Cheers

• A bipartisan coalition has called for schools and districts to cut chronic absenteeism by 50 percent in five years. —K–12 Dive
• An advocacy organization calls on schools to ban phones entirely, not just during instructional time. —Education Week
• One gifted student tells of the benefits and drawbacks of her own experience skipping grades. — Ilana Walder-Biesanz, Chalkbeat

Jeers

• After approving ten new charter schools, New York City has once again hit its cap and can approve no more. —Chalkbeat
• A new paper from NWEA finds that students are faring even worse than before the pandemic, not catching up. —Washington Post
• State leaders are ignoring the crisis in urban education at their peril. —Robin Lake, Hechinger Report

• The media coverage of Project 2025, which on education is little more than a wish list of standard conservative policy, has trafficked many falsehoods. —Rick Hess, Education Week
• Instead of a school voucher bill, Pennsylvania lawmakers reached a budget deal that includes expanding existing tax credit program. —The Philadelphia Inquirer
• The College Board plans to recalibrate their AP exams to allow more students to pass, and it seems to be the latest example of “defining deviancy down.” (The College Board released a document this week explaining these changes.) —Checker Finn, Education Next

Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2024 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to answer this question: “How can policymakers and practitioners radically reduce chronic absenteeism—at least below pre-pandemic levels and preferably much further?” Learn more.

The onset of Covid-19 and the school closures that followed served as a catalyst for education choice programs to explode nationwide. The school choice movement even landed itself a new catchy tagline: “Fund students, not systems.” Now, as the challenge of addressing the absenteeism crisis in public schools takes center stage, policymakers would be wise to heed the lessons of directly funding families by going a step further: Let’s pay students to go to class.

Thanks to the pandemic, cultural norms and, more concerning, the value of attending school have weakened and even crumbled in some households, adding yet another factor to the complex challenges driving many students out of the classroom. While the factors may be complex, the potential solution to the chronic absenteeism crisis needn’t be complicated. In fact, it can be summed up in three words: Cash is king.

As a kid, which would you have preferred: to go play baseball at the park or to attend school when the sun was shining? If you hesitated over that question, you must have been a great student. For us it was baseball all day—no competition.

Luckily, we had parents who placed great value on receiving an education and forced us to attend. Nowadays, not every parent is as able or as assiduous. Some, like single working moms, are unable to enforce their kid’s presence at school, and others don’t view school attendance as a necessity.

In these situations, using the stick over the carrot just doesn't work. Perhaps we should try the oldest carrot of all—bribery. Growing up, our schools used to do this all the time by offering pizza parties, special field trips—once even Portland Trail Blazers tickets—in exchange for reading books and scoring well on our tests.

Schools already attempt to purchase student outcomes. Why not try the same with attendance by using cash payments?

Believe it or not, this is not a new idea. Renowned education reformer Geoffrey Canada has his Harlem Children’s Zone pay $120 a month for high-quality performance and attendance. Similar conditional cash payments have been used in countries such as Mexico, with students involved in the program having a probability of completing high school at 10 to 15 percent higher rates, according to a study from the National Bureau of Economic Research.

In 2010, Roland Fryer ran a landmark experiment on financial incentives and student achievement that observed paying students for their test scores did not significantly alter their performance in Chicago; nevertheless, student attendance increased. Furthermore, what gets considerably less coverage from that study is that English-speaking students in Dallas, who were paid $2 for every book they read and understood, saw noteworthy improvements in their reading achievement equivalent to over two months of schooling.

A similar program in Washington, D.C., generated promising, if muted, results. There, students could earn as much as $1,500 a year for good behavior, proper attendance, and completing their assigned work. Fryer found positive results for both student achievement and number of hours spent in the classroom, though these were not statistically significant. Even so, these data indicate that the carrot may really be better than the stick.

Why does paying students for attendance and other positive behaviors succeed where rewarding students solely for their performance consistently fails? It could be that children—particularly younger kids—may intuitively understand how to make different choices but not how to improve their test scores.

For example, a fourth grader may immediately recognize the relationship between good attendance, doing their homework, reading books, and a financial reward, but they may struggle to understand how to write a better book report or do better in math.

Nonetheless, this approach does raise two major problems: the moral dilemma of paying children for something that they really should be doing anyway, and the financial dilemma of how a district or state is going to be able to afford to pay their students.

Fortunately, data from Dr. Fryer’s study show little negative impact on students’ “intrinsic motivation” after receiving payment. Moreover, the attendance problems plaguing districts nationwide call to mind two old mantras: desperate times call for desperate measures, and the ends justify the means. Districts cannot simply do nothing, pretend that all is well, and expect truant students to return to school. They must adapt and provide some sort of incentive.

Covid relief funds were a missed opportunity, but paying students to attend class is still possible for most districts despite the “bloodletting” from the fiscal cliff, which has resulted in school closures. Undoubtedly, district budgets will likely force the closing of under-enrolled schools that are underperforming, but they shouldn’t stop there. School Districts should continue analyzing their budget by measuring which staff have a high return on investment regarding student attendance and outcomes.

Clearly, the presence of many of these administrators, attendance coaches, and mentors who have been hired to help students get back into school has not successfully improved student attendance or student outcomes.

So why stick to what hasn’t been working?

Instead, districts concerned about chronic absenteeism should reallocate a financial amount that works best for them and pay cash to students for attendance and inputs that translate into increased student outcomes such as reading books, doing homework, and behaving well in class. The philanthropic world could even alleviate some of the financial burden by funding these programs.

In the few places where paying students has been tried, it has shown promise. Now the only thing missing to scale the success of cash payments to students is a cadre of leaders to champion the solution.

Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2024 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to answer this question: “How can policymakers and practitioners radically reduce chronic absenteeism—at least below pre-pandemic levels and preferably much further?” Learn more.

I have a radical idea. As schools across the country grapple with how to curb absenteeism, let’s give the responsibility to the kids themselves. We should work together to modify our expectations for participation and attendance by taking the pressure off parents. Let’s ban the endless lines of minivans, SUVs, and buses in the morning and afternoon. This year, it’s time to give responsibility back to kids.

I know this seems crazy. We have a problem with kids not coming to school, and your suggestion is to give them more opportunities to ditch school? Are you insane? The answer is both yes and no.

We are entering the third year following the Covid-19 closures, and student absences are still above pre-pandemic levels. It’s not hard to see why. In commentary from the New York Times, students report they no longer feel an urgency or necessity to go to school.[1] With online learning systems now ubiquitous, our students know educators will accommodate their participation through various instructional modalities, none of which require a physical classroom presence.

While our oldest learners had to manage their schedules and workload independently, these same tools shortened the day for students in elementary and middle school. In the morning, at lunch, and after school, learners no longer had to rely on buses, carpools, or scheduled enrichment activities. Freedom from the classroom environment began the minute they closed their screens. The pandemic’s shift from in-person to remote learning enabled a specific type of autonomy, external to an environment built on rigid schedules and locked exterior doors.

One of the bestselling books this year is Jonathan Haidt’s The Anxious Generation, which outlines the challenges facing our youngest generation. Haidt argues that over the past 30 years, American culture has overprotected and overindulged children, making them more fragile to setbacks, challenges, and adversity.[2] We saw this in real-time when students returned to school, stripped of the autonomy and agency they had during remote learning. Today, many students reject this encroachment on their autonomy, exemplified by their chronic absence from classrooms across the country.

In the book’s conclusion, Haidt makes a strong case for giving kids more autonomy and responsibility. Kids need to want to be at school. Our job as parents and educators is to help them realize school is not a place where they are trapped, but a place that provides opportunity and independence. If we start with this small change in how they get to school, we might motivate them to come back together.

For context, let me give you some data. Every decade, the Federal Highway Administration publishes the National Household Transportation Survey Children’s Travel to School Brief. For 2017, the year it was last compiled, only 10.4 percent of students walked or biked to school. Most students—54.2 percent—got to school in a private vehicle,[3] meaning a parent or guardian took time out of their day to drive them. We have clipped students’ growth and limited their independence by chauffeuring them to school every day.

Yes, in some areas, distance to school is an issue. FHA surveys show many schools are two to six miles from a student’s home.[4] This is significant but not insurmountable. With e-bikes, scooters, and hoverboards—many of which have a fifteen-mile range—getting to school without a bus or car has never been easier. We need to look at how technological advancements can create opportunities for unscheduled play and peer engagement.

Encouraging students to rely less on vehicles may foster behaviors that prime them for greater engagement with classroom material. A systematic review by Donnelly et al. (2016) found that physical activity benefits students’ health and well-being and positively affects cognitive function.[5] Data from IES suggests students spend around 6.9 hours a day in school,[6] with less than thirty minutes per day for recess.[7] Not only have we locked them on campus, but we have also cemented them to desks limiting their opportunities for physical activity. Requiring students to walk, bike, or commute without cars and buses might enhance learning and instructional effectiveness.

To make this work, we need radical change. Kids need to be in school to learn, and we need to make schools places they want to be. This requires changing our expectations and norms around attendance. Police and public safety must work with district leaders to ensure local areas are safe for active transportation. Neighborhoods need walking busways, and local public safety must identify streets that support micromobility during school drop-off and pickup times. LEAs may need central pickup and drop-off locations for students who must cross highways. Districts should install bike racks for students traveling to these locations. Additionally, schools need bike stands, charging ports for e-transport, and storage areas for transportation materials. School administrators must map out new walking, biking, and e-transportation options to meet all students’ needs.

Internal policies must also evolve. Teachers and parents can tap into school service organizations to build neighborhood paths through woods, fields, and roads. Administrators and teachers need to identify students in upper grades who can take on roles as crossing guards or walking-bus drivers. Programs like Safe Routes to School and Action for Healthy Kids can support LEAs and school leadership through these steps.

Schools should help kids who live near each other connect and increase peer accountability. Given that the youngest kids are absent the most, start in elementary school. Let the 5th and 6th graders mentor younger children. Schools may need to provide incentives like extra recess, dress-up days, or in-school privileges to these grades and reintroduce perfect attendance and competition initiatives. It is easier for kids to say no to parents than to a schoolmate waiting at their door to maintain a perfect month streak.

This plan may also necessitate shorter, more flexible school days, especially for younger grades. One that, instead of being six or seven hours long, is closer to four to five hours long. If students don’t want to be in the building, spending less time there could be beneficial. Instead of cutting time from the school day, consider it an opportunity for better time usage. Schools might need to open earlier and stay open later, allowing kids to stream in and out at different times. Secondary schools could adopt more flexible scheduling, accommodating work, extracurriculars, or other activities. Open gyms, playgrounds, and common spaces can support various afternoon activities and peer interactions. More flexible scheduling provides options for peer tutoring and extracurricular engagements. In other words, give kids more opportunities to engage without feeling overwhelmed by external obligations. Shorter days with more unstructured time before or after learning may motivate attendance.

Finally, schools must ban the endless parent and guardian car pickup lines. This will be challenging. School security needs to block access during traditional pick-up and drop-off times. Local law enforcement may need to enforce idling statutes. One benefit is schools will not need to charge for early drop-offs or late pickups, as students will have the autonomy to arrive and depart when they want.

By giving kids the autonomy to get to school and the peer support to help them, students may stop viewing schools as buildings they are locked in and prevented from leaving. Instead, they might begin to see school as adults see jobs—a place to do work, then leave when tasks are done. This is good; we need to give kids more unscheduled and unsupervised time to learn responsibility for their actions.

If we reframe school as an opportunity for independence—to be active, to be with peers, to be responsible for each other—maybe, just maybe, they will rise to the occasion.

__________________________

References

Active Education: Growing Evidence on Physical Activity and Academic Performance. (2015). In activelivingresearch.org. https://activelivingresearch.org/sites/activelivingresearch.org/files/ALR_Brief_ActiveEducation_Jan2015.pdf

Bricka, S., Reuscher, T., Schroeder, M., Fisher, M., Beard, J., & Sun, L. (2024). Summary of Travel Trends: 2022 National Household Travel Survey.

Carlson, J. A., Steel, C., Bejarano, C. M., Beauchamp, M. T., Davis, A. M., Sallis, J. F., Kerner, J., Brownson, R., & Zimmerman, S. (2020). Walking School Bus Programs: Implementation Factors, Implementation Outcomes, and Student Outcomes, 2017–2018. Preventing Chronic Disease, 17, 200061. https://doi.org/10.5888/pcd17.200061

Donnelly, J. E., Hillman, C. H., Castelli, D., Etnier, J. L., Lee, S., Tomporowski, P., Lambourne, K., & Szabo-Reed, A. N. (2016). Physical Activity, Fitness, Cognitive Function, and Academic Achievement in Children. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 48(6), 1197–1222. https://doi.org/10.1249/MSS.0000000000000901

Engle, J. (2024, April 4). Has Your Relationship to School Attendance Changed Since the Pandemic? The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/04/learning/has-your-relationship-to-school-attendance-changed-since-the-pandemic.html

Federal Highway Administration. (2008). NHTS BRIEF National Household Travel Survey Travel to School: The Distance Factor.

Haidt, J. (2024). The Anxious Generation: How the Great Rewiring of Childhood Is Causing an Epidemic of Mental Illness. Penguin Press.

Jordan, P. (2019, June 27). “Walking School Bus” Drives Better Attendance. FutureEd; Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy. https://www.future-ed.org/walking-school-bus-drives-better-attendance/

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Schools and staffing survey (SASS). Ed.gov; National Center for Education Statistics. https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/tables/sass0708_035_s1s.asp

Perno, J. (2023, April 28). The Advantages of Walking to School. Www.hopkinsmedicine.org; Johns Hopkins Medicine. https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/health/wellness-and-prevention/the-advantages-of-walking-to-school

Pete, N. (2024, July 4). Safe Routes to School aims to make getting to class an enjoyable experience for Oregon students. OPB; Oregon Public Broadcasting. https://www.opb.org/article/2024/07/04/safe-routes-to-school-getting-to-class-an-enjoyable-experience-oregon-students/

Rosen, J. (2019, February 13). Dangerous school commutes lead to absenteeism, study finds. The Hub; Johns Hopkins University. https://hub.jhu.edu/2019/02/13/dangerous-commutes-student-absenteeism/

Rovniak, L., & Holmes, L. (2024, July 8). Mitigating barriers for children walking and biking to school | Social Science Research Institute. Https://Ssri.psu.edu/; PennState Social Science Research Institute. https://ssri.psu.edu/news/mitigating-barriers-children-walking-and-biking-school

Tsai, M. (2023, October 5). Prevalence of Recess and Supportive Practices at U.S. Public Elementary Schools - PAPREN. PAPREN; Physical Activity Policy Research and Evaluation Network. https://papren.org/prevalence-of-recess-and-supportive-practices-at-u-s-public-elementary-schools/#:~:text=Our%20study%20found%20that%20providing

Zimmerman, S. (n.d.). Addressing Attendance through Safe Routes to School. Safe Route to Schools. Retrieved July 10, 2024, from https://www.saferoutespartnership.org/sites/default/files/resource_files/addressing_attendance_through_safe_routes_to_school.pdf

Josh Barro wrote earlier this week that Vice President Kamala Harris has the remarkable fortune to run in a general election without having staked out any unpopular positions in a Democratic primary—at least not since she ran for president five long years ago. That means she enjoys the ability to claim some positions in the political center that can address her weaknesses and boost her chances of victory. “Harris’s biggest political liability,” Barro argued, “is that she may be seen as too politically extreme, and she can reposition herself toward the center without penalty, if she is willing to do that.”

That doesn’t mean she has a completely free hand. As Matt Yglesias pointed out, groups on the political left have been less willing to give a pass to their Democratic presidential candidates than those on the Trumpy right have:

[Trump’s] “be allowed to do that” score is off the charts. If it’s convenient for him to start saying nicer things about electric cars in exchange for Elon Musk’s money, he does that. If it’s convenient for him to pretend the Republican Party isn’t deeply committed to banning abortion, he does that.

Every progressive I know recognizes that these Trumpian stabs at moderation are good for Trump, and that it’s good for the left to try to expose them as lies. The progressives who recognize that need to see the symmetry here.

One issue that offers opportunities for moderation is education. Iglesias suggests that Harris might say something like “my parents moved to this country because it’s the greatest place on Earth, and I think my party and our school system need to get back to teaching kids patriotism.” That would be a good start, but there are plenty of possibilities. She might use this week’s speech to the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) to show she’s willing to buck progressive orthodoxy.

One obvious way is to talk about the current challenges facing teachers when it comes to classroom discipline. In the wake of the pandemic, but also some reforms embraced in the Black Lives Matter era, many American classrooms have gotten out of control.

Harris can lean into her prosecutor instincts and call for greater order and discipline in classrooms, and especially greater respect for teachers. She might say that it’s crazy that some states and school districts have adopted formal positions that children and teenagers can cuss out their teachers with little to no repercussions.

Relatedly, she might embrace the call to get cellphones out of the classroom, and also express support for tough love when it comes to chronically absent students. Back in California, she even prosecuted some parents for their children’s truancy, a position she later retreated from. But it wouldn’t be hard for her to say that kids need to be in school and parents need to be held accountable for making that happen. She doesn’t have to embrace draconian discipline rules; she just needs to create some distance between herself and the most unreasonable social justice warriors, who have been arguing that any form of traditional discipline is furthering the “school-to-prison pipeline.”

Discipline is an issue where she can get on the side of her teachers union base, whose leaders are hearing from their members about chaos in the classroom and watching veteran teachers quit because of school violence and disrespect. But if she really wants to be seen as a different kind of Democrat than her current boss, she’s going to need to disagree with the unions on a couple of other issues. President Biden has never been willing to do so, given his self-image as the most pro-union president in history. Not to mention that Jill Biden was herself a member of the National Education Association, which she and the president pointed out at every opportunity.

So how can Harris demonstrate that she’s not beholden to the unions, especially since one of them—the AFT—already endorsed her?

One possibility is for her to return to a proposal from her 2020 campaign, which was to boost teacher salaries nationwide. This time around, however, there should be a catch, mainly that teachers need to be held accountable for improving student learning. She could, for example, say that states and school districts need to make the attainment of tenure something that teachers earn through merit and a demonstration of effectiveness rather than just surviving for a few years.

Finally, Kamala Harris could indicate support for public charter schools. It’s quite clear from public opinion polls that school choice in all its varieties is very popular with parents, especially Blacks and Hispanics. Republicans have been smart to lean into that issue in recent years, and this might be one reason that they are starting to peel off voters of color.

But Republicans have created their own political vulnerabilities by embracing private school choice for wealthy parents, which is an obvious giveaway to the rich. They also support publicly-funded vouchers for religious schools, which even supporters read as code for “Christian schools”—making lots of normie voters nervous.

This is why Democratic presidents from Clinton through Obama embraced public charter schools as a way to support school choice without the unpopular aspects of private school choice. So did a host of Democratic governors, mayors, members of Congress, and senators. Not to mention that public charter schools continue to prove their mettle in boosting student learning. A brand-new study even shows their effectiveness at dramatically raising college graduation rates.

Harris need not say much, just that she will support public schools of all varieties, including public charter schools, especially at a time when we need to make progress again on narrowing achievement gaps and helping kids recover from pandemic-era learning loss. That’s a pretty low bar—though one that President Biden failed to clear.

It may be true that Vice President Harris, in her heart, is your typical progressive Democrat from California. But she has an unusual opportunity to shed some of that political baggage. Indicating that she will be open to education reform is one of the best ways to do so.

Editor’s note: This essay is an entry in Fordham’s 2024 Wonkathon, which asked contributors to answer this question: “How can policymakers and practitioners radically reduce chronic absenteeism—at least below pre-pandemic levels and preferably much further?” Learn more.

The recent “Every Day Counts Summit: Addressing Chronic Absenteeism and Increasing Student Engagement” at The White House highlighted a crucial issue in American education. While the summit acknowledged the post-pandemic exacerbation of chronic absenteeism, it largely missed the mark in recognizing the systemic inequities that perpetuate this problem. The summit’s focus on data-driven approaches, family engagement, and community partnerships is commendable, but it needs to move beyond surface-level solutions and address the deeply embedded policies that actively contribute to chronic absenteeism.

The summit touched upon the complex reasons behind chronic absenteeism, including health issues, socioeconomic factors, and school-related challenges. However, it failed to engage with the systemic barriers built into school policies themselves. These policies, often rooted in well-intentioned initiatives, inadvertently create obstacles for students, particularly those from marginalized communities.

Here are five crucial areas where policies need a critical re-evaluation:

1. Redefining the “Excused Absence”: The summit touched on the need for improved communication with families regarding attendance. However, the misconception around excused absences remains. Parents often submit valid medical documentation, yet remain unaware that all absences are treated equally at the state level, potentially leading to truancy penalties. This ambiguity undermines the intent of excused absences and creates confusion for families. School districts should clearly define what constitutes an excused absence and ensure that policies reflect the actual intent.

2. Addressing Athlete-Related Absences: While the summit emphasized a sense of belonging as a key factor in attendance, it overlooked the impact of sports-related absences. We cannot ignore the chronic absenteeism experienced by student athletes, often due to injuries or scheduling conflicts. Schools should explore flexible attendance policies that accommodate the unique needs of student athletes, recognizing their commitment to both academics and athletics.

3. Rethinking Non-Credit Bearing Classes: The summit touched upon the importance of engagement, but it failed to address the disengagement often experienced in non-credit-bearing classes like study hall. Students often perceive these classes as irrelevant and disruptive to their academic schedule. Schools should re-evaluate the purpose and structure of these classes, ensuring they offer meaningful learning opportunities or providing alternative options for students who find them unengaging.

4. Reconsidering Early Release Days: The summit didn’t explicitly address the impact of early release days, which can exacerbate absenteeism. Many schools have eliminated early release days, recognizing their negative impact on attendance. However, the practice persists in some districts, demonstrating the need for a policy shift across the board.

5. Re-evaluating Suspension Policies: While the summit acknowledged the consequences of suspension, it didn’t delve into the problematic nature of out-of-school suspension (OSS). OSS disproportionately impacts Black students and fuels a cycle of absenteeism and academic decline. Schools should invest in alternative disciplinary measures, emphasizing restorative practices and in-school support to address behavioral issues while minimizing the detrimental impact of OSS.

Beyond these policy considerations, school uniforms also deserve scrutiny. While the intention of uniforms is positive, they often create socioeconomic and logistical barriers for students. Uniform regulations should be reevaluated to ensure they are equitable and accessible to all families.

The Every Day Counts Summit made a valuable first step in addressing chronic absenteeism. However, true change requires a deeper understanding of systemic inequities and a commitment to addressing them head-on. This means rethinking school policies, not simply adding new initiatives. We must ensure that policies are not only data-driven, but also equity-driven, reflecting the unique needs and experiences of all students, particularly those from historically marginalized communities.

In a word, yes! It’s never enough, and there’s no resting on laurels, but we have solid evidence over thirty years in America and beyond that students learn more when they—and their schools—are held to account for what and how well they’re learning. And while testing isn’t the only possible way to gauge this, nor is it a perfect way, it’s efficient, reasonably accurate, more objective than most of the alternatives, and relatively easy to explain and understand.

Accountability in education may be thought of as a tripod, although many prefer the version that adds a fourth leg, called capacity building.

The first leg sets forth the desired outcomes, typically in the form of academic standards that spell out the skills and knowledge that students should acquire at key stages of their progress through the schools. In recent decades, due largely to federal requirements, this has typically meant grade-by-grade learning expectations in core subjects, beginning with English language arts and math. Other desired outcomes, such as high school graduation or college and career readiness, may be added or substituted.

The second leg is the creation and use of measures by which to gauge how well those desired outcomes are (or aren’t) being achieved—by individual students, as well as by classrooms, schools, districts, states, and the nation as a whole. This has most often taken the form of standardized testing of various kinds, especially year-end assessments external to the school itself, generally administered by the state and aligned with its academic standards.

The third leg of the tripod includes the rewards, benefits, sanctions, changes, and interventions that follow from information on how well a student, teacher, school, or district is achieving the desired results. Consequences take many forms, sometimes spontaneous (as when a teacher or school moves to alter its practices or a parent moves her child into or out of a particular school) and sometimes imposed from outside: gold stars and blue ribbons on the one hand, restructurings, probations, staff changes, even school closures on the other.

Not every accountability system adds a fourth leg—often called “capacity building,” sometimes “opportunity to learn”—but when done, this generally consists of efforts to enhance opportunities, foster equity, and strengthen performance, typically by adding expertise, resources, and better-prepared personnel to assist schools to boost their effectiveness. In the last few years, that’s largely taken the form of implementing “high-quality instructional materials.”

Persuasive evidence appears from many sources that state-developed accountability systems of the kind that emerged in the 1990s did boost achievement. As for the federally driven regimes that got serious with enactment of No Child Left Behind in 2001, almost everyone who has looked at the data acknowledges that modest gains followed, most prominently in math and in the earlier grades, and most visibly by some student groups, particularly poor and marginalized youngsters. (Twelfth-grade NAEP scores, however, remained stubbornly flat.)

Reviewing the impact of NCLB as of 2011, Thomas Dee and Brian Jacob found that it had “generated statistically significant increases in the average math performance of fourth graders, as well as improvements at the lower and top percentiles. There is also evidence of improvements in eighth-grade math achievement, particularly among traditionally-low-achieving groups and at the lower percentiles.” (They did not, however, find similar gains in reading.)

Nine years later, an analysis by Bellwether Education Partners reached a similar conclusion: “Standards-based accountability policies have contributed to measurable improvements in student performance.... NCLB-era accountability policies produced meaningful improvements in student achievement, particularly for traditionally underserved student groups.”

They, too, were unable to find similar gains in reading—and acknowledged a leveling off as states got more waivers from the tough accountability requirements of NCLB, and then, in 2015, NCLB was itself replaced by the more pliable terms of ESSA (the “Every Student Succeeds Act”). In other words, as federal accountability pressures eased, the national trend lines flattened, even dipped a bit, then dipped more during Covid.

Some individual states, however, kept their pedals to the metal and their (pre-pandemic) results remained strong. Massachusetts is perhaps the best-known example, with its long-lasting (though now endangered) requirement that students pass the MCAS test before they can graduate from high school, as well as other assessment and accountability feature. Here’s how the Bay State’s Department of Elementary and Secondary Education summarizes what happened:

Before education reform and statewide testing in the 1990s, Massachusetts students too often graduated from high school without the basic reading and math skills needed to succeed in life. Today, Massachusetts students are number one in the country in reading and math. So how did this happen? In the early ‘90s, the state passed a law that included high learning standards, consistent funding, more choices for families, and accountability for how well students are being served. Part of that act included statewide assessments to make sure schools are reaching all students.

When scores show students are not meeting basic learning standards, schools and districts can adjust instruction to address those areas. In addition, parents and the public can ask questions and ensure educators are taking action.

Moving from blue to red, Florida also illustrates the impact of a comprehensive (and sustained) approach to education reform that was—and remains—heavy on testing and accountability. Writing in Education Next in 2019, Michael Petrilli summarized what two decades of the Sunshine State’s “A+ Plan for Education” had wrought:

Florida is celebrating the twenty-year mark of the A+ Plan for Education, which brought accountability, parental choice, and evidence-based practices to the state’s schools. And to be sure, it’s an occasion worth celebrating, given the Sunshine State’s strong record of educational progress since then-governor Jeb Bush and his legislative partners ushered in the integrated suite of landmark reforms.

The most compelling numbers come from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, a.k.a. The Nation’s Report Card. From the late 1990s until 2017, the reading performance of Black fourth graders in Florida skyrocketed 26 points—equivalent to more than two grade levels worth of progress. For Hispanic students, the gain was 27 points, and for low-income kids it was an astonishing 29 points. The numbers for eighth-grade math were almost as impressive: rises of 27 points for Black, 19 for Hispanic, and 21 for low-income students.

These results—especially in reading—put almost every other state to shame and lifted Florida from the middle of the pack to the top tier. And while much of this progress happened in the 2000s, Florida had the best showing in the nation on the 2017 NAEP in terms of progress over time, too.

No serious person would claim that testing and accountability alone cause children to learn more—but most serious analysts recognize that a policy regimen that (a) expects achievement, (b) sets standards for achievement, (c) measures progress against those standards, and (d) installs incentives for greater progress and consequences for lesser progress, is a regime that fosters stronger performance by students, educators, educational institutions, and systems. Multiple mechanisms are at work here, including more regular and transparent data for educators and parents regarding their students’ progress, better targeting of resources and supervisory attention on situations that aren’t succeeding, marketplace mechanisms that lead families to move their children from lower- to higher-performing schools, and more. There’s no one silver bullet, nor is there a grand celebration to be had that everyone is now learning all that they should and every school is at the top of its game. But creating these conditions nudges everyone in the right direction.

Academic advancement programs (especially those branded as “gifted and talented”) are often at the center of controversy about equity in education. This has sometimes led to gifted programs being eliminated or substantially altered—such as the recent closure of the highly capable cohort program in Seattle. These headlines raise the perennial question of what school parents really want when it comes to gifted education.

In partnership with Morning Consult, EdChoice surveyed a nationally representative sample of American adults eighteen and older (N = 2,252) from June 5–7, 2024. With additional sampling, we obtained responses from 1,294 parents of children currently in K–12 education.

In this month’s poll, we asked parents new questions to learn about their perspectives on gifted education. After all, summertime is when parents make crucial decisions about the upcoming school year, including where to send their kids to school in the fall. For a lot of families, that means considering whether their current school offers academic advancement or “gifted” classes. A lack of educational options might lead them to make the difficult decision to switch schools.

This June, nearly two-thirds of all school parents (63 percent) say that it’s very or extremely important for their child’s school to offer advanced academic classes. Private school parents place even more importance on gifted education being offered, with 77 percent saying it’s at least very important. It’s clear that school parents want class options that suit their children’s academic needs.

Despite recent challenges to gifted education, school parents still want academic advancement options to be available. The majority of school parents (58 percent) disagree that schools should eliminate advanced classes in order to mix students together in the same classes. Only 9 percent of school parents strongly believe that schools should be removing advanced classes to make sure students are in the same classroom.

Perhaps most strikingly, one-third of school parents (33 percent) say they would be extremely or very likely to move their child to a different school if their current school eliminated academically advanced classes. Nearly half of private school parents (47 percent) said the same. Among parents who have switched their child’s school, 28 percent say that the change in schools was needed because their child’s academic needs were not being met at their former school. That’s approximately level with the one-third (33 percent) of parents who say they would be likely to change schools if gifted classes were eliminated—showing us that school parents are ready to back up their educational preferences by taking action.

The importance of academic advancement options to school parents shouldn’t come as a surprise, considering that a lot of families have a personal stake in gifted education. In this month’s poll, 43 percent of parents say they have at least one kid taking a gifted, advanced, or honors class at school. This proportion is higher among parents of high school (54 percent) and private school (58 percent) students. According to parents of “gifted” kids, honors classes are the most common type of academic advancement, with 46 percent of gifted students enrolled in an honors class. Gifted/advanced academic programs are the next most common option at 34 percent. Notably, 27 percent of these parents said their kids take an Advanced Placement (AP) or International Baccalaureate (IB) class—up from 15 percent in November 2023.

Check out the full report, and read more about what school parents have to say about gifted education.

Editor’s note: This was first published by EdChoice.

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

Keep sponsor accountability strong…

Fordham’s Aaron Churchill published two important pieces last week. In the first, he explains why a rigorous sponsor evaluation system is critical to the success of charter schools in Ohio. He lambastes legislative efforts to chip away at academic accountability especially, noting that it is the best way to ensure that charters remain high-quality options for students and families.

…make charter funding fair

In the second, Aaron lays out three steps that lawmakers should take during the next state budget cycle to help narrow longstanding funding gaps between charter and district schools once and for all.

Top of the charts

Washington Post columnist Jay Mathews last week discussed what he calls “the biggest sea change in high schools” he has ever seen. What he means is that most of the top 20 schools in his Challenge Index—that is, the most rigorous high schools in the country based on student participation and success in AP, IB, Cambridge, and other challenging academic programs—are no longer part of affluent districts but are instead charter schools serving predominately low-income students. He ascribes the change to “charters’ freedom to offer hard courses to anyone” which has provided “hope and excitement among families and teachers in a growing number of low-income neighborhoods”. Expectations are high, opportunities are numerous, and success is expected. Among the charter schools singled out for praise are several from the IDEA and BASIS networks in Texas and Arizona, respectively, as well as KIPP University Prep in San Antonio. Kudos!

Good news/bad news pt 1

The first story in this category comes to us from New York City. The good news: Ten new charters were given the green light to open this fall in the Big Apple. The bad news: No more can be approved as the city has once again reached the state-mandated cap on new schools. The cap remains in place despite strong opposition from supporters and families, and despite long waiting lists at charters across the city.

Good news/bad news pt 2

The second story comes from Chicago. While the leaders of Chicago Public Schools have proposed a general funding increase for charter schools in the city for next year, charters with shrinking enrollments would likely see a funding cut. Meanwhile, district schools would all see a funding boost, regardless of enrollment, because their funding formula focuses on inputs rather than enrollment. All this comes on the heels of other policy changes in the district that all aim to restrict competition.

*****

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

The conventional wisdom is that school closures are bad—not the temporary pandemic-era variety, but the permanent shuttering of underenrolled school facilities. Nobody wants to hear that the school board (or charter authorizer) is going to close “their” school, especially when the “they” always seem to be Black, Brown, and poor neighborhoods.

So it’s little surprise that leaders facing school closure decisions are under pressure to proceed equitably. Fair enough. But what should that mean? And what if school closures, though painful, can be made to be good—for students, at least? Let’s dig in.

America has too many school buildings, and some will need to close

This issue has been all over the media of late. In short: Our schools are facing a dramatic enrollment decline driven mostly by the post-Great Recession Baby Bust, but also Trump- and pandemic-era declines in immigration. Some traditional public schools also lost students to charter or private schools during the Covid crisis, and not all came back. And some urban systems lost families to the suburbs (or to more distant environs) as the rise of remote work made urban living less attractive.

The recent surge across the southern border is blurring the picture a bit, but most school systems face long-term enrollment declines of 10 percent or more—not surprising, given that the number of babies born in the U.S. in a given year has dropped more than 15 percent since its 2007 high. In some districts it will be much worse. Experts are predicting a decline of 30 percent for LAUSD!

I haven’t seen any demographers asserting that America’s birth rate is likely to bounce back anytime soon, if ever. In fact, as is the case for most of the developed world, it’s still heading down. Nor does there appear to be a national appetite for a large increase in immigration. All of which is to say that, outside of a handful of high-growth communities, districts must come to terms with shrinking enrollment for the foreseeable future. And that means closing schools.

The evidence on closures

Do students suffer when their schools are closed—either for low performance, as occasionally happened in the No Child Left Behind era, or for underenrollment? This is a question that has been studied extensively over the past few decades, and the somewhat exasperating answer is: It depends. Specifically, it depends on whether the affected students land in higher-performing schools. If so, they tend to do better, at least in the long run. If not, they do worse. (That’s the case for charter school closures, as well.)

There’s also better-than-expected news for affected communities. While local residents understandably worry that a shuttered school will signal (continued) decline in their neighborhood, at least one study in Philadelphia found that crime, especially violent crime, declined significantly when high schools with high rates of student misbehavior and low academic performance were closed.

Closing schools equitably

So what should the equity-minded school board member or superintendent do, in the face of this challenging and fraught situation?

Rather than promise that school closures won’t disproportionately affect low-income communities or communities of color, promise that all affected students will have access to higher-performing schools. In other words, promise that, by closing schools, students will be better off than they are now, especially low-income students and students of color.

No doubt, keeping that promise will take considerable effort. It will mean:

• Identifying the right schools to close—generally meaning the lowest-performing ones, those whose students are achieving at extremely low levels and aren’t making much progress from year to year.
• Ensuring an adequate number of seats in higher-performing schools nearby[1], while working out any transition or transportation logistics that might keep students from accessing them. That might include enrollment preferences for displaced students, including in nearby charter schools.
• Communicating effectively (and promptly) with students, families, educators, and the community, both about the process of identifying schools for closure and about how to ensure that students enroll in higher-performing schools. Tim Daly has lots of great suggestions on this front.

Closing schools is a wrenching process, but ensuring that our most disadvantaged students land in more effective environments than they attend today is more than a silver lining. It should be the overriding goal, one that can narrow achievement gaps if done right. That’s real equity.