1. Fordham’s own Chad Aldis testified before the House Primary and Secondary Education Committee yesterday on SB 229. The bill would make some pandemic-influenced changes to remote learning and a handful of other items. Chad expressed concern at one of those other items, suggesting that while it might be necessary to allow for promotion of students who don’t reach the required benchmarks on the third grade state reading test (as the bill would do), schools should be required to provide an “enhanced disclosure” to those families so they are fully aware that their children are reading below grade level and the challenges that presents. The bill is having a third hearing in committee today. (Gongwer Ohio, 10/9/21)
    
2. Speaking of state testing, here is more weirdness from the recent elected school board meeting in Berea. The district’s director of academic affairs gave members a potted history of state testing in Ohio; a history that doesn’t conform to anything I recognize. Despite this, the headline assures us that the elected school board members “gained insight” from the presentation. On another note: am I the only one noticing educators talking the value of Googling information a lot these days? As if somehow the ability of students to perform a web search for information is some sort of “rival” to actual teaching and learning. No? Just me? OK then. (Cleveland.com, 11/8/21)

    

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

NOTE: Today, the Ohio House of Representatives’ Primary and Secondary Education Committee heard testimony on SB 229. The bill would, among other provisions, make a number of pandemic-influenced changes to remote learning and test-based accountability. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided interested party testimony on the bill. These are his written remarks.

Thank you, Chair Manning, Vice Chair Bird, Ranking Member Robinson, and House Primary and Secondary Education Committee members for giving me the opportunity to provide interested party testimony today on Senate Bill 229.

My name is Chad Aldis, and I am the Vice President for Ohio Policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. The Fordham Institute is an education-focused nonprofit that conducts research, analysis, and policy advocacy with offices in Columbus, Dayton, and Washington, D.C.

When the 2020-2021 school year finished in June, many people felt a big sigh of relief. It was a challenging year, but there was also a sense of optimism that the coming year would be different and include a return to something resembling normal. Unfortunately, late summer brought a resurgence of Covid cases and many schools were disrupted by both positive cases and quarantines. Most schools exhibited a strong resolve—and a splash of creativity—to keep their students in classrooms whenever possible. Nevertheless, some schools needed to resort to some combination of remote or blended instruction at times.

It’s for that reason that we are largely supportive of the underlying objective of SB 229 which allows Ohio schools increased flexibility to employ remote and blended learning—with some important guardrails—this school year. We don’t offer this support lightly. The data from last school year is clear: Ohio students struggled and those learning remotely struggled even more.

In September, Ohio State University professors Stéphane Lavertu and Vlad Kogan published a first look at 2020–21 student achievement data. Student learning is down one half to a full year in math and one third to one half a year in English. As feared, historically underserved students had the biggest declines. Because Ohio districts followed different paths last year—some opted for virtual school while others chose hybrid or in person learning—the researchers were able to demonstrate that remote learning played a big role in the learning declines.

Despite agreeing with the general intent of SB 229, there are a couple of areas where we have concerns.

The first has to do with a provision related to state testing for online (mostly charter school) students. Existing law provides that a student at an online school who fails to take the state assessment for two consecutive years is automatically withdrawn from the school. SB 229 grants some flexibility to that provision by restarting the clock for those students. On its face, that would be fine. Inexplicably though, it restarts the clock not for this school year but beginning next school year (2022-2023). With 94 percent of students having taken the state assessment last year, there’s no way that online students shouldn’t be expected to take the state assessment this school year. Over the past five or six years, Ohio has made tremendous progress in regards to charter school accountability. This change would be a step backward and is being done without any obvious need. We request that you modify the existing language to restart counting for the two-year automatic withdrawal this school year (2021-2022).

The second concern surrounds changes to the third grade reading guarantee. Given the extraordinarily low levels of student achievement in third grade this year, extending the flexibility granted last year around this provision makes sense. Districts simply couldn’t retain all of the students who haven’t reached the promotion benchmark. That being said, we think it’s critical that parents be given honest, transparent information indicating that their child isn’t reading on grade level and information detailing how important early reading is to later educational success. There is a very real possibility that large numbers of students will be promoted from third to fourth grade without reading at or near grade level, and their parents will believe that everything is okay until they struggle in later grades. While flexibility is needed, we urge you to require an enhanced disclosure to parents empowering them with the information they need to know exactly where their children are in terms of reading ability.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony.

1. If you, like me, were hoping that passage of the new school funding formula—and especially the end of those hated school choice deductions from district finances—would make district treasurers happier than dogs in a butcher’s shop, early indications are that you were mistaken. According to the treasurer of Berea City Schools as quoted in this piece, literally everything about the new status quo is annoying to them, including the fact that “the new formula is based strictly on enrollment – ‘on kids in seats,’ she said -- not on the total number of students who live in the district, which includes those that attend private, charter or other non-public schools.” I wonder how many district staffers and board members from Berea came down to Columbus to advocate before the legislature for this exact change? (Cleveland.com, 11/5/21)
    
2. When is a charter school not just a reprehensible vampiric drain on district students and funding charter school? Seemingly, whenever said school is planning a pricey expansion/glow-up in your city’s hard-hit downtown area. Thus is the current case with Toledo School for the Arts, which is planning to spend nearly $7 million to renovate its existing facility and to buy and fix up an additional building as well. While normally the Blade finds some euphemism to avoid calling the otherwise much-beloved school a charter, they actually lean into it this time, describing TSA “one of Ohio’s most successful charter schools” and noting that it “accepts students based on a lottery system”…as if they truly think that’s a good thing. Will wonders never cease? (Toledo Blade, 11/5/21)

    

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

The pandemic has provided a stream of unsettling headlines reminding us that our kids are not OK. They have grappled with surges in loneliness, anxiety, and depression. They’ve been absent for unprecedented amounts of school. They are on screens nonstop. They have gained too much weight. The list goes on.

This year, policy leaders have focused on equipping schools to support students on the path to better well-being and academic health. In March 2021, Congress appropriated $200 billion in supplemental education funding for districts and states. The allocation for Los Angeles, as just one example, amounts to more than $11,000 of new money per student.

There are many reasons to think this is a good use of funding, and no one is going to complain about schools having too much money. There’s plenty to spend the money on, too, like improvements to ventilation, Covid-19 testing and PPE, staffing, transportation, extra academic supports for students, and more.

But what if there were another party that was even better positioned to address the full array of challenges children and adolescents face today? I’m talking about your child’s pediatrician.

It’s a surprising thought, right? Typically, we think of doctors as dealing only with issues that are strictly medical. But ample research suggests that pediatricians play a broader role in the lives of their patients and families. A 2016 national survey from Zero to Three found that, in terms of informing their parenting, respondents cited pediatricians and other medical sources as the second most often-used resource, trailing only the way their own parents raised them. (Teachers ranked tenth, which was lower than “Google searches.”)

There’s some logic to this. Parents view pediatricians as experts on child development in a holistic way, while they see schools as focused specifically on education. The same pediatrician could well see a child from infancy to adolescence. How often is that type of continuity present in schools? And guess who else is present for those pediatric visits? A parent, giving them a chance to develop their own relationship with the doctor.

By connecting pediatricians’ offices with information and tools to address families’ education-related concerns as well as their medical ones, we could create a seamless pathway of post-pandemic support for families.

We at EdNavigator, where I’m CEO, have seen firsthand what this kind of partnership could look like, through our work with a large non-profit pediatric practice in Boston. Care providers, who are uniquely skilled at identifying which kinds of supports would be most beneficial for each family, refer patients’ families to our Navigators for assistance with education issues. Doctors aren’t expected to answer questions about school enrollment or tutoring, but they can make a simple referral—just as they would to a dermatologist or an audiologist—to get parents the help they need. And because medical professionals hold such credibility with families, the parents—in this case, most of whom speak Spanish as their first language—overwhelmingly follow their advice and connect with our Navigators when their doctor suggests that they do so.

One of the most common reasons families are referred to EdNavigator by pediatricians is assistance with school enrollment. In Massachusetts, for example, infants and toddlers showing signs of developmental delays of any kind can receive free in-home support, known as Early Intervention (EI), until they turn three years old. After that, families are instructed to enroll in a local pre-kindergarten program and have their child evaluated for special needs. But making the leap from EI to school is a complicated process with many steps and piles of red tape. It’s often difficult for families to get assistance through the school system when they aren’t fully enrolled in it yet.

Pediatricians understand that EI services do not extend beyond age three and usually encourage parents to begin preparing in advance for pre-K registration, but there’s often not much more they can do to help. In our partnership, they’re able to connect families directly to Navigators, who will in turn take them right through the enrollment process. A family’s case isn’t considered closed until the child has transitioned successfully into pre-K.

Why not empower pediatricians with the resources to make referrals for other urgent challenges, whether that’s getting a child engaged in extracurriculars, getting academic support, or planning affordable and nutritious meals? Why not ensure that key educational data—such as test results—are shared with them so they can discuss them with parents in a safe space? A doctor is well-positioned to understand what’s going on for a child. With the right pipeline of resources, they could not only diagnose the problem, but also connect the family with just the right help.

Our children’s mental and physical health is closely intertwined with their educational success—now more than ever. If we want to see our children thrive despite the setbacks of the pandemic era, we need to focus on creating seamless pathways of support for families, who are truly their children’s best and primary advocates. Through educational and pediatric partnerships, we can center families’ needs and give them the pipeline of support they and their children deserve.

Afterschool enrichment accounts for Ohio families

Last week, Governor DeWine issued orders creating rules for an afterschool enrichment savings program, as enacted in the most recent state budget bill. The accounts are for all Ohio students (including charter students) between the ages of six and eighteen whose families earn up to 300 percent of the federal poverty level and funds can be spent on academic supports outside the school day—such as tutoring, day camps, music lessons, and field trips.

A national perspective

NAPCS leader Nina Rees recently published an op-ed in USA Today highlighting a raft of positive news and data around charter schools nationwide. She includes Randall Park High School in Cleveland among a roster of charters providing exemplary service to students and families in the pandemic and beyond.

The view from Texas

In one of a series of stories looking at education in Texas, The 74 took time to visit several charter schools in Dallas, Houston, and Austin. These schools and their dedicated staff are working hard to provide high quality choices, strong education fundamentals, and a pathway to postsecondary success for Lone Star students.

The view from Toledo

Enrollment has grown for a number of charter schools in Toledo this year. Kudos to the school leaders interviewed for this piece who keep the focus on the benefits they provide for their students and families, especially their ability to be a center of calmness and regularity in the midst of pandemic upheaval elsewhere.

A potential breakthrough in Indy?

Momentum seems to be growing for Indianapolis Public Schools to share proceeds of a 2018 funding increase with partner charter schools in the city. The ballot measure passed overwhelmingly, the district’s Board of School Commissioners is seeking details of how such a sharing arrangement might work, and public discussion is expected soon.

STEM grants available

The Ohio STEM Learning Network recently announced an exciting new grant opportunity for K-12 classrooms in the state. Thanks to funding from Battelle, educators can apply for up to $5,000 each to foster the creation of new, sustainable STEM education programming in our classrooms. Programs in areas such as Community Problem Solving, STEM Career Exploration, and Design Thinking and Infrastructure will be considered. The deadline for applications is December 2, 2021, and awards will be announced mid-January 2022. Tips for designing a successful project can be found here, a preview of the application can be found here, and submission details are here.

*****

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

1. The elected board of Youngstown City Schools voted earlier this week to amend their academic “improvement” plan per the recommendations returned to them by the Ohio Department of Education. This included boosting up a number of their original target levels for academic growth and achievement. (Vindy.com, 11/4/21) While the Vindy.com coverage is more detailed, it does not include much beyond the events of the school board meeting and some deserved criticism from community activist Jimma McWilson. The TV news coverage, by comparison, is sparser but contains some specific commentary from newly-reelected board president Ronald Shadd. He reportedly told the WFMJ reporter that “proficiency in math is so low the goal was a realistic one set just to help the district gain back local control.” Well now. Guess it’s no wonder Mr. McWilson has issues. (WFMJ-TV, Youngstown, 11/3/21)
    
2. The Geneva Area Local Schools teacher strike we talked about on Wednesday is over. We have no details on how the main issue—dislike for synchronous “room and Zoom” mode among teachers—was resolved. But there is no school of any kind for kids today as a result of all the hubbub. Thank goodness for that, amiright? (Fox 8 News, Cleveland, 11/5/21)
   
   

3. Meanwhile, the Ohio Energy Project is continuing with virtual field trips for students across the state, to which it pivoted last year. The idea is to make sure students can still have “Careers in Engineering” experiences at various business in Ohio. Probably even more students than could participate in person, don’t you suppose? (WTOL-TV, Toledo, 11/3/21
    
4. On the other hand, Toledo City Schools seems to be doubling down on in-person career education, spending upwards of $5 million to renovate a district building to create a new pre-med high school academy in partnership with the ProMedica health care system. (Executives from the medical mammoth are planning to be on site every day, apparently.) Students will be able to earn college credit and get career training while still in high school, and either go on to higher ed or slide directly into entry level jobs at the hospital right across the street. Color me cautiously optimistic. (Toledo Blade, 11/5/21)

    

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

While the gubernatorial upset in Virginia drew the brightest spotlight, Tuesday’s election featured an unusual surge in the number of school board candidates vying for thousands of seats all over the country. Like many things exacerbated and aggravated by the pandemic, these contests—ordinarily sleepy and often uncontested affairs—were an unlikely outpost in the larger culture war over race and Covid-safety protocols. Across the 463 districts monitored by Ballotpedia, the number of candidates per school board race increased 17 percent from 2018; in Colorado, that number rocketed up a whopping 165 percent—more than the state has seen at any time in the last twenty years. There were also some closely watched recall efforts, with incumbents in one affluent suburb of Milwaukee soundly beating back a slate of Republican challengers that ran on an anti–critical race theory platform.

The school board elections in four districts were especially noteworthy, both for the charged political rancor leading up to November 2, as well as the potentially broader implications from the results. Let’s take a look, starting east and then moving west.

Columbus. The results from Ohio’s largest school district are notable because controversial Democratic incumbent James C. Ragland lost his re-election bid. His own local party set their sights on him at the behest of the teachers union because Ragland called out teacher absenteeism and spoke in support of school choice, once appearing at an event with Betsy DeVos. After his defeat became apparent, Ragland said:

You cannot play politics with the lives of these kids. I stand by everything that I did. I stand by everything that I said. I told the truth, and those that are in power punished me for it. And I’m OK with that.

A lesson from this deep blue capital city might be that the schism ed reformers should be wary of is often less about party-line divides and more about internecine rifts among Democrats (see Denver, next).

Denver. How the mighty have fallen. Since Denver’s historic “flip” two years ago, the union-backed school board has gradually dismantled what were once the most promising examples of education reform in the country. On Tuesday, this majority appeared to consolidate their power with all four of their candidates winning, which would mark the first time in recent history that the board has been unanimously union-backed. It’s hard to say where things go from here, as board members have struggled to articulate their vision beyond being nebulously anti-reform, rattling off the requisite buzzwords. One thing is for certain, though, in this Democratic stronghold: School reform in the Mile High City is indefinitely stalled.

Douglas County, Colorado. In my backyard, more than half of Douglas County’s school board was replaced Tuesday as a slate of conservative candidates convincingly swept their races. Located just south of Denver, Republicans here outnumber Democrats by two to one, but unaffiliated voters make up the largest segment of the electorate. The hotly contested school board battle garnered national attention for the vitriol around mask mandates and race-related issues. But the district has had a long history of making headlines, in part because of the perpetual tug of war between pro- and anti-school choice forces. To wit, AEI’s Rick Hess once called Douglas County the “most interesting school district in America.”

Albuquerque. A major shakeup in New Mexico’s largest district was never in doubt, as all four members with terms ending this year called it quits. Tuesday’s results were encouraging, as a slate of business-backed candidates are poised to win three of the four seats in races that have often been decided by the local teachers union. This bodes well for an agenda that properly puts a focus back on accountability and improving student performance. A decisive shift in power will be a positive development in Albuquerque, which serves one in five New Mexico students, because the district tested only 1 percent of their kids last spring—which came as no surprise given the shenanigans the previous board pulled to deliberately depress participation.

—

An unanswered question is whether Tuesday’s atmospherics are a preview of what’s in store for school board elections in the coming years—or whether they’ve outlived their utility as fodder for political satire on SNL. It’s worth remembering that the strife seen in many places leading up to Tuesday’s decisions were due in no small part to the fact that school board members are often in office because of off-cycle elections in which the overwhelming majority of eligible voters didn’t even cast a ballot. At the same time, no clear trend emerged from these four contests, perhaps suggesting that, despite pandemic school closures and the national brouhaha, school board races at least remain highly contingent.

Editor’s note: We're happy to introduce Jennifer Frey, who will be writing regularly for the Fordham Institute over the next year. She is an associate professor at the University of South Carolina, where she focuses on virtue ethics.

Early in October, a group of professors, administrators, teachers, scholars, and journalists gathered in Annapolis for the Classic Learning Test’s third annual Higher Education Summit. The theme was “bringing fire to the next generation.” Despite the political, religious, and ethnic diversity of the group, we were united in our shared love for classical education, our common commitment to see it grow and flourish, and our concern that contemporary education’s abandonment of it is a great disservice to students.

What is classical education? The best definition is broad and conveys its essence: Classical education seeks to develop the whole person by reconnecting knowledge and virtue. Classical educators understand that the value of our received tradition is not “the worship of ashes, but the preservation of fire.” As a member of the CLT’s Board of Academic Advisors, I was happy to participate in a gathering whose main purpose was to celebrate a vision of education that I firmly believe should be the model for the future in this country—a model that embraces the classical idea that a true education, what the Greeks called paideia and the Germans called bildung, is about building personal character, not just conveying useful information or developing worthwhile skills. A classical education equips students for success in the deep and abiding sense of being able to flourish as free and good human beings.

Princeton’s celebrated professor Robert George spoke personally and movingly about his humble roots in West Virginia and how he felt his public education had failed to prepare him for university study. Besides lacking certain skills, George identified a deeper problem: He had no idea why he was at Swarthmore College beyond his desire for upward mobility. Reading Plato’s Gorgias changed that, and he came to see that he should want to know and understand the world for its own sake because human freedom and flourishing are tied to the pursuit of truth. Like all higher aspirations, this pursuit requires virtues, including patience, humility, courage, and studiousness.

The connection between truth and freedom was picked up in a conversation between me and Cornel West, now a professor at Union Theological Seminary. We were discussing James Baldwin, and Dr. West rightly pointed out that innocence about racial terror and trauma in the United States is a “pre-paideia condition” because the ability to see one’s society clearly takes character virtues, such as honesty, which checks every form of self-flattery and self-deception. Dr. West stressed the need to cultivate the civic love that is the root of justice in order to be able to see one another’s suffering and respond appropriately, and the further need to develop a sense of self-transcendence that virtue brings along with it.

Jessica Hooten Wilson of the University of Dallas picked up on the theme of self-transcendence in her talk on the metaphor of fire in our literary tradition. She pointed out that, while fire surely has destructive potential, it also carries the power to purify, reshape, and renew, and in literature is often associated with knowledge and hope. Dr. Hooten Wilson argued that, for educators to carry the fire is to help students imagine themselves as part of a story that began long ago and will continue long after they are gone. When we learn this story, through reading the great texts of our received tradition, we broaden and deepen our vision and expand our imaginations, preparing us to write our own stories in a way that keeps the broader human story firmly in mind.

Anika Prather, adjunct professor of classics at Howard University, discussed how we need to create a learning environment where all students can gather around the fire and be able to see themselves as part of the tradition that is being handed on. Dr. Prather spoke movingly about how the fire of paideia was so important to Black intellectuals fighting for civil rights, seminal figures such as W.E.B. Du Bois, Anna Julia Cooper, Frederick Douglass, and Martin Luther King Jr.

Finally, Spencer Klavan, host of the Young Heretics podcast, reminded us all of the importance of the virtue of gratitude. Klavan spoke eloquently about the monks who labored in their cold cells, dutifully copying ancient manuscripts so as to keep the fire of classical culture burning when almost all its institutions had fallen asunder. Klavan reminded us that many forces are now working against classical ideals, including the standardized-testing regime, which forces students to read lifeless prose in a lifeless way, and educators who brag about getting rid of Homer and assert that tradition is nothing more than white supremacy and patriarchy. Klavan pressed us to keep the fire going because, just as we are grateful to those long-ago laboring monks, future generations will be grateful for our labors now. This gratitude is the stuff of piety, a virtue that is all but lost today.

The sad truth is that contemporary education has stopped carrying the fire. It has become technocratic and divorced from virtue. But it needn’t and shouldn’t remain this way.

A story that became a flashpoint in national conversations around the effects of “CRT bans” is reaching its denouement: This past week, a hearing officer appointed to adjudicate the case ruled that the Sullivan County, Tennessee, school board was justified in firing high school teacher Matthew Hawn earlier this year.

The hearing officer concluded, reports Education Week, that Hawn, who taught a contemporary issues class, “was insubordinate and unprofessional and violated the [Tennessee state] teacher code of ethics when he failed to provide students ‘varying viewpoints’ on the existence of white privilege.” (Contrary to widespread coverage and social media chatter, Hawn was not charged with violating Tennessee’s recently enacted “CRT ban.”)

It was the right call if you take viewpoint diversity seriously, and not a difficult decision if you’re uncomfortable with teachers conceiving of their roles as a form of social justice activism (whether or not you share their views). The case bodes well for other school districts and states who may be considering adopting or enforcing teacher codes of conduct similar to the one that resulted in Hawn’s dismissal as a tool to recommit teachers to open and free classroom discussion, with multiple points of view represented.

That said, there are two matters in the story that illuminate details that schools, districts, and states need to attend to if they want to use codes of conduct effectively.

The first is the importance of ensuring that teachers understand what it means to provide varying viewpoints. Even after the ruling upheld his dismissal, Hawn still seemed at a loss for why he was at fault. Education Week relays:

In a school district and county that’s overwhelmingly white and conservative, Black writers like Coates, Lacey, and Blake are the varying viewpoint, Hawn said.

“Whenever I teach perspectives from African American people, I have to immediately compare and contrast it with a white narrative,” said Hawn, a white self-described ‘anti-racist’ teacher in a district where more than 94 percent of students are white. “That’s what they want me to do with my lesson plans.”

If we take Hawn at his word, it highlights the need to train teachers on what viewpoint diversity actually looks like (perhaps not a strong suit of our schools of education) and, most importantly, what issues might present tripwires in their communities. As we argue in a forthcoming AEI report, teachers often work in isolation, creating blind spots where they either don’t recognize sensitivities about issues or mistakenly assume their personal views are common and uncontroversial. Codes of conduct, taken seriously as a driver of school culture, would encourage teachers to seek input from their colleagues and administrators before teaching a controversial topic to ensure they present multiple views accurately, professionally, and without unduly indulging their personal views. Collaborating with colleagues to ensure one is exercising discernment and commonsense could also help avoid the compliance mentality that leads to nonsensical declarations that opposing views need to be presented on historical matters, such as whether the Holocaust occurred or if there are two sides to slavery.

The second matter concerns whether students should be allowed to grapple with controversial, contemporary issues at all. Contrary to Hawn’s claim, reported by Education Week, that the school district removed its contemporary issues class from the curriculum, we confirmed with Sullivan County officials that the course is still being taught. This is also the right call. Schools absolutely should be teaching age-appropriate controversial issues. We have drifted a long way from the founding purpose of American education as preparation for self-government, an essential component of which is the ability to grapple thoughtfully with contentious public issues. Indeed, in a diverse and divided nation, that skill has never been more necessary or in shorter supply.

But that puts the onus on educators to commit themselves to fairness, inquiry, and rigor—not the whims of social justice advocates. Instilling and enforcing teacher codes of conduct that stipulate that teachers are welcomed and encouraged to address age-appropriate controversial topics with students, so long as teachers provide students access to varying points of view when they do so, can go a long way towards threading this needle. Ultimately, though, such codes will only work if districts lean into the idea that teachers should teach controversial issues—not cancel the classes that enable this to happen.

Sullivan County appears to have gotten this one right, in taking a stand for viewpoint diversity, respecting their students’ ability to weigh evidence and to think independently, and maintaining their commitment to the public purpose of public education. Here’s hoping others—many others—follow their lead.

Editor’s note: A slightly different version of this article was first published by the American Enterprise Institute.

Among its many educational impacts, the pandemic has reenergized efforts to expand private school choice. States like Ohio, where it already existed, have expanded eligibility and increased funding. Meanwhile, Kentucky, Missouri, and West Virginia established their first-ever programs. In total, thirty-one states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, now have private school choice.

It’s possible that even more states will join these ranks over the next few years. As newly established programs grow, the number of participating students may skyrocket—and policymakers will be confronted with plenty of complicated questions. Chief among them is the age-old question: How should private schools that receive public funds be held accountable? (For more on this topic, see Fordham’s previous work.)

Nicole Stelle Garnett of the University of Notre Dame Law School offers some insight on this question in a brief recently published by the Manhattan Institute. She begins by examining the history of private school choice, as well as the current policy landscape. For the most part, private schools are free from the regulations imposed on traditional public and charter schools. Laws vary across states, but almost all are minimal. For example, although forty states regulate curricula in some way, most exempt private schools from those mandates. But the laws that govern private school choice programs tend to be strict, as taxpayer funds come into play. Some states mandate minimum qualifications for teachers and basic curricular requirements, such as teaching civics. Some voucher programs regulate school admissions policies. And all programs manage school finance in some capacity, such as restricting scholarship amounts to the school’s tuition level.

Holding private schools accountable for student outcomes is a little more complicated. Garnett outlines four challenges for accountability in the private school choice context: politics, namely the fierce debates between school choice proponents and opponents; the tension between quality (only high performing schools are permitted to participate) and quantity (parents should have as many options as possible); selection bias, which can make it difficult to compare the performance of students participating in private school choice programs with their public school peers; and the limitations of standardized-test-based accountability, as parents often look beyond test scores to gauge school quality.

According to Garnett, whether or not these challenges can be overcome depends on the purpose of accountability. If the point is to ensure that parents have only “good” choices, then overcoming these complexities will be extremely difficult. But if the goal is simply to help parents make choices, the path forward is smoother and worth pursuing. She offers four suggestions for how to design private school choice accountability regulations so that they give families the information they need, while also expanding the number and variety of options.

Encourage transparency at the school level. In some states, private school choice programs don’t require participating schools to administer any standardized tests. Those that do rarely require the results to be made publicly available. There are a few states that do both, such as Ohio, Wisconsin, Indiana, and Louisiana. Other states would be wise to follow suit, though Garnett notes that only requiring voucher recipients to take the assessment—and not all students—creates an imperfect measure of school quality.

Permit testing flexibility. Private schools shy away from administering state tests for a variety of reasons. Some fear that it’s a slippery slope toward being forced to align their curricula to state exams, while others believe they aren’t an accurate reflection of student achievement and progress. Permitting the use of multiple assessments can assuage some of these concerns, though it also creates a problem: Apples-to-apples comparisons between private and public schools are far more difficult when multiple tests are used. A compromise would be to allow private schools to administer a research-backed test of their choosing, so long as they publicly report the results for all students.

Develop alternative measures of school quality. Families value academic performance, but that’s not the only factor that they consider when making their schooling decisions. If the goal of accountability is to help parents make informed choices, then accountability systems should report on factors that matter to parents. One way to do this would be to require participating private schools to publicly report testing results and at least one noncognitive measure of school quality, such as attendance rates or information about college enrollment and persistence. Doing so would provide families with more information and could help mitigate issues created by allowing test flexibility.

Structure policies to preserve better choices. In the interest of giving families as many choices as possible, accountability policies should be structured to prevent the exclusion of private schools that struggle academically but are higher performing than other schools in their community; the comparative strength of other local schools should matter.

Garnett argues that the ultimate goal of private school accountability should be to ensure that families have access to more and better schools. That means giving parents and guardians the information they need to make wise choices—information that is transparent, easy to interpret, and reflective of the school-quality criteria that matter to them.

SOURCE: Nicole Stelle Garnett, “Accountability and Private-School Choice,” The Manhattan Institute (October 2021).