The number of English learner (EL) students enrolled in public schools has grown substantially in the United States over the past two decades. How has this impacted non-EL students in those schools? New research aims to find out.

A group of RAND researchers take advantage of the fact that EL growth has recently occurred in many new communities unaccustomed to serving large numbers of EL students, which allows them to look at the impacts on a relatively clean slate. They chose the state of Delaware—whose share of ELs in public schools rose from 2 percent in 2000 (ranked 38th among all states) to 11 percent in 2019 (ranked 9th), outpacing all but South Carolina in the growth of this student population. And they analyze the school years 2015–16 through 2018–19. Student-level administrative data cover all students in grades four through eight, including their scores on state English language arts (ELA) and math test scores as well as their end-of-year summative assessments in those two subjects.

Students were sorted into five groups in each year of the study: new students, who entered public schools anywhere in the state during a given year; new ELs, who were identified as English learners in their first year of enrollment; existing students, who were previously enrolled at the start of a given year; existing current ELs, who were already in an EL program at the start of a given year; and existing former ELs, who were previously identified as English Learners but were classified out at any point during a given year. Since ELs are not randomly assigned to schools, the researchers leverage the within-school-year and across-grade variation in new EL concentration to study the effects of ELs on existing students. Because the main assignment criteria—student age—is the same for all pupils, focusing on grade bands hopefully lessens the influence of unobserved student characteristics. They also control for the effects of possible attrition among existing students who might leave in reaction to an influx of EL peers.

Overall, they find that a 5 percentage-point increase in new EL student share improved the ELA test scores of existing students in that grade level by 0.04 of a standard deviation (SD), which is statistically significant, and math scores by 0.02 SD, which is not. They found the strongest significant effects accruing to existing current ELs (improvements of 0.15 SD in ELA and math with a 5 percentage-point increase in new ELs) and former ELs (improvements of 0.08 SD in ELA and 0.012 SD in math). Other groups showed small but non-significant positive effects.

The researchers theorize that these impacts were caused mainly by a boost in classroom resources (teachers, aides, curricula, technology, etc.) deployed to support new EL arrivals, and which “spilled over” to their peers. They run dual analyses to show that the same spillover effects do not occur with an increase in the share of new non-EL students. However, this examination includes no specifics about changes in school funding amounts or spending categories, so their findings remain speculative. But their main point stands: Not only does an increase in the number of new English learner students not seem to harm the academic outcomes of current students in this context—regardless of EL status—it may even serve to increase outcomes almost across the board.

SOURCE: Sy Doan et al., “Educational Spillover Effects of New English Learners in a New Destination State,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (October 2024).

Within just a few short months, there will be a new occupant of the Oval Office and, with that, a new administration in charge of the education and workforce regulatory regime. As one of the primary parties responsible for authorizing and holding accountable private-sector education and career-training providers, the regulatory processes that Uncle Sam oversees are massively consequential in shaping pathways to careers throughout the nation. Hence, with the election upon us, it’s worth considering the Biden-Harris administration’s legacy with regard to these regulatory practices, especially given that a Harris-Walz administration would likely sustain similar ones.

The results leave much to be desired. Over the past three and a half years, a steady stream of regulatory and sub-regulatory barriers enacted at the federal level have made it harder for career-training and education programs to connect people with jobs. Though intended to promote “consumer protection,” many of these barriers seem almost purposely designed to kill innovation and opportunity, not only deterring new providers from entering markets but also keeping poorly performing ones locked inside.

Today, an entrepreneur with a creative idea to better serve learners looking to leverage their education for a better job finds it almost impossible to qualify for and receive meaningful funding via learners’ Pell Grants, student loans, or workforce training dollars from federal programs like the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act. Some providers will even encounter barriers to receiving indirect support (such as serving as a vendor to an eligible provider) thanks to proposals that threaten to regulate so-called “third-party servicers,” which help to deliver online programs and other services to colleges and universities. Conversely, a provider that has been failing learners for decades is now almost impossible to remove from funding eligibility, particularly if it is a nonprofit or public entity. (More on this below.) And increasingly, when learners themselves fail, they are bailed out with ever-greater taxpayer subsidies (such as the current administration’s recent loan-forgiveness efforts), which only serve to perpetuate the failure of incompetent providers that were previously approved.

Although this dynamic has been steadily worsening for decades, regulatory actions from the Biden-Harris administration have exacerbated it, thwarting nearly any potential for substantive, market-driven improvement in favor of misguided efforts at consumer protection. Among other things, it has subsidized a broken college finance system with student loan forgiveness, attacked innovative providers by restricting how they are allowed to operate, and made workforce training more difficult to access through regulations that merely stack new barriers upon already imposing piles. To effectively serve learners, the next generation of federal regulators ought to abandon today’s obsession with trying to bubble wrap them in “protective” regulations and instead embrace a flexible structure that allows anyone to serve learners, with additional funds flowing to only those who succeed.

Perhaps the most conspicuous means by which these changes could be implemented is through the lowering of some of the regulatory barriers that prevent private-sector providers from gaining access to funding streams. The reduction of these barriers would spur performance and innovation by allowing more providers to enter the market and compete with existing powerhouses. Conversely, regulators ought to also implement a system of results-based accountability to ensure that existing providers are continuing to produce positive outcomes. This would lead under-performing providers to lose access to the same funding, further fostering competition.

Both of these changes would prove particularly constructive in certain fields, such as college accreditation, where the entire market is dominated by six legacy accreditors, which, despite consistently failing to ensure positive outcomes, enjoy regional monopolies due to the fact that they’ve been deemed “too big to fail” by the regulators who are ostensibly in charge of holding them accountable. If regulators were to make it easier for such actors to lose their access to federal funds, legacy accreditors would be forced to either keep pace with newer, higher-performing, competitors or risk being pushed out of the playing field altogether.

Actors outside of the federal government can aide efforts to create a more competitive environment in the education and workforce space. A number of recent examples, such as the enduring court battle disputing the legality of the Biden-Harris administration’s student loan forgiveness efforts or state legislation requiring public universities to periodically switch accreditors, have proven that bold and principled pushback can effectively protect against further regulatory creep. Similar responses, particularly if they are backed by considerable popular support or sturdy legal grounding, can be enormously effective tools for signaling disapproval and discouraging regulators from taking further meddlesome actions. Even still, many of these measures are merely temporary fixes, as a clean regulatory state can likely only come from Congress.

In short, all education or training providers should be evaluated on the basis of their ability to produce quality outcomes and provide pathways to jobs rather than their ability (or lack thereof) to navigate mountains of complicated regulations. Granted, no measure gauging the success of outcomes will be without fault, but there are metrics that already exist, such as return on investment, that could easily be used as the basis for a federal system of accountability.

With a new presidential administration inbound, some of the most impactful measures to remedy this system could be instituted rather speedily. Indeed, some will be as simple as federal regulators recognizing new accrediting agencies, granting minimal additional flexibilities in workforce funding streams, and experimenting with accountability regimes that hold colleges accountable over the outcomes they produce. Affordable and accessible paths to good jobs are possible and no doubt worth pursuing. However, success in this arena will not be cheaply earned. It will depend on private actors, state governments, and federal officials who are willing to take action to bring it about.

Under pressure from public school groups, Ohio lawmakers last year gutted retention requirements that had been in place under the Third Grade Reading Guarantee. This was a setback in Ohio’s otherwise praiseworthy early literacy efforts, as retention—via the extra time and support it provides—has proven to benefit children struggling to acquire basic reading skills. Without a requirement, schools tend to resort to “social promotion,” a discredited practice that advances students to the next grade despite being unprepared for the work they’ll be asked to do.

The legislature did not outright scrap reading retention, but eviscerated it by adding a massive loophole. Under the new policy, schools may promote third graders with reading deficiencies if parents approve. We at Fordham expressed concerns that this would amount to little more than a checkbox exercise that largely entails collecting signatures from parents. The net effect would be the same as a retention-free policy, with overwhelming majorities of third graders being promoted to fourth grade.

The new policy went into effect starting in the 2023–24 school year. The results are, sad to say, as predicted. Across Ohio, virtually every third grader—regardless of reading skill—was promoted to fourth grade. Statewide, an astonishing 98.3 percent of third graders were promoted, and a large majority of districts reported universal third grade promotion rates.

Figure 1 shows that 409 out of 605 Ohio districts promoted 100 percent of third graders last year, while another 187 districts reported rates above 95 percent. Just nine districts reported rates below that mark, with Garfield Heights promoting the lowest percentage at 82 percent. This chart also shows the impact of rolling back the retention mandate. Grade promotion was significantly lower in 2018–19, the last year Ohio enforced third-grade reading retention. Results from the past two years,[1] however, show that social promotion returned en masse in the absence of a clear retention requirement.

Figure 1: Number of school districts by third-grade promotion rate, selected years

Of course, universal promotion would be perfectly acceptable if third graders were achieving reading proficiency across the board. But that’s not happening in most places. Table 1 displays fifteen districts with the largest discrepancies in their third-grade promotion versus proficiency rates. The largest gap is found in East Cleveland, where just 25 percent of third graders achieved reading proficiency last year, but 100 percent (!) were promoted to fourth grade. Jefferson Township near Dayton and Richmond Heights near Cleveland also promoted 100 percent of third graders, despite less than one-third demonstrating proficiency. Three of the Ohio Eight big-city districts—Toledo, Dayton, and Columbus—also appear on this list. All three promoted more than 97 percent of third graders, even though just two in five achieved reading proficiency.

Table 1: Districts with the largest gap in third-grade promotion versus proficiency rates, 2023–24

The next table takes a closer look at all of the Ohio Eight districts’ promotion and proficiency rates, ordered by the size of their gap. Alongside the trio of districts mentioned above, Canton, Akron, and Cincinnati also promoted nearly all third graders (more than 97 percent), despite posting proficiency rates between 47 and 58 percent. Meanwhile, Cleveland and Youngstown promoted 88 and 89 percent of third graders, two of the lowest rates in the state. To their credit, they put the brakes on advancing a relatively large handful of third graders, but still—given their low reading proficiency rates—this is nowhere near the number of students who need the extra time and support.

Table 2: Ohio Eight districts’ third-grade promotion versus proficiency rates, 2023–24

The reluctance of state policymakers and schools to retain students who need more help is deeply troubling. Children across Ohio, including places such as East Cleveland, Columbus, and Dayton, all need a strong reading foundation to tackle the more complex and challenging materials that come in middle and high school. Unfortunately, without a retention mandate, there is no longer a clear-cut assurance—a true “guarantee”—that they will receive the time and supports to become strong readers. When no one stops to intervene, research finds that students become frustrated and many of them decide school isn’t worth it and drop out.

Ohio can’t turn a blind eye to reading deficiencies and social promotion. To be sure, the state is taking positive steps forward in moving schools toward evidence-based instruction known as the science of reading. If implemented well, this effort should increase reading achievement and reduce the need for interventions over the long haul. But after yet another year of system-wide social promotion and too many students falling short of reading proficiency, it’s time for Ohio policymakers to reinstate the third grade retention requirement. 

News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. Just sayin’.

1. In case you may have forgotten, the big voucher groucher trial was initially scheduled to begin this week in a Franklin County court. It was recently pushed into 2025—exact date TBD—which has allowed at least one straggler district time to join the suit. The elected school board of tiny Poland Local Schools voted 4-1 to spend $2 of their per student state funding (about $3,400 per year, which the lone dissenter was certain could be put to more beneficial use for Poland’s students) to sue the state to end all voucher programs, but especially the EdChoice Scholarship Program. According to this piece, the main agitator testifying before the elected board last week actually said the delay was enacted partly “to give more districts a chance to sign on”. I am going to hope that the reporter misunderstood whatever the real comment was…because that would be a pretty egregious fib if uttered. (Vindy.com, 11/4/24)
   
   

2. My wife and I have the cool (no…) weird (hey!) quirky (closer) whimsical habit of visiting various power generation-related sites as vacation destinations. The list includes two nuclear power museums, a geothermal plant in Iceland, and Hoover Dam. We call them “power trips”. (Hilarious, right?!) So imagine how charmed I was to learn that the Gaseous Diffusion plant in Portsmouth, Ohio, hosts an event called Science Alliance every year for local high school students. Plant workers, college science faculty and students, and other tech-based employers are at the plant for a full day of fun, education, and opportunity for kids to learn about college and career pathways. Super awesome! There’s no list of invited/attending high schools given in this brief but awesome coverage, so I will pretend that charter and private school students were at least welcomed to be there and hope that several actually attended. If not, why not, energy execs? Science supervisors? Power proprietors? How about you share the power and the knowledge with everyone? (Chillicothe Gazette, 11/4/24)

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

The Economist recently made the case that the United States economy is the envy of the world. American workers are exceptionally productive and innovative, and the corresponding increase in personal income and economic growth leaves “other rich countries in the dust.” Some education experts find this continued economic exceptionalism surprising because our students, on average, underperform on international tests.[1] But comparing average student test scores across countries obscures just how much cognitive ability the U.S. labor force possesses. Similarly, comparing average test scores across U.S. states masks the considerable talent in Ohio. That said, whereas the U.S. appears to put its talent to good use, Ohio struggles to retain its high achievers.

Harvard professor Paul Peterson and his colleagues (including Hoover Institution fellow Eric Hanushek) released an analysis in 2011 that illustrates just how variable student achievement is across the United States. They examined the test scores of U.S. eighth graders in 2007 (students who are helping to drive today’s economy) and compared them to the test scores of students across sixty-five countries participating in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA).[2] The U.S., on average, found itself near the middle of the pack in terms of its proficiency rates—on par with the U.K. and Italy in math—but states like Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, and North Dakota stacked up quite well internationally. In math, Massachusetts ranked just ahead of Japan and Canada, and only six countries ranked higher (Singapore, South Korea, Finland, Taiwan, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland). Several U.S. states found themselves near the top in reading proficiency rates. Ohio wasn’t among the very highest-performing states, but still only eight countries significantly outperformed it in reading. When focusing only on average scores nationwide, we lose sight of states where students compete with the highest performers internationally.

Comparing average test scores across states similarly obscures variation within them. Ohio’s average eighth grade test scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) put it among the top twenty U.S. states in math and the top ten states in reading (both pre- and post-pandemic), but those respectable rankings obscure variation among Ohio students. For example, consider differences between students who are and are not eligible for free or reduced-price lunches (FRPL). Although Ohio ranks in the middle of the pack in terms of the math and reading achievement of its FRPL students, in both 2019 and 2022 Ohio ranked in the top ten for the achievement of its non-FRPL students. Indeed, Ohio may very well be in the top five—as it was in 2019 for both reading and math—due to our students’ impressive post-pandemic recovery in reading since 2022. (We’ll know more next calendar year, when the next round of NAEP results is released.)

Table 1. Ohio’s rank among U.S. states on eighth grade NAEP

That the performance of Ohio’s economically disadvantaged students roughly tracks the national average is concerning. Indeed, the decline in Ohio’s average student achievement prior to the pandemic was driven entirely by Ohio’s economically disadvantaged students. As the figure below reveals, between 2013 and 2019, the achievement of non-FRPL students increased from 301 to 302, whereas the achievement of FRPL students declined 9 points, from 274 to 265 points. The results are similar for reading.

Figure 1. Math scale scores, eighth grade NAEP, U.S. and Ohio, by eligibility for FRPL

The precipitous decline in economically disadvantaged students’ basic skills threatens their futures, as the returns to numeracy skills are especially large in the U.S. We must make sure all families have high-quality educational options, particularly in Ohio’s largest school districts, in order to improve economically disadvantaged students’ achievement.[3] My recent evidence-based suggestions for addressing these test score declines, and Ohio’s current efforts to address chronic absenteeism, should go a long way toward reversing test score declines among these students.

Ohio’s large stock of high achievers

When it comes to the role of cognitive skills in driving economic growth, however, an important takeaway is that Ohio has a large stock of high-achieving students relative to other U.S. states. The roughly 50 percent of Ohio students who are not economically disadvantaged have, on average, remarkable levels of academic achievement in eighth grade—nearly on par with the highest-performing states of Massachusetts, Minnesota, and Washington, and just behind the national leader, New Jersey. Now consider the fact that Ohio is far larger. That means that Ohio is producing a large skilled labor force relative to other states. This is exactly the type of labor force that can help drive economic growth and the well-being of all Ohioans. Indeed, to the extent that the post-2012 achievement declines among economically disadvantaged students are due to out-of-school hardships following the Great Recession, promoting economic growth could itself be an important driver of future student achievement.

A top priority for Ohio policymakers should be talent retention. High-achieving Ohio students must be encouraged to obtain a college education in our state, as research indicates that students are likely to work where they attended college and that Ohio is a net exporter of four-year college graduates. That same research also indicates that those who attend selective colleges are most likely to leave their home state, which means the exodus from Ohio is even more consequential than the rates of out-of-state college attendance imply. Programs like the Governor’s Merit Scholarship for top Ohio students are a potentially important step in trying to retain Ohio’s impressive pool of skilled labor. Continuing to improve the state’s K–12 schools, paired with a focus on retaining Ohio’s remarkably high-achieving students, is a recipe for a bright future for all Ohioans.

Stories featured in Ohio Charter News Weekly may require a paid subscription to read in full.

Following up

Last week, we noted that Dohn Community High School in Cincinnati experienced some fiscal troubles that derailed the start of the school year and resulted in the departure of more than 50 staffers, including the long-time superintendent. This week, we learned that Cincinnati Charter School Collaborative, the entity that ran Dohn for years, was also terminated by the school’s board and is now under investigation by the Auditor of State’s office.

Disrespect, disappointment, and a legal dispute

Earlier this month, charter school students in Schuylkill County, Pennsylvania, were turned away from a community-wide college fair, despite having scheduled meetings with recruiters there. The district on whose grounds the event took place says the students of Gillingham Charter School were invited by accident and were disinvited before the event with the explanation that it was intended for traditional district students only. Gillingham officials sued the event organizer—an educational service center in the region—alleging a number of serious constitutional and civil rights violations for both the exclusionary nature of the fair and for the treatment students and staffers received on site. Last week, district lawyers responded, saying the suit was without merit and asserting that an agreement had been reached regarding the rescinded invitation long before the date of the fair and that Gillingham’s arrival at the fair was an “orchestrated and premeditated” act in contravention of that agreement.

Ohio charter school students learning and building community

Middle school students from Heir Force Community School in Lima recently spent the day at Ohio Northern University, working with and learning from engineering students there. It’s an annual event designed to get youngsters excited about science and going to college. Sounds awesome! Also super awesome: Maritime Career Day in Toledo, hosted by the National Museum of the Great Lakes earlier this week. High school students from far and wide were invited to the event to help raise awareness of the “huge cross section of maritime careers” available to them in the region. Kudos to the students of Maritime Academy of Toledo—whose unique charter school has already helped prepare them for such careers—for joining in to educate their peers.

Novel efforts to combat chronic absenteeism

Two of the leaders of Caliber Public Schools, a charter school network in California, discussed their efforts to cut down on chronic student absenteeism. These focus on nonpunitive approaches involving data analysis, family outreach, and something called “Mystery Fridays”. You’ll have to read the piece to see what that is! By the end of the 2023-24 school year, the network had reduced chronic absenteeism by more than 13 percentage points, from 40 percent to 26.8 percent. And in the first month of 2024-25, they report an average of 95 percent daily attendance.

*****

Did you know you can have every edition of the Ohio Charter News Weekly sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

In 1990, 48 percent of our nation’s eighth graders had very weak math skills. How did we know? They scored in the lowest performance category, Below Basic, on the national test given to a sample of American students every two years.[1]

By 2013, something remarkable had happened. The share of eight graders Below Basic was just 26 percent.

Even better, the progress was shared across every demographic group. For example, the percentage of Black students with Below Basic scores dropped from 78 to 48 percent.

It was an incredible victory for American schools. Fewer struggling math students meant more opportunities to complete advanced coursework, qualify for good jobs, and earn higher wages.

Unbeknownst to us at the time, 2013 turned out to be the high-water mark. Achievement stopped improving. First, it stagnated. Then, toward the end of 2010s, it began to decline. And finally, along came Covid.

Below, you can see the picture as of 2022. The share of low performing math students increased compared to 2013 for each racial group—with especially large jumps for Black and Hispanic eighth graders. Much of the progress from the earlier period eroded.

Why did this happen?

Short answer: No one seems to know.

This goes far beyond the pandemic

We’re in the midst of an education depression. By depression, I mean an extended era of shrinking outcomes and opportunity. I hesitate to call it a “great” depression because that feels hyperbolic. But the duration—over a decade already—makes the term plausible.

I’m not the first to describe this problem. Mike Petrilli and Chad Aldeman are just a few of the policy-world voices who have been sounding the alarm for years. Journalists have covered it. In the past month alone, Kevin Huffman wrote about it in the The Washington Post and Jessica Grose of The New York Times generated chatter by calling it the crisis that neither presidential candidate has a plan to address.

But due to a generalized stance of denial in the public sphere, this is still news to many people. If that’s true for you, don’t feel bad. Plenty of education conversations at the state and local level revolve narrowly around recovering from Covid learning loss—as if it would be a momentous victory to return to 2019 achievement.

Wrong. Our true problem is larger. For more than thirty years, education indicators almost uniformly got better. We occupied ourselves by arguing (sometimes aggressively) about whether they were improving fast enough and whether marginalized students could close gaps entirely with more privileged students.

Those debates are no longer happening. Why? Because we’re moving in the wrong direction. Who wouldn’t love to return to the good old days when our biggest grievance was the velocity of our victory? It’s now become easier to ignore the big problem than to fix it.

Is there any evidence of this so-called “depression” beyond national test scores?

Yes, loads of it.

• Absenteeism. Longtime readers remember that I covered this issue in detail last fall, and there’s still regular mainstream news coverage, so I’ll spare you a lengthy recap. At its core, absenteeism reflects disengagement from school on the part of students and families. In 2014, just 14 percent of students were chronically absent. In 2023, it was 26 percent. Figures are up in every single state that measures absenteeism.
• Higher education. Participation in college has moved steadily in one direction—up—for pretty much the entirety of American history. Until recently. In 2012, 41 percent of eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds had enrolled in a two- or four-year school. In 2022, enrollment declined to 39 percent. That drop is small, but dig beneath the surface and there are surprising trends. Enrollment in two-year colleges was down 34 percent over the decade, with declines particularly driven by White students, who are more likely than peers to express skepticism about the quality of education colleges are offering. The FAFSA debacle has further depressed enrollment. Views of higher ed have split along partisan lines. A college crisis is brewing.
• Reading. Let’s put achievement aside for a moment. We prioritize literacy among elementary students partly to create lifelong, passionate readers. How’s that going? In 2012, 27 percent of thirteen-year-olds reported that they read for fun “almost every day.” By 2020—in surveys taken before the pandemic—the figure had dropped to 17 percent. That’s a big change in eight years. For the first time since the survey was launched in 1984, the share of kids who “never or hardly ever” read for fun—29 percent—exceeded the share that reads almost every day.

Make a list of educational outcomes that matter to you personally. Then look up whether those measures were better for your local community in 2013 than they are now. I’m willing to bet you’ll see much the same pattern.

Why does this depression attract so little notice?

There was an era from the 1980s until Barack Obama’s second term characterized by heightened national attention to learning standards, school improvement, choice, and test-based accountability. Almost everyone uses the same term for it: education reform.

This past decade—which has been seen a shift away from reform priorities in addition to falling performance—has no name. It’s the nameless depression.

When I ask folks about this, they bring up a few dynamics:

1. Losses were concentrated among low-performing students. We have roughly the same number of high-performers on national tests as a decade ago. Far more students are receiving perfect scores on the ACT exam. Elite colleges are awash in qualified applicants. At the same time, we have more struggling students—and their achievement levels are noticeably lower than was the case for strugglers in 2013. Old gaps have re-opened. But elite, affluent communities with highly educated (and influential) populations have been substantially spared.
2. We can blame COVID. In some respects, this is reasonable. Learning setbacks related to the pandemic were enormous and lasting. But it’s misleading to suggest that our educational downturn began when schools sent kids home in March 2020. The depression was well underway. Covid only exacerbated it. We can’t use Covid as a permanent get-out-of-jail-free card. Nor should public officials over-celebrate small gains that only cement our anemic recovery.
3. Test scores lost credibility. Data showing declining achievement have been clear and publicly available. But in the wake of the reform movement, nobody wanted to discuss it. In the 2010s, teachers unions and fed-up parents waged war on testing—nearly succeeding in removing the federal requirement to assess students annually in math and reading.[2] Additionally, almost every state changed its tests—some more than once—during the transition to new learning standards. It was difficult to compare results from one year to another. The construction dust led observers to overlook a national pattern.
4. There were conflicting signals. Not every indicator has deteriorated in the past decade. High school graduation rates, for instance, have climbed significantly, from 80 to 87 percent. Hard to complain about good news. But graduation rates are almost entirely controlled by local schools. If they relax expectations and inflate grades—which is exactly what researchers find they’ve been doing—graduation rates will rise even if students are performing worse. Academic leniency has papered over learning deficits in many communities.

What now?

The original Great Depression ended when the American economy mobilized for World War II. We can’t wait around for a geopolitical event to fix this mess. We need leadership.

Some things for us to do:

• Acknowledge reality. It’s time to stop pretending. This applies to everyone—not just education officials. Funders and non-profits are just as guilty of hiding out in recent years. I’m on the email distribution list for dozens of organizations. Most of them never mention the crisis we’re in. It’s long been fashionable to say we are “data driven,” but the past decade suggests that’s a hollow claim. Having the wrong frame for our situation has prevented us from setting the right course.
• Resist the urge to find a simplistic scapegoat. Remember, our declines are evident in all fifty states. There is no national conspiracy to deliver poor results. Schools have focused on the priorities we’ve given them in the best ways they know. We can’t write off long-term trends to hot-button issues—like book bans or DEI initiatives—that draw big heat in a handful of places. My concern is that we have not been clear with schools about what’s most important and we have asked them to focus on too many things outside their core competence.
• Brace ourselves. In just a few months, we’ll have a new president and another round of NAEP results. We don’t know whether we’re about to see signs of hope or new reasons for despair. Based on state test scores released for 2023–24, I am not optimistic about big gains on NAEP.[3]
• Pass a new federal education law. The Every Student Succeeds Act, enacted in 2015, has been a dismal failure. It is wholly unsuited to our present challenges. We need bipartisan congressional leadership to develop a successor for the new era. Where will that leadership come from?
• Stop playing small ball. In the face of this depression, it often feels like our available solutions are piecemeal. Let’s start by establishing clear goals. Where will we be in 2030? 2035? And how big must our ideas be to get us there?

Next month, I’ll accept my own challenge and offer a few possibilities. Thanks for reading.

Editor’s note: This was first published on the author’s Substack, The Education Daly.

News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. Just sayin’.

1. Channel 4 News in Columbus has heard that Dublin City Schools is highly recommended by local parents of students with special needs, and that families are moving there specifically for the quality of services offered. District personnel are happy to explain at length how and why they are so awesome. If it were me telling the tale, I might have added the note that it ain’t cheap to live within the Dublin City Schools borders and that they do not allow interdistrict open enrollment, but I am probably alone in wanting to include a follow-up question of this nature and bring dim reality into an otherwise sunny story. (NBC 4 News, Columbus, 10/31/24)
   
   

2. Dayton City Schools, too, is touting a sliver of its awesomeness today. Specifically, the “success” of its International School. The handful of Gadfly Bites subscribers with long-enough memories (howdy, you four; you rock, despite some questionable judgment in thrice-weekly reading material) will recall that this effort—to cram all non-English-speaking students from K-12 into one building along with the handful of local neighborhood students who wanted to attend—raised some questions with your humble clips compiler when proposed in 2022. One of my biggest concerns was a small student population at the start (even smaller than the gen ed school had when it was supposed to be closed due to chronic underenrollment). That has clearly been eliminated as a problem, given the student numbers touted here—one assumes by families having fewer options since all the English Learner resources of the district are now concentrated in this one building. Most or all of the 60 or so English-speaker students from the neighborhood seem to attend a separate Montessori program in the building. yay. And while district leaders say that students are learning English, growing in ability, and performing academically (although the school got one star on its report card, the least possible, but it’s “overall score” was higher than four other district buildings—by which I think they mean Performance Index), there are a lot more references to and focus on behavior management (as in, “how to behave in an American school”) than to test scores or reading prowess. So yeah. Feels like today’s theme is “tout awesomeness wherever you can”. But do so in the hope you don’t have to answer any follow-up questions. (Dayton Daily News, 11/1/24)

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

It is rare, but not unusual, for presidents to ask members of the opposing party to serve on their cabinets. Both Trump and Biden were strictly partisan with their appointments, but if Vice President Harris wins, she has pledged to bring back the symbolic gesture, historically used at key moments to project unity and bipartisanship—both of which will be in short supply no matter who emerges triumphant from this coarse election contest. The defense secretary stands out as the most common fit for such an appointment (e.g., William Cohen under President Clinton and Robert Gates under President George W. Bush and President Obama). But there’s a compelling argument to make that a President Harris would do well to shine a spotlight on education, given the federal government’s retreat on the issue in recent years.

Picking a Republican to serve as education secretary would also be uniquely historic: None of the twelve men and women who have served as the nation’s top education officer ever did so under a Commander in Chief of a different party. The New York Times recently ran a list of GOP prospects for the Harris cabinet that featured a constellation of former and current state and federal officials. Let’s work from that to see if any might fit the bill, and speculate on the implications for Uncle Sam’s role in education:

1. Sen. Mitt Romney (UT): Not seeking re-election to the Senate, Romney would be a brow-raising choice—at least among “progressives”—for education secretary, in light of his “vigorous opposition” to blanket student loan forgiveness. But he would be a breath of fresh air, given his track record on the issue dating back to his tenure as Governor of Massachusetts:

We added more school choice. My legislature tried to say no more charter schools. I vetoed that, overturned that… These kinds of principles drove our schools to be pretty successful. As a matter of fact, there are four measures on which the federal government looks at schools state by state. My state's number one among all the states in all four of those measures, fourth and eighth-graders English and math. Those principles, testing our kids, excellent curriculum, superb teachers, and school choice. Those are the answers to help our schools.

2. Sen. Todd Young (IN): It’s not reflected in his committee work, but education is an issue that’s near and dear to the senior senator from my old stomping grounds in Indiana. No fan of Trump’s, Young has called for “modernizing” America’s education system, with a focus on strengthening career and technical education. On the need for skilled workers, he might find common cause here with the “opportunity economy” that Harris keeps talking about. Young has also worked across the aisle to reduce college costs and promote upward mobility, and is a staunch supporter of school choice.

3. Former Gov. Jeb Bush (FL): For the past twenty-five years, governors have been central to education policymaking, yet few can rival Bush’s dedication to making it a top priority. During his time leading the Sunshine State, Bush implemented sweeping education reforms that set the bar for other states. His policies emphasized standards, testing, and accountability, along with school choice. Through his organization, ExcelinEd, the former governor continues to have an outsized impact on education, promoting and advocating for the reforms that he championed in Florida.

4. Former Gov. Asa Hutchinson (AR): A vocal critic of Trump, Hutchinson was spotted making the rounds at the DNC convention back in August. The former governor and GOP presidential candidate has been coy about his interest in a Harris administration but clear about his desire to add another chapter to his long and storied political career. Secretary of Education would seem to be a perfect fit if Harris tapped the folky and affable Arkansan who made computer science education a priority alongside other popular ed policies.

5. Former Gov. John Kasich (OH): Known for his centrist views and willingness to work across party lines, Kasich endorsed Joe Biden back in 2020 and briefly appeared at the Democratic convention that year. His record on education reform is extensive but without the high-profile of, say, Jeb Bush. From A–F letter grades to charter school accountability, Kasich wasn’t afraid to ruffle feathers. He may be best known for his attempt to rein in collective bargaining for teachers, an effort that was ultimately struck down by voters.

Here are a couple of others not mentioned by the Times that would also be worth praising:

6. Former Gov. Brian Sandoval (NV): A former federal district judge who has already been confirmed once by the Senate, Sandoval would be a dark horse pick. In 2015, as governor, he spearheaded what was arguably the most comprehensive education reform package in the nation that year. The dizzying array of bills flying out of the Silver State included the nation’s first nearly universal ESA law, a read-by-three law, teacher pay-for-performance legislation, additional funding to grow more charter schools, and the establishment of a special statewide district for Nevada’s lowest performing schools—which was initially led by Pedro Martinez, currently the embattled CEO of Chicago Public Schools. Unfortunately, some of these initiatives have since been repealed, but the boldness of Sandoval’s vision was remarkable for its era.

7. Former Gov. Charlie Baker (MA): Now president of the NCAA, Baker was consistently one of the nation’s most popular governors during his time in office. He firmly supported MCAS, the state’s standardized test, emphasizing its essential role in creating a “level playing field” and setting a high standard for academic achievement. Baker also appointed members to the state board of education that shared a focus on accountability and improving educational outcomes. Harris’s team should also note that the former governor has expressed interest in returning to politics.

—

Like the election itself, the selection of any of these Republicans for education secretary would be sui generis. Harris would surely face significant pushback from within the Democratic Party and the teachers unions on any of these candidates. Still, if she chose to buck her coalition’s most progressive voices—as remote a possibility as that may be—it would be less about ed reform and more about sending a signal about the importance of character, temperament, and civility as embodied by each of these estimable public servants. Of course, he or she would have to endorse enough of Harris’s education policies to make the cut, something that remains to be seen.

To be sure, nobody knows what those policies will be, but odds are Harris’s will be a continuation of Biden’s. As such, there’s little reason to get excited, regardless of whom she picks. But even if little gets done in the way of policy over the next four (or eight) years, a Republican secretary of education serving in a Democratic administration could augur well for the eventual revival of bipartisan education reform. In and of itself, that would be a minor victory.