocations for three special CTE funding programs since 2020 and includes the governor’s budget recommendations for FY 2024 and 2025.

As the table shows, CTE spending has risen consistently during DeWine’s term, and he’s proposed further increases in his latest budget. We’ll have to wait for legislative language to get all the nitty-gritty details, but it’s likely that the funding allocated for IRCs for high school students will bolster the state’s previous efforts to incentivize credential attainment. DeWine also mentioned in his state of the state address that some career centers lack “modern, up-to-date equipment needed to teach certain courses.” He pledged to change that, so it’s reasonable to assume that’s where the money allocated for “CTE equipment” will go.

An overview of his budget recommendations also points to three additional CTE objectives. First, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) will be charged with increasing the number of in-demand career-technical programs across the state. Focusing on “in-demand” programs is important, as a recent analysis of Ohio’s K–12 industry credential landscape conducted by ExcelinEd, a national educational advocacy organization, and Lightcast, which specializes in labor market analytics, indicated significant misalignment between the credentials employers demand and those that are promoted by the state. A whopping 68 percent of credentials—314 of the 464 that appear on the state’s promoted credential list—do not have “meaningful labor market demand.” Similar misalignment was found between the credentials employers demand and those that students actually earn. Only 20 percent of the credentials earned by the graduating class of 2020 were considered in demand, and among the top fifteen credentials earned, twelve were either not demanded by employers, oversupplied, or considered to be markers of general career readiness. Hopefully, the administration is aware of these significant mismatches, and plans to require that funding only be awarded to truly in-demand CTE programs.

Second, ODE will incentivize schools and businesses to offer work-based learning (WBL) opportunities to 10,000 students across the state. Ohio previously laid a solid foundation by requiring ODE to develop a framework for schools to grant high school credit to students who demonstrate subject competency through WBL. The state also established a tax credit for employers who offer WBL experiences. But there’s still plenty of untapped potential—like finally investing in youth apprenticeships—and it appears that this funding is aimed at realizing those possibilities.

Third, ODE will work to strengthen Business Advisory Councils, which are locally focused partnerships aimed at getting education and business leaders to work together to make schools more responsive to workforce needs and to ensure that students have relevant learning experiences (like WBL). The budget overview indicates the governor is particularly interested in providing additional support for “high-quality partnerships.” Given that K–12 schools, higher education institutions, and employers historically operate in silos—and the potential that high-quality collaborative efforts have to positively impact students, job seekers, and the community—increased support from the state could prove beneficial.

***

Governor DeWine’s commitment to CTE shouldn’t surprise anyone. His administration was laser-focused on workforce development and career pathways during his first term, and the initiatives he championed were both successful and popular. But even though his renewed focus isn’t surprising, it’s still worthy of praise. Here’s hoping the legislature follows the governor’s lead and not only approves these investments, but builds on them.

1. One assumes that Governor DeWine’s virtual sit-down with the editorial board of Cleveland.com covered lots of topics. This piece is focused specifically on the discussion around his proposal to expand EdChoice voucher eligibility. I say “discussion”, but the piece says that the gov “defended” his proposal. I always thought that defense required an opponent, but what do I know? I always thought that editorial boards were neutral too. Silly old Jeff! (Cleveland.com, 2/7/23)
   
   

2. There were a lot of proponents queueing up to support SB 1 before the Senate Education Committee yesterday, although none of them were newspaper editors I note. You will recall that SB 1 is the renewed effort to revamp K-12 education governance in the state. (Gongwer Ohio, 2/7/23)
   
   

3. Back down here on the ground, there are at least two Columbus City Schools parents still unhappy about transportation services being provided to district students and they spoke out again at last night’s school board meeting. Lots of “explanations” were given, but nothing that seemed to address their specific concerns. However, in what the reporter deems a “busing-adjacent” move (hah!), those elected board members at the end of their meeting approved a resolution that appears to revisit the criteria that defines students who are “impractical to transport”. Perhaps those two moms will be getting a resolution to their busing issues sooner than they think. Or perhaps we should call it “resolution-adjacent”? (Columbus Dispatch, 2/8/22)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

Last week, Governor Mike DeWine unveiled his state budget proposal for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. The blueprint calls for an $856 million increase in state expenditures on K–12 education by 2025 (up 8 percent compared to the $10.3 billion currently spent). It also includes a number of significant education initiatives, including three important proposals in the realm of school choice.

1. Boosting the state’s quality charter school fund

During his tenure in office, Governor DeWine has been a strong champion for high-quality public charter schools. In fact, one of his signature first-term initiatives was a new supplemental funding program for quality charters via his first budget in 2019. This innovative program provides qualifying schools with up to $1,750 in additional funding per economically disadvantaged pupil, and $1,000 for non-disadvantaged pupils. These dollars help narrow longstanding charter funding gaps, provide some of the extra resources needed for quality schools to expand, and create an incentive for lower-performing charters to improve. At present, approximately one-third of Ohio charters—117 schools serving some 39,000 students—receive these funds by meeting criteria that include earning a four- or five-star value-added rating and registering higher performance index scores than their local district for two consecutive years. In total, qualifying schools are on track to receive $54 million in FY 2023, though the per-pupil amounts are being reduced by about 20 percent to fit the fixed appropriation approved during the last budget cycle.

In his latest proposal, the governor aims to boost the high-quality fund by more than doubling the appropriation to $125 million per year. This would provide schools with $3,000 per economically disadvantaged student each year,[1] moving quality charters’ funding levels closer to parity with districts. (Charters currently receive on average roughly 70 to 75 cents on the dollar in total funding compared to their local district.) The higher funding amounts should also re-energize new school formation throughout Ohio, as quality charters gain serious capacity to expand their existing schools or launch new ones. They should make Ohio an even more attractive locale for top-notch national charter networks—something that has already occurred in the past couple years after the initial creation of the fund. All told, the governor’s proposal is great news for Ohio families and students, who will reap the benefits of having more, and better funded, quality public school options within their reach.

2. Increasing Ohio’s charter facilities allowance

Traditional districts have long had access to taxpayer funds that allow them to meet their facility needs. At a local level, districts can ask voters to pass bond and permanent improvement levies that cover facilities costs; they can also tap into the state’s main school construction grant program known as CFAP. Charters, however, don’t have local taxing authority and they aren’t eligible for CFAP. As a result, charters often make do with spartan facilities that are less conducive for the learning and enrichment opportunities that students elsewhere take for granted, and/or they have to take money from instructional activities in order to pay the mortgage or rent. In fact, an ExcelinEd analysis published last year found that Ohio only meets 18 percent of charters’ actual facility needs.

Ohio has recently taken some small steps forward in funding charter facilities, including a state budget item that provides a modest per-pupil allowance to cover building expenses. Currently, this appropriation provides $500 per pupil, a welcome amount but still far below districts’ annual spending on building operations, maintenance, and capital outlay. In his budget proposal, Governor DeWine doubles the per-pupil facility allowance to $1,000, an increase that will better ensure charter students are learning in suitable facilities.

3. Expanding EdChoice scholarship eligibility

Last but not least, Governor DeWine has proposed a significant expansion to the state’s private-school scholarship program known as EdChoice. This program offers state-funded scholarships (a.k.a., vouchers) that allow students to enroll in private schools when they either attend a low-performing school or are from low-income households. To be eligible for the income-based scholarship, families must have household incomes at or below 250 percent of the federal poverty level (presently $69,375 for a family of four). While current policy makes sure to cover Ohio’s neediest students, the income threshold still leaves out many working families. For instance, a family where dad works as a police officer and mom works as a nurse is likely to be ineligible for the assistance.

Under the governor’s new proposal, the eligibility threshold for income-based EdChoice would rise to 400 percent of the federal poverty level ($110,000 for a family of four). This would be great news for thousands of Ohio parents who prefer private school options in their local community, but still can’t afford it within their family budget. Ohio, of course, could go a step further and follow the lead of several other states—and a recent bill introduced in the Senate—and simply make scholarships universal by eliminating income limits altogether. But the substantial expansion of EdChoice proposed by the governor should be celebrated as yet another big move toward empowering all Ohio families with educational options.

* * *

As the governor’s budget heads to the General Assembly for debate, lawmakers should embrace these provisions. Hopefully, they’ll even consider building on them in various ways, such as ensuring that quality charters are funded at full parity with their local district (that’d take at least another $1,000 per pupil) or pursuing other facility supports, such as a credit enhancement program. But for now, three hearty cheers for Governor DeWine and his bold support for charter schools and private school choice.

Editor’s note: This is an edition of “Advance,” a newsletter from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute written by Brandon Wright, our Editorial Director, and published every other week. Its purpose is to monitor the progress of gifted education in America, including legal and legislative developments, policy and leadership changes, emerging research, grassroots efforts, and more. You can subscribe on the Fordham Institute website and the newsletter’s Substack.

“Less than 10 percent of the U.S. STEM workforce is Black or Hispanic,” says a recent study by Penn State’s Paul Morgan and colleagues, even though they make up 32 percent of the population. It rightly points out two reasons this is a problem: It reduces the country’s scientific innovation and economic competitiveness, and it lessens the earning potential of Black and Hispanic Americans, as the career income of those who major in STEM are 26–40 percent higher than comparable peers in other fields.

This is consistent with other research, including the work of Raj Chetty, an economist at Harvard. According to a 2019 study he did with Alex Bell and colleagues, “Drawing more low-income and minority children into science and innovation could increase their incomes—thereby reducing the persistence of inequality across generations—while stimulating growth by harnessing currently under-utilized talent.”

In another 2018 study Chetty and colleagues conducted, they found that, compared to White peers, Black and Hispanic Americans are significantly more likely to fall behind their parents economically, and are significantly less likely to exceed them. The situation is especially dire for Black children: When their families are in the top fifth of the income distribution, only 18 percent will remain there as adults; and when their families are in the bottom fifth, just 2.5 percent will make it to the top fifth. For White children, those figures are 41 percent and 10.6 percent, respectively.

This matters for schools, says Morgan et al., because “very high levels of STEM proficiency during adolescence are strongly related to STEM doctoral degree completion and knowledge production.” In other words, boosting the science and math proficiency of our young Black and Hispanic students would likely improve their economic mobility, as well as America’s scientific innovation and economic competitiveness. So, using the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten Class of 2010–11, the research team set out to better understand these gaps in elementary school—in particular, when they emerge, how large they are, how stable they are throughout those six years, and how well twenty-two different student, family, and school factors explain them.

In short, they find that Black- and Hispanic-White disparities, defined as the percentage of students in each subgroup in the overall top 10 percent of science and math achievement: (1) already exist when students start kindergarten; (2) are sizable, between 9 and 11 percentage points; (3) are quite stable from grades K–5, all the years the study examines; and (4) are pretty well explained by those twenty-two factors.

It’s an important and interesting study, and you should read it in full, but I found three takeaways particularly noteworthy.

1. Those student, family, and school factors explain most of the Hispanic-White gap, but not the Black-White gap, and the researchers aren’t sure why.

If the goal is to reduce these disparities in advanced achievement in math and science, we have to know why they exist. Is it family income? Prior achievement? School quality? Parent effects? Systemic racism? The team did this by looking at “antecedent, opportunity, and propensity factors influencing advanced achievement,” which they note is a “well-validated theory of achievement growth.” They illustrated the framework with the following figure:

They found that the factors “mostly explain” the Hispanic-White disparities, but that the Black-White disparities “were not fully explained and remained both practically and statistically significant.”

They note that this is consistent with other work, citing a 2004 study by Roland Fryer and Steven Levitt, which found that “Black- but not Hispanic-White achievement gaps in reading and mathematics among observationally similar kindergarten students increase over time.” Fryer and Levitt also weren’t sure why.

Morgan et al. say this needs to be studied further. And indeed it does.

2. Students who speak multiple languages at home were more likely to achieve at advanced levels in math and science.

The researchers found that “non-English-language use in the home repeatedly predicts a greater likelihood of displaying advanced science or mathematics achievement.” This is consistent with other work, including a 2014 study by Andrea Stocco and Chantel Prat and a 2018 study by Andree Hartanto, Hwajin Yang, and Sujin Yang.

Indeed, the 2018 study, which used two large U.S. datasets, found that “bilingualism positively predicted teacher-rated mathematical reasoning, emergent numeracy skills, and test scores on either mathematical word problems or standardized mathematical assessments.” The link persisted as children transitioned from kindergarten to first grade.

Morgan et al. hypothesize that “bilingualism may facilitate the learning of the complex rules and procedures integral to supporting advanced STEM achievement.” It does this, suggests the 2014 study, because of the “need to flexibly select and apply rules when speaking multiple languages.”

Perhaps this is why, as Morgan’s team points out, “Children who are English language learners have been reported to be more likely to be identified as gifted during elementary school,” citing a large-scale 2020 study.

3. Further support for the “big-fish-little-pond” theory.

This theory claims that students at schools with higher average math achievement “may adopt lower self-concepts, leading to lower effort and achievement in science and mathematics by the affected students,” according to Morgan et al. And this is consistent with what they found: Children attending elementary schools with higher math achievement were less likely themselves to be high achievers—objectively, not relative to their classmates—a sort of negative peer effect. The impact was as strong as attending a school with a high rate of poverty, as defined by the proportion of students eligible for free lunch. In fact, only race, ethnicity, and gender were more significant negative factors.

This is also consistent with a 2008 study by the University of Oxford’s Herbert Marsh and colleagues, which found that the big-fish-little-pond effect is “remarkably robust, generalizing over a wide variety of different individual student and contextual level characteristics, settings, countries, long-term follow-ups, and research designs.”

—

I’ve long argued that advanced education is important for two reasons. One, it helps maximize the potential of participating students, which is something every child deserves. And two, in better developing the talent of these advanced students, it supports America’s economic, scientific, and technological prowess in an increasingly competitive global market.

And for just as long, I’ve lamented how poorly American schools have done this for America’s low-income, Black, Hispanic, and Native American children—all of whom are less likely to participate in advanced education programs and achieve at advanced levels.

This research on science and math achievement and the STEM workforce starkly demonstrates all of this—the gaps, their causes, and their consequences. The good news is that such dire findings often serve as a call to action. And in better understanding why these disparities exist and persist, we’re better able to identify, develop, and test solutions.

———

QUOTE OF NOTE

“My analysis indicates that gifted and talented programs are a small or negligible contributor to racial segregation in U.S. elementary schools. Eliminating all gifted and talented programs nationally would have a minimal impact on standard measures of racial segregation, and the presence of a gifted and talented program does not appear to causally impact the racial composition of enrollments over time.”

—Owen Thompson, “Gifted and Talented Programs Don’t Cause School Segregation,” Education Next, January 31, 2023

———

THREE STUDIES TO STUDY

“Self-Regulated Learning and Motivation Among Gifted and High Achieving Students in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Disciplines: Examining Differences Between Students From Diverse Socioeconomic Levels,” by Nurit Paz-Baruch and Hnade Hazema, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, January 28, 2023

“Self-regulated learning (SRL) is an active process that assists students in managing their thoughts, behaviors, and emotions to navigate their learning experiences successfully. The study examined the differences in motivation and SRL between gifted and high achievers (GHAs) and typical achievers (TAs) in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) disciplines by addressing the contribution of socioeconomic status (SES)… The results indicated that among GHAs, all motivation measures were significantly higher than those of TAs, especially among students from low-SES environments. GHA students reported using more SRL strategies than TA students regarding organization, metacognition, time and learning environment, peer learning, and effort regulation. Students from low-SES environments reported using more organization strategies than those from high-SES environments, whereas TA students surpassed their GHA counterparts in critical thinking.”

“Prospective Teachers’ Beliefs About Human Intelligence in a Turkish Sample,” by Fatih Kaya, M. Talha Kaya, and Sumeyye Kaya, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, OnlineFirst, January 27, 2023

“Research consistently reports a moderate to a strong relationship between intelligence and academic performance. For about a century, the concept of intelligence has often been used in the definition of giftedness and the identification of gifted students along with other data sources, although some experts are against it. An understanding of prospective teachers' beliefs about intelligence is important to unearth how they perceive intelligence and giftedness. We replicated Warne and Burton's (2020) study with 157 prospective Turkish teachers… Like the original study, the Turkish sample showed an understanding of the relationship between education and intelligence; however, the items about biological and genetic influences on intelligence, the plausible causes of group differences, the life outcomes of intelligence, and a cross-cultural comparison of intelligence had a low response uniformity in both studies…”

“‘You Are so Smart!’: The Role of Giftedness, Parental Feedback, and Parents’ Mindsets in Predicting Students’ Mindsets,” by Michiel Boncquet, Jeroen Lavrijsen, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Karine Verschueren, and Bart Soenens, Gifted Child Quarterly, Volume 66, Issue 3, April 2022

“Although it has been hypothesized that gifted students are at risk for adopting a fixed mind-set, research revealed inconsistent results. We aimed to clarify this by differentiating between two operationalizations of giftedness (high cognitive ability and formal identification as gifted) and how these relate to students’ beliefs about intelligence and effort. Also, we examined the role of parental antecedents on students’ beliefs. Participants were 3,329 seventh-grade students and their parents. Only being labeled as gifted was related to adopting a fixed mind-set. Regarding parental antecedents, parents’ intelligence and effort beliefs were related to students’ corresponding beliefs. Furthermore, parental feedback was associated with students’ beliefs, which was most pronounced when student-reports of feedback were used. In particular, person-oriented feedback related positively to a fixed mind-set and negatively to students’ appreciation of the role of effort in academic performance, while process-oriented feedback showed the opposite pattern…”

———

WRITING WORTH READING

“Parents irked as Alpine School District cancels 3rd grade gifted program,” Daily Herald [Utah], Sarah Hunt, February 3, 2023

“Governor signs proclamation naming February as Gifted Education Month in Kentucky,” Kentucky Teacher, Joe Ragusa, February 2, 2023

“The College Board strips down its A.P. curriculum for African American Studies,” New York Times, Anemona Hartocollis and Eliza Fawcett, February 1, 2023

“NYC high school admissions is overwhelming. It rewards parents like me.” Chalkbeat New York, Bliss Broyard, January 30, 2023

“The emotional characteristics of gifted children,” Exploring Your Mind, José Padilla, January 30, 2023

“In memoriam: Marcia Gentry, scholar, friend, mentor, mother, and wife,” Gifted Child Quarterly, Sally Reis and Matt Fugate, January 27, 2023

“High expectations—and frustrations: Stories of twice exceptional students desperately seeking support,” ADDitude, ADDitude Editors, January 27, 2023

“Selective standards under scrutiny as NYC Council debates school admissions,” New York Daily News, Cayla Bamberger, January 25, 2023

“As my family found out, KY schools are denying services to gifted children,” Lexington Herald Leader, Barry Saturday, January 24, 2023

“Gifted Specialists fill broad needs of 20% of students,” Madison County [Alabama] Record, Gregg Parker, January 20, 2023

From 2015 to 2018, the start of spring meant I could expect to hear from parents across Florida. At the time, I worked for Step Up Students, the Florida-based organization that administers the nation’s largest education scholarship (i.e., voucher) program. My job was not in customer service. I was the editor of a blog focused on school choice issues. But because my name, phone number, and email address were prominently displayed on the website, desperate parents would track me down with questions about where to enroll their students for the next school year:

“My daughter receives a voucher for special education students. I think she needs a hearing aid, but the district won’t prioritize her for an evaluation because we attend a private school.”

“I hear charter schools don’t take kids like mine. Is that true?”

“Can you recommend a school in the Jacksonville area for my son who has autism?”

I would try my best to help—often forwarding parents along to a colleague with relevant expertise.

The experience seared two facts into my brain. First, for parents across Florida, having meaningful choices in where their children learn has been life-changing. Second, they often feel alone navigating this growing array of options.

An under-appreciated provision contained in recent draft legislation in Florida would make history by codifying a new role in our state’s educational ecosystem to solve that problem: “choice navigators.”

As its bill number implies, HB 1 is a top priority of House Speaker Paul Renner. It’s making headlines because it would dramatically expand educational options, converting the state’s existing school choice scholarship programs into education savings accounts that, within five years, would be available to all students.

Recently, school choice advocates—nationally and in Florida—have dramatically increased their ambitions. Legislatures have shifted away from small-bore programs available to targeted populations, like low-income families or students with disabilities, toward sweeping programs that offer scholarships to all, or nearly all, students in their states. And by expanding choice via education savings accounts, policymakers are opening the door to an “a la carte” approach to education. Parents can choose schools for their kids—but they can also choose tutoring programs, enrichment activities, summer camps, and more.

In the new choice-for-all landscape, navigators will play a critical role ensuring all students—not just the privileged—are able to take advantage of the options these new and expanded programs make available.

Similar legislation is advancing in other states, but Florida’s navigator concept is unique. Parents would be required to meet annually with a choice navigator, review their child’s test scores, and select potential options that meet their needs. This would fill an often-overlooked void for parents who might otherwise feel moved to seek the advice of a hapless blog editor.

More states expanding educational options for families should explore strategies to fill that void.

Parents—especially those from marginalized backgrounds and those of students with disabilities—face barriers choosing schools for their children, accessing an array of out-of-school learning opportunities, and fighting their school systems for support their children need. Devising innovative strategies to help families overcome those barriers has been a focus of our work at the Center on Reinventing Public Education, where I’m an innovation fellow and senior writer. Organizations are springing up to help.

The role of parent navigators

The work of navigators could go beyond the process of choosing learning environments. It can also involve helping students understand their learning needs and goals (including preparation for college or career transitions), gaining access to advanced courses and career learning opportunities, or supporting parents advocating for special education screening when schools drag their feet.

Regular meetings with navigators who help parents interpret test results and other measures of student progress could help close the honesty gap, which has widened after the Covid-19 pandemic. Many parents believe their students are doing fine (thanks in part to strong report cards they’re bringing home), but state and national assessment results show many have major gaps in their learning and could benefit from tutoring and other help in which they currently show limited interest.

How can navigators be funded?

Ed Navigator and ReSchool Colorado have devised innovative business models that provide learning advice to families as a workplace benefit. Other navigator organizations, like Memphis Lift, have grassroots civil rights activism in their DNA. All of them face the same conundrum: Parents value the help they provide, but there isn’t an existing mechanism for funding their efforts at a scale that would allow them to reach a sizable number of families.

Public funding is the obvious solution, but how might that work? Florida has a funding model that may be adapted for this purpose. The state’s scholarship funding organizations (including Step up for Students) are allowed to use up to 3 percent for every scholarship they fund to cover administrative expenses. This funding—or, perhaps, a small percentage increase to account for the extra workload—would provide a simple, scalable mechanism for funding navigator services. States creating new programs could design administrative fees (which tend to be much higher than Florida’s) to cover navigator services from the start—and make them available to diverse organizations, including those that do not administer scholarships.

A second option would be to place parents in charge of navigator funding by designating navigator services as an authorized ESA expenditure. Right now, state laws typically allow parents to use ESA funding to pay for a limited set of services, like tutoring, school tuition, and online courses. Simply adding qualified navigators to this list of authorized services may be the simplest path to a reliable navigator funding. The main drawback is that it wouldn’t address the cost of navigation services for families who might choose education options beyond ESAs, such as charter schools or magnet schools.

The boldest solution would be for states to set aside categorical funding to provide every K–12 student with a navigator. Before going this route, they could fund a small-scale grant initiative to solicit bids from organizations who could operate local pilots in a small number of school districts. This would help give legislators a reasonable estimate of the costs and caseloads that organizations could bear, as well as the value to parents.

The funding question remains unresolved in Florida’s legislation, but it will be a critical issue to watch as the concept develops before the lawmakers adjourns in May.

What about governance?

Legislators will also have to figure out a governance arrangement for overseeing this new army of navigators. State government agencies are likely a poor fit for this role. Most ESA programs are administered in either the state education or treasury departments. The former often lack grassroots connections to parents, and the latter typically have little education expertise. Enlisting districts would also be a bad idea, given their incentives to steer parents toward their own choice offerings.

To reach diverse families, states could contract with a diverse mix of nonprofits like grassroots parent, disability advocacy, and community organizations with existing ties to marginalized communities, as well as new organizations focused on providing navigation services. Scholarship-providing organizations like Step up for Students might be good candidates, too.

Who is qualified to work as a navigator?

There’s a lot we don’t know about navigators. What training and regulations do they require? What business models are most effective at serving families effectively at scale? How many families could a single navigator serve effectively?

Experience with advice providers outside education suggests there should be some screening for navigator qualifications. A study published last year in the American Journal of Sociology of the thriving cottage industry of serially unemployed “career coaches” suggests it’s possible for charlatans to get paid dispensing guidance if they excel at self-promotion and conveying empathy. Students only have one chance at fourth grade; bad advice selecting learning options could be worse than no advice at all.

At the same time, uncertainty calls for humility. States should experiment, design diverse approaches to navigator services, commission research on which approaches are effective, and adjust approaches based on what they learn. This uncertainty also suggests leaders should be cautious about requiring students to use navigators.

While light-touch regulation may be prudent, an “anything goes” approach would be reckless. For example, navigators often handle sensitive information. Under Florida’s current draft legislation, they would transmit student standardized test scores to Florida State University researchers who evaluate school choice programs. At a minimum, regulations should ensure that navigators can safely work with children and families, and that families have assurance that their students’ data, which navigators often must access to do their jobs effectively, is secure.

In addition, lawmakers should guard against self-dealing, where schools or other educational providers set up navigator organizations that essentially serve as marketing arms. Navigators should have a fiduciary duty to offer advice in the best interest of the students and families they serve—not the interests of any providers that might hope to enroll students and receive a share of their scholarship funds.

Navigators matter: States should fund them

Navigators’ work has value in jurisdictions that do not have ESAs. Existing organizations support families in cities from D.C. to Denver without such programs. However, once lawmakers create programs that allow parents to direct funding to a variety of education providers—some public, some private—navigators become essential.

Advocates for the expansion of universal education scholarship accounts have embraced a slogan: Fund students, not systems. I’d like to propose a friendly amendment: Fund students and systems. Create new systems devoted to helping parents find the right options for their child, assemble learning experiences tailored to their needs, and overcome barriers along the way.

Teacher shortages have been a hot topic over the last few years. Research shows they vary from place to place, and Ohio currently lacks the data to confirm how widespread and significant they are, but there’s no denying that for some districts and schools, finding enough quality teachers is an annual hardship.

To help these schools, state and local leaders will have to work together to solve a plethora of problems that fall under two main umbrellas: recruitment and retention. Most Americans are likely familiar with retention issues, which include understandable complaints from educators about low pay, stagnant retirement benefits, and frustrating working conditions.

But recruitment issues are just as much of a factor. Consider a 2018 brief published by ACT, in which researchers used survey data to examine the responses of students who were “very” or “fairly” sure about their college major. They found that, from 2007 to 2017, high schoolers’ interest in teaching decreased significantly. This declining interest seems to have carried into the real world; the Center for American Progress indicates that enrollment in teacher-preparation programs nationally fell by more than one-third from 2010 to 2018. Ohio posted a decline of nearly 50 percent.

These are worrisome numbers on their own, but they’re even more troubling when we take into account that the teaching profession is traditionally unfriendly to career changers. Without a bachelor’s or master’s degree in education, and the time and money required to obtain them, it’s difficult for even the most committed prospective teachers to get licensed in Ohio. As a result, schools face a double whammy: Not only are there fewer teachers coming out of colleges of education, there aren’t many coming via alternative routes either.

Grow Your Own (GYO) programs can help. These programs are appropriately named because they focus teacher recruitment efforts on people living in the local community: paraprofessionals or substitute teachers who already work in schools, college graduates who are looking to change careers, and high school students who are interested in education as a future career. They are typically partnerships between local school districts, higher education, and community-based organizations or nonprofits that work together to train prospective teachers and get them certified. And while they can take the form of teacher residencies—programs that embed teacher candidates into a school for clinical training while also providing coursework and financial compensation—they don’t have to.

GYO programs offer a host of potential benefits. The most obvious is that they can help replenish the teacher pipeline by recruiting and training more educators, especially in hard-to-staff subjects or grade levels. Their focus on local communities is also a benefit, as research indicates that many teachers prefer working in or around the communities in which they grew up. Most importantly, though, GYO programs can help diversify the teacher workforce, which can improve a wide range of student outcomes. A recent study of six GYO programs that were designed and administered by TNTP indicates that they added seventy-four more teachers of color than might have otherwise been hired by the six participating districts.

The good news is that Ohio has already dipped its toes in the GYO program pool. Sinclair Community College and Mad River Local Schools have developed a teacher academy that allows high school students interested in becoming teachers to get a sneak peek into the profession and earn college credit through College Credit Plus. Lorain County Community College offers something similar, and several program alumni are already teachers. A state-established taskforce charged with examining how Ohio could diversify its educator workforce has recommend expanding GYO programs. And Ohio’s Human Capital Resource Center has an entire page devoted to doing so, including toolkits for how to design programs and how to address barriers.

To truly reap the potential benefits of GYO programs, though, state leaders need to do more. Here are two ideas.

1. Include a revised version of House Bill 667 in the state budget

House Bill 667, which was proposed last spring but not passed, sought to establish the Grow Your Own Teacher College Scholarship Program. This program proposed four-year scholarships worth up to $7,500 per year to eligible high school students and district employees who committed to teaching in a qualifying school—one that was operated by the same district from which they graduated or where they were employed, and where at least 50 percent of students were eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch. Scholarship recipients would be required to teach in these schools within six years of completing a teacher preparation program, and for a duration of at least four years. The bill appropriated $25 million for FY 2022 and 2023, and specified that teacher candidates had to attend a traditional teacher training program, either at a state or private, nonprofit college or university.

The underlying idea behind HB 667 is a good one. It’s not cheap to become a teacher, and easing the financial burden for high schoolers and career changers could bolster the teacher pipeline. Requiring scholarship recipients to teach in districts that they graduated from or worked for is also firmly in line with the unique mission of GYO programs. But by limiting the scholarship to candidates who attend traditional teacher training programs, the bill eliminated the possibility that high-quality alternative programs—like TNTP, which administered the GYO programs that were found to have increased diversity in several districts’ hiring—could contribute.

To be fair, there aren’t many alternative teacher preparation programs currently operating in Ohio. Teach For America (TFA) is the only sizable one, and that’s likely because state law includes a provision that grants TFA participants traditional teacher licenses (known as resident educator licenses), even though they’ve been trained via an alternative program. If state law allowed other alternative programs—rigorous, high-quality ones with solid track records of improving student outcomes—to enjoy the same privilege, then GYO programs might be a lot more prevalent than they are now.

With these issues in mind, state lawmakers should do a few things. First, incorporate the bill language from HB 667 into the state budget. Second, amend that language to specify that teacher candidates who attend state-approved alternative teacher preparation programs are also eligible for the scholarship. And third, establish a process for alternative training programs—like those who run effective GYO programs in other states—to gain approval through the Ohio Department of Higher Education to grant their participants resident educator licenses. Revising the law in this way would encourage highly-effective training programs in other states to expand to Ohio, and would open the door for schools of all stripes to create their own GYO programs.

2. Leverage current law to create a statewide initiative

Current law permits the department of education to award grants to schools to assist in various innovation efforts, including “the implementation of ‘grow your own’ recruitment strategies.” It also allows for “the development and implementation of a partnership with teacher preparation programs” that would aid in attracting teachers who are “qualified to teach in shortage areas.” Both these provisions make it possible for state leaders to heavily invest in an initiative that supports GYO programs. Unfortunately, the state has largely left that work to local districts. They’ve done a decent enough job, but if Ohio wants to capitalize on the potential of these programs, state leaders need to do more.

Other states offer plenty of examples. Illinois, for instance, has funded a statewide GYO initiative, Grow Your Own Illinois (GYO-IL), since the late 2000s. The most recent legislative report available on its website indicates that, in 2021, the program served 257 prospective teacher candidates across Illinois, and that two-thirds of those candidates identified as teachers of color. In Tennessee, state leaders used federal Covid relief funding to establish a statewide GYO competitive grant program. In total, it’s awarded $6.5 million to grow your own grants promising to “create pathways to become a teacher for free.” Tennessee has also given the go ahead to several preparation programs to offer teacher apprenticeships as part of its GYO initiative. Ohio could follow in the footsteps of either of these states, or it could create its own program from the ground up. Either way, schools and students would benefit.

***

GYO programs aren’t a silver bullet for all of Ohio’s teacher shortage woes. But effectively cultivating GYO programs could produce an influx of new teachers that schools didn’t have before. Even better, it could help diversify the profession and improve student outcomes. That seems like a win-win worthy of investment.

1. Here’s a nicely-detailed look at major education funding provisions included in Governor DeWine’s budget proposal. It all seems pretty chill if you ask me, even when discussing how likely it is that the proposals will pass in the General Assembly as DeWine has outlined them. Chad Aldis and Aaron Churchill are both quoted in the section on charter school funding changes. (Cleveland.com, 2/6/23)
   
   

2. The previous piece discusses voucher expansion proposals made by both Governor DeWine and via a separate bill currently pending in the Senate. Both are, in a word, seismic. However, Akron City Schools is actively hoping that neither of them comes to fruition apparently, as its new enrollment projection report specifically keeps voucher eligibility static over the next 10 years. It’s called “planning” in the piece, but that feels like a misnomer to me at this point. (Akron Beacon Journal, 2/6/23)
   
   

3. And speaking of pre-pandemic lows (were we?), here’s a look at how some northwest Ohio districts are working to re-attain the non-lofty heights of reading proficiency among their kiddos notched in 2019. While we don’t get any detail of what specifically Toledo City Schools is doing, the implementation of LETRS protocols in Springfield Local Schools is, it seems, something of a miracle. (See today’s headline quote.) So much so, in fact, that officials there are actually planning to use it in more than just first grade. Miraculous indeed. (WTOL-TV, 2/3/23)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.