In today’s rapidly evolving digital landscape, the importance of digital literacy can hardly be overstated. But what can schools do to help students acquire these skills? And how does access to computer courses impact students’ futures? A new working paper from researchers at the University of Maryland, including Professor Jing Liu, sheds light on this very question, offering new evidence that expanding computer science courses in high schools influences students’ choices of college majors and their earning potential once they enter the workforce.

Over the past decade, Maryland has made a concerted effort to broaden access to computer science education in high schools. Between 2013 and 2020, the proportion of high schools offering computer science courses in Maryland climbed from 80 percent to nearly 100 percent. Even more impressively, the share of high schools providing what the researchers classify as “high-quality” computer science education rose from 60 percent to over 90 percent. Although the definition of “high-quality” remains somewhat ambiguous, the trend is clear: More students are gaining exposure to computer science. The researchers utilized this unique context to explore the long-term effects of such an expansion.

The researchers identify a significant uptick in the number of students opting for these classes as computer science courses were introduced in their high schools. In 2010, less than 5 percent of Maryland students enrolled in a high-quality computer science course. By 2017, that figure exceeded 20 percent. This expansion disproportionately affected lower-income students and students of color, who were less likely to have access to computer science education in the early years of the study.

As students were exposed to more computer science course options, their college majors shifted: These students became more likely to pursue and persist in computer science majors in college. This shift, however, seemed to come at the expense of other STEM fields, which saw a slight decrease in enrollment.

One might assume that students shifting from other STEM fields to computer science would not influence student labor market outcomes, since these students might have been likely to eventually earn good incomes regardless of which STEM field they concentrated in. In fact, computer science seems to have benefited students’ later incomes. The researchers identified modest positive effects of exposure to high school computer science on employment and earnings at age twenty-four, with these benefits being particularly pronounced among female students, lower-income students, and Black students.

The nuanced findings suggest that the advantages of computer science education may extend beyond merely obtaining a degree in the field. While male students showed stronger effects in choosing and graduating with a computer science major, the positive workforce outcomes were more significant among women. This indicates that the skills acquired through computer science courses may be providing broader career benefits that aren’t solely dependent on earning a computer science degree.

The paper concludes with a cautious endorsement of the benefits of expanding computer science coursework in K–12 schools. The authors note that their findings support claims that such expansions can boost digital skills, increase the receipt of computer science degrees, and augment the supply of computer science professionals.

However, the study also raises important questions about the underlying mechanisms driving these outcomes. Are there other, unmeasured benefits of computer science education that are helping students succeed in the workforce? How do these benefits vary across different student demographics? These are questions that future research will need to address.

SOURCE: Jing Liu, Cameron Conrad, and David Blazar, “Computer Science for All? The Impact of High School Computer Science Courses on College Majors and Earnings,” Annenberg Institute, Brown University, EdWorkingPaper No. 24-904 (January 2024).

Cheers

• “LAUSD approves cellphone ban as Newsom calls for statewide action.” —Los Angeles Times
• Cities across the country are passing legislation to ban phones in schools. New York City should be next. —Michael Bloomberg, Bloomberg
• A new report from FutureEd outlines five ways that school can support advanced students. —Peg Tyre, The 74

Jeers

• Popular curricula in New York City do not require students to read full books. —Xochitl Gonzalez, The Atlantic

• Oklahoma’s supreme court blocked what would have been the nation’s first religious, charter school. —New York Times
• A record number of children required special education services last year, and schools are scrambling to hire staff to meet that need. —Wall Street Journal
• A new Arkansas law raised starting teacher salaries, which disgruntled a surprising number of veteran teachers. —Hechinger Report
• A law student attended a technical school and was struck by the complexity of the work and shortage of students. —Darnell Epps, Washington Post

This is fourth in a series in which I examine issues in K–12 education that Ohio leaders should tackle in the next biennial state budget. Previous pieces covered the science of reading as well as funding for low-income pupils and interdistrict open enrollment. This essay looks at guarantees.

One of the most vexing problems in school finance is reliance upon provisions that shelter districts from funding reductions. At first blush, these provisions—known as “guarantees”—don’t sound so bad, and cutting funding is never politically appealing, no matter the circumstance. But school districts do change and sometimes do so in ways that should reduce their need for state aid. Districts that are losing enrollment have fewer expenses and thus require less funding. Meanwhile, those with increasing local wealth they can tap into should have less need for state assistance, too.

A well-functioning state funding formula would adjust district allocations for those types of changes. But guarantees circumvent the formula, providing excess funds above and beyond formula prescriptions to ensure a district’s funding doesn’t fall below some historical level. This is problematic on both fairness and efficiency grounds. In terms of fairness, guarantees amount to special handouts given only to certain districts, a “pork barrel”–type method of allocating dollars that can end up shortchanging districts more in need of state aid. They also treat parents and students unfairly, as they weaken districts’ incentives to serve them well in an effort to keep them as “customers.” If no funding is lost when parents and students head for the exits, schools have fewer incentives to improve. As for efficiency—a school funding concept enshrined in the Ohio Constitution—guarantees promote fiscal largesse, as districts can avoid trimming budgets to account for smaller enrollments. They also represent a poor use of taxpayer dollars, as they send funds to educate what are in effect “phantom students.”

Despite these problems and some attempts to root them out, Ohio has long embedded guarantees into its funding system. The Kasich administration used to prod the legislature to address guarantees, as have we at Fordham. More recently, the Cupp-Patterson school funding plan seemed to promise their demise, too. In their advocacy push a few years ago, plan proponents attacked Ohio’s old funding system as a “patchwork” whereby hundreds of districts were funded via guarantees while others were “capped.” Instead, they pledged a model that “bases state school funding on actual student need … and treats all Ohio school districts and taxpayers fairly, based on capacity to pay.” In other words, supporters claimed that this plan would finally move the state toward a system in which the formula is scrupulously followed. An early projection from advocates suggested that the plan would immediately cut the number of districts on the guarantee from roughly half to just one-sixth, and one school group official predicted that, over time, “a need for a guarantee should go away.”

The Cupp-Patterson model—now billed the “Fair School Funding Plan”—was enacted in 2021, and the third year of implementation (fiscal year 2024) is drawing to a close. Yet Ohio’s funding system still includes guarantees that protect hundreds of districts from funding reductions otherwise prescribed by the formula. While some progress has been made in removing districts from the guarantee, 35 percent remained on one as of FY24. That’s not fast enough progress, especially given the pledges made by the Cupp-Patterson advocates. Three funding streams in particular comprise the guarantee given to certain districts this year:[1]

• Temporary Transitional Aid: Guarantees that districts do not receive less state funding than in FY20.

• Formula Transition Supplement: Guarantees that districts do not receive less state funding than in FY21.

• Supplemental Targeted Assistance: Provides certain districts extra dollars based on their FY19 enrollments. This funding stream functions like a guarantee by providing a special subsidy for districts that historically lost enrollments as students chose charter and private-school options.

Taken together, these items cost the state approximately a quarter-billion dollars this year, or $457 per pupil. While not a huge sum in the context of the state’s entire education budget, this is more than the state is spending on the Science of Reading initiative ($169 million over two years) and above its annual expenditure on career-technical-education categorical funding (roughly $215 million this year).

Table 1: Guarantee funding for Ohio districts, FY2024

As shown in Table 1, not all districts benefit from the guarantee. And as noted earlier, guarantees tend to subsidize districts that are losing enrollment and/or growing in local wealth, factors that should reduce their need for state assistance. Table 2 shows that the districts on the guarantee have indeed experienced larger enrollment declines in recent years: -2.9 percent versus -0.9 percent for non-guarantee districts from FY21 to FY24. Their property values have also increased at a faster clip than non-guarantee districts, though resident incomes have not.

Table 2: Characteristics of districts on a guarantee

That guarantees can be a crutch for shrinking districts is starkly illustrated by looking at East Cleveland City School District, far and away the biggest beneficiary of the guarantee on a per-pupil basis. In FY24, the district received a staggering $5,632 per pupil in guarantees, an amount that sends the district’s overall state funding to levels that are way out of line with similarly situated districts. For instance, East Cleveland this year received roughly $24,000 per pupil in total state aid, whereas nearby Cleveland Metropolitan School District received a more rational $9,700 per pupil from the state.[2] East Cleveland’s massive guarantee, which it has received in all three years of Cupp-Patterson implementation, shields it from the state funding reductions that would otherwise occur due to its rapidly declining enrollment (-28.9 percent from FY21 to 24).

Table 3: East Cleveland school district enrollment trends and guarantee funding

School funding guarantees are bad public policy. They undermine the principles of a fair and efficient funding system designed to deliver dollars to districts via formula. They misdirect funds to districts that are less in need of state assistance and enable shrinking districts to avoid making necessary budgetary decisions that promote good stewardship of taxpayer funds. In the next budget bill, state legislators should fulfill what the Cupp-Patterson plan initially promised Ohio: a state funding system that treats schools, students, and taxpayers fairly. Removing guarantees from the system—and actually following the formula—would be a big step toward instituting a school funding model that is “fair” in more than name only.

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

1. This is a weird one, but a hit’s a hit. A blog from Fordham’s Jessica Poiner—analyzing a decline in the number of newly licensed teachers over the last decade—is quoted (but not linked, tut tut, News 5!) in this piece. The story goes on to assert that a Cleveland-area non-profit is working to change that dynamic. Except the Step Forward program, laudable as it is, is focused on childcare workers and not K-12 classroom teachers. Odd. (News 5 Cleveland, 6/25/24)
   
   

2. A comment from our Aaron Churchill is paraphrased—ever so briefly—in this piece looking at the proposed “voucher accountability” bill currently pending in a legislative committee. (Dayton Daily News, 6/24/24)
   
   

3. Finally, in further Fordham news, bossman Chad Aldis testified in the House Primary and Secondary Education Committee yesterday. He was positive on a number of aspects of SB 168, including its primary purpose of deregulating many aspects of K-12 education. He was, however, far less bullish on some of the amendments added on by the committee. For example, he called a provision to place a hold on sponsor evaluations for the 2024-2025 school year “a step backward” for charter schools in Ohio after years of improvement. “Now is not the time to back off on some of the requirements that played a role…in improvement of the quality of the sector that is now delivering the best education it ever has.” he said. (Gongwer Ohio, 6/25/24) You can read his full testimony here, and read Fordham’s media statement specifically on the sponsor evaluation proposal here.
   
   

4. Moving on from Fordham news, but staying in the realm of charter schools: Northeastern Local School District has managed to convince a judge that Rolling Hills school is simultaneously not an unused facility while also being in imminent need of demolition. This despite the district having tried to sell the intact building to someone else (by which I mean any buyer that is not a charter school) in December. That little auction didn’t work because of a due diligence problem (we’re shocked!), but now that a competitor charter school operator is ready to hand them dough and open for business in August, the bulldozers can’t fire up fast enough. I’m sure that legal wrangling continues, but it could all be moot even if the charter school wins now that the temporary restraining order on demo has been lifted. (Springfield News-Sun, 6/24/24)
   
   

5. The final recommendations of the Columbus City Schools Facilities Task Force were unveiled at the school board meeting last night. The list is smaller than what was previously discussed, closures/consolidations will save far less money than originally hoped (even if they all happen), and simply starting to take action on the recommendations will reportedly take many years. The board took no votes last night and plans to think about it long and hard before any further steps are taken. The one surprise: A recommendation to close the district’s downtown HQ and move central office to the former ECOT building on South High Street. A charming turn, and a much-belated effort to recoup some of $3.5 million spite purchase investment on that boondoggle building. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/25/24)
   
   

6. This is a story from February, just now being published by Ideastream. I don’t know why that is, but I have a theory. On its surface, this is a lovely descriptive piece about a small, community-run nonprofit providing tutoring, STEM club, English language instruction, and more for Spanish-speaking families in Painesville. But the details that lurk beneath that surface are not lovely at all, in my estimation. Allow me to strip off the journalistic varnish for you, and tell the tale: Painesville has been a destination for migrant farmworkers from Mexico and Latin America, we are told, for more than 30 years. That includes lots of kids with limited (or no) English and spotty formal education who pop into (and out of) Painesville City Schools at different times of the year. However, even after three decades of this predictable and well-understood pattern, the school district appears unable to do very little to actually serve the academic needs of these children. For many years, the director of a small non-profit support organization in the area “was watching the state of Ohio school report card for the Painesville schools and the very dismal rankings” (you and me, too, boss) and worked to provide whatever minimal action she could to help the children learn English and math and science along with supporting their families’ other important needs. (You know: food, shelter, clothing, legal assistance, etc.) Despite all of the money, state and local support, highly-credentialed staff, the devastation of those pandemic-disrupted school years, and (frankly) the bedrock requirement to actually serve the students who came to them, Painesville City Schools threw up their hands (“We have the lion’s share of the poverty and economic disadvantage in the county,” says the district supe by way of explanation. “And so we have always had massive gaps to close with our kids.” Understanding, but never actually doing that job.) chose to reach out to this very modest third party entity to actually do the work that his district has failed to do. It is, as you can probably imagine, not enough. All of the volunteers that work for HOLA Ohio are awesome, the director is a rockstar, the families are just like yours and mine, and the kids are precious. Tutoring nights are hugely popular and draw a big crowd because of the awesomeness and because of the immense need. But volunteers are limited, time is short, the funding is small, and Painesville City Schools’ academic outcomes still suck. You can’t varnish that truth, Ideastream. The schools are failing these students and families and no amount of heart can fix that. Something’s got to change. (Ideastream Public Media, 6/24/24)
   
   

7. For decades, we are told, Akron City Schools has contracted with individual van drivers to transport homeless students and students with special needs. Each one is a separate contractor, each one owns their own vehicle, and each controls their own schedules (“I like my independence, I like the ability to control my time and I have the ability to take on more kids as I see fit, not when somebody dictates it to me.”). Believing there is more efficiency to be had in conducting this work—including district, charter, and private school students across the areas—the district has been trying out contracting with two private companies over the last year. But the independent drivers want it stopped, and for things to go back to the same old way they have been done since the 1970s. And it looks like the elected school board will soon vote to go along with that demand. (Fox 8 News, Cleveland, 6/24/24)

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

Today, the Ohio House Primary and Secondary Education Committee voted unanimously to favorably report Senate Bill 168. The bill is expected to be considered by the full House on Wednesday, June 26. The purpose of the legislation was originally to deregulate many aspects of K-12 education, but it picked up a variety of amendments during the legislative process—including a provision that would place a hold on community school sponsor evaluations for the 2024-2025 school year.

“Ten years ago, Ohio’s community school sector was rightly and roundly criticized for a lack of attention to quality,” said Chad L. Aldis, vice president for Ohio policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “The House Primary and Secondary Education Committee’s addition of an amendment that would put a hold on community school sponsor evaluations would be a step backward for the sector.”

Community school sponsors have a statutory oversight role over community schools and—among a host of responsibilities—are tasked with giving schools permission to open and—when necessary—closing them. The sponsor evaluation system, in place for about a decade, requires each sponsor to undergo a rigorous evaluation on three discrete components: the academic quality of their community school portfolio, their compliance with applicable rules and laws, and their adherence to best sponsorship practices.

“The improved quality of Ohio’s community school sector didn’t happen by accident,” Aldis added. “It was the result of stronger oversight and a coordinated focus on quality. Giving sponsors, many of whom have not gone through the evaluation system in three years, a year’s pass is the wrong approach. We urge the House to remove that provision from SB 168 and avoid weakening community school oversight in the state of Ohio.”

State tests are an important annual check-in for parents, teachers, communities, and policymakers, as they provide an objective assessment of student achievement based on grade-level standards. Accompanying growth measures offer a different, though no less important, snapshot of student progress from year to year. Because state tests are standardized, they make it possible to track achievement and growth over time, and to compare student populations and schools. Such comparisons are often the best way to pinpoint problems (say, for instance, learning loss courtesy of a global pandemic), evaluate the effectiveness of specific policies (like third-grade reading retention), and ensure that all students—regardless of race, gender, disability, or geographic location—have access to quality schools and educational opportunities.

In short, the information that tests provide is crucial. But that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. In fact, there are plenty of ideas out there about how to make tests more engaging, how to gather better information, and how to make sure the process remains rigorous and fair. Not all of these ideas are a good fit for Ohio. But there is one that Ohio leaders should consider: computer adaptive testing.

As the name suggests, computer adaptive tests adapt to students during the assessment process via computer software. When taking traditional, “fixed form” tests—what Ohio currently uses for its state exams—the difficulty level is the same for all students. With adaptive tests, however, the difficulty of students’ questions is determined by their previous responses. Although all students are tested on their current grade level standards, students who answer questions correctly are provided harder items and those who struggle are provided easier ones. (To better understand how questions are selected for each student, check out this video from the Virginia Department of Education.) The goal is to provide students with questions that are neither too difficult nor too easy. By targeting questions to a student’s ability level, the assessment provides a much clearer picture of what students know.

Computer adaptive tests have several benefits. For students, taking a test that finds a happy medium between questions that are too challenging and too easy is a much more engaging process than traditional testing. Students who are advanced are less likely to get bored, those who struggle are less likely to get frustrated, and all students benefit from a more personalized opportunity to show what they know. Furthermore, because customizing questions can determine mastery quickly, the test could end up being shorter for some students. That’s not possible with fixed form assessments, which provide a specific number of questions that must be answered regardless of whether a student has already demonstrated mastery.

Many Ohio students are also already familiar with adaptive assessments thanks to the tests their schools administer for diagnostic purposes. NWEA, for example, has been approved as an alternative testing vendor by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. Over 40 percent of Ohio students take MAP growth, NWEA’s computer adaptive assessment that measures student performance in math, reading, and science. i-Ready, another vendor that’s been approved by the state and is widely used in Ohio schools, offers adaptive tests. Ohio’s Alternate Assessment for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities—a federally required state assessment—is computer adaptive. The SAT is now fully digital and adaptive. And the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is computer adaptive, too.

For educators and parents, adaptive tests promise more actionable results. By providing a more precise assessment of where students excel and where they struggle, these tests can help teachers and parents personalize support and intervention to address specific topics rather than general, grade-level areas.

For policymakers, advocates, and researchers, adaptive tests could lead to better, more exact measures of student growth on state report cards. This has the potential to allow for a more precise gauge of whether students learned a year’s worth of material in a year’s time, something current state assessments don’t do. If so, we’d have a clearer picture of which schools are doing excellent work and which ones might need more support. Transitioning to adaptive testing should also be relatively easy. ESSA, the federal education law, permits states to administer statewide assessments in the form of computer adaptive tests. And although Ohio would likely be required to update its ESSA plan to make the switch, state officials wouldn’t need to worry about federal approval. Many states already administer computer adaptive tests as their annual exams, including Virginia, Michigan, and Indiana.

Given all these benefits, it seems like a no-brainer for Ohio leaders to consider transitioning to computer adaptive testing. But the key word here is “consider.” Even the smallest change to state tests can cause controversy and strife if handled incorrectly, and this wouldn’t be a small change. Furthermore, although many students and teachers might be familiar with adaptive testing, many parents might not be. Failing to communicate clearly and preemptively address misconceptions could be a death knell. Timing is also an issue. With so many other policy challenges on their plates, state lawmakers need to proceed with caution.

To ensure that computer adaptive tests don’t become yet another promising idea that’s doomed by hasty adoption or lackluster implementation, state policymakers should call for a feasibility study. As part of this study, officials at the Department of Education and Workforce could examine the work of other states, evaluate different ways to bring adaptive testing to Ohio, gather feedback from key stakeholders, and recommend ideas that could head off potential problems. The results of this study would give leaders plenty of Ohio-specific feedback to incorporate into eventual policy and practice. Most importantly, starting with a feasibility study would ensure that Ohio has all its ducks in a row before making such a big change. Computer adaptive testing could be great for the Buckeye State—but only if we do it right.

Note: Today, the Ohio House’s Primary and Secondary Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 168 which would, among other things, deregulate many aspects of K-12 education in the state. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided interested party testimony on the bill’s main provisions and several amendments intended to be added. These are his written remarks.

The intent behind SB 168—education deregulation—is one that Fordham wholeheartedly supports. We actually published a report on the topic all the way back in 2015. Unfortunately, like many well-intentioned efforts before it, SB 168 doesn’t go far enough in its efforts to deregulate and—where it is bolder—there’s been a push to remove those provisions from the bill. I’d encourage this committee in the coming years to find more areas where we can relax input measures to give educators more flexibility on how to help each child reach his or her potential. At the same time, it will be important to maintain outcome measures, high expectations, and transparency.

Given the nature of the legislation, SB 168 has many different issues that it touches. As such, I apologize in advance for not having a strong narrative connecting my comments on the bill’s various components. Instead, for the sake of efficiency, I’ll go through the key aspects of the bill where we have feedback individually.

First, I’ll focus on the provisions of SB 168 as passed by the Senate. Next, I’ll shift to commentary on those amendments that I’m aware are being considered by some committee members. That, of course, isn’t likely to be a comprehensive list.

3302.151—related to exemptions for high performing districts

• Strongly support the overall intent

• Should look for many more things to exempt districts from

• At the same time, exempting districts from the third grade reading guarantee requirement to provide well qualified teachers to struggling readers should be removed from the list of exemptions

• The current criteria for becoming eligible strongly favors wealthy districts. We recommend amending it to include districts with strong value added ratings as well

3319.111—related to district developed teacher evaluation protocols that differ from OTES

• Support this change but that support comes with a word of warning. It’s not going to matter what evaluation system is in place as long as principals and superintendents have to jump through a bunch of hoops to remove a teacher that is not up to par
• Until that changes, 97 percent plus of teachers are likely to be deemed skilled or accomplished even when—given the difficult and challenging nature of the job—that is unlikely to be the case

3302.421—related to remote administration of required state assessments

• We have very serious concerns about SB 168’s efforts to allow remote testing on the state assessment for online students
• The data security issues involved for state test items and the increased potential for cheating are difficult to ignore

3319.273 (new section)—related to administrator licenses

• We support the Senate’s effort to eliminate the master’s degree requirement to be a school administrator
• We should trust boards of education to hire qualified individuals into leadership positions and reduce educational barriers to entry
• If districts still want to hire administrators with a master’s degree, they can. State law just shouldn’t require it

3319.172—related to making decisions on merit rather than seniority for nonteaching staff       

• We support the Senate’s language to eliminate seniority from non-teaching staff reduction determinations when employees differ in the quality of their work
• We’ll never have the schools we want if quality is essentially a non-factor when employment reductions are needed

Now, I’ll shift to amendments potentially under consideration.

Dyslexia training

• Recommend maintaining the requirement that the dyslexia advisory committee, rather than individual districts, determine the amount of necessary training

Adjusting the graduation rate calculation for students with disabilities

• Language being discussed has potentially significant ramifications and could change the incentive structure in a variety of ways
• More time and consideration should be given to the issue before any legislative action is taken

Sponsor evaluations for the 2024-2025 school year

• Strongly object to any efforts to remove the sponsor evaluation requirements

• Ohio’s community schools have improved, but it wasn’t just luck. It was a result of significant improvements to oversight. Now is not the time to change those requirements.

E-School enrollment limits

• Current law limits the rate of growth for online schools, but the Senate version repeals those limits

• We support efforts to maintain growth limits in Ohio Revised Code

Automatic closure provisions for district and community schools

• While we are supportive of making sure our current identification procedure identifies the correct schools for this most consequential of decisions, the issue deserves longer consideration
• No community schools will close before next year if action is not taken
• We would very much like to work with the General Assembly, if changes are going to be made to these provisions, to find a good solution (Yes, we have ideas)

* * *

Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today on Senate Bill 168 and some of the potential amendments. Education deregulation is an important topic, and something that we believe—even after this bill is moved forward—is still very much a work in progress. I’m happy to answer any questions that you may have.

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

1. Big thanks to the Dayton Daily News for covering Fordham’s new report on brick-and-mortar charter school performance versus traditional district schools in the first two years after pandemic disruptions. Kudos to reporter Eileen McClory for finding folks to comment on the paper who actually accede to the accuracy of the findings, even as they protest (very gently, if I may say so) that more research into other comparisons between school types would be interesting to see. I couldn’t agree more! (Dayton Daily News, 6/21/24)
   
   

2. Personally, I feel that Akron City Schools has other, more important matters on its plate than joining the voucher groucher lawsuit, but it seems that the elected school board disagrees with me and will vote later today in favor of paying out $40K of their precious state funding to join the folks suing the state over the EdChoice program. All of this while trying to get folks to give them more money via a levy in November and while seemingly actively ignoring that disastrous performance audit that showed the district failing to serve students across numerous aspects of education. The arguments for joining are pretty dubious, too, I think. Would it really sway the judge/strengthen the legal argument if more districts or specific districts were involved? And would it really show the public at large that “we are doing everything we can to bring money into the system and keep money into the system” (per elected board member Barbara Sykes’ logic) if one of families’ educational options were forcibly shut off? (Akron Beacon-Journal, 6/24/24)
   
   

3. Businessman (and former elected school board member) Philip Derrow, responding to the overload media coverage grouching about vouchers lately, published on op-ed in the Dispatch this morning. He says that underperforming school districts are losing families to alternatives (all the alternatives) simply because they want something better for their kids, and that nothing will change for those districts—including the steady decline in enrollment—until their leaders right the academic ship. “I have long argued that the primary role of K-12 education is to successfully impart foundational knowledge to students in literacy, math, the natural sciences, history, civics and the arts,” he writes. “Schools that cannot fulfill that role shouldn’t spend a penny on much of anything else.” And that includes pricey lawsuits meant to eliminate one of those educational options. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/24/24)
   
   

4. Axios Columbus gives us some succinct data to corroborate Mr. Derrow’s thoughts, showing the enrollment declines in Columbus City Schools and Cleveland Metropolitan School District over the last few years. It is worth noting that Columbus City Schools is an OG member of Team Voucher Groucher, having now made at least three annual payments to their lawyers with nothing at all to show for it yet. Even though the payment amount has likely shrunk each year (it’s based on enrollment), this still seems to me like an awfully expensive roll of the dice, especially when the ability to actually give families what they want is already within your power to do…if only you would spend your money on that effort.  (Axios Columbus, 6/24/24)

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

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

Celebrating Ohio students

Kudos to the three Ohio Connections Academy students who received the school’s Community Service Recognition Award this year. Here’s a look at one of those awardees, recent graduate Sage Robinson of Columbus. She is a member of the YMCA Teen Leaders Club, works at the Y’s annual Thanksgiving Day 5K race, and regularly volunteers at the Columbus Metropolitan Library.

School choice takes root

National Public Media outlet WFYI in Indianapolis dug into school attendance data across the state and determined that “school choice has never been more popular in Indiana” than it is right now. The variety of options—as well as the ease of opting in—has increasingly led parents to make choices beyond their residentially-assigned district school. Nearly 1 in 5 Hoosier students attend a school other than their home district today (up from 1 in 13 ten years ago), with interdistrict open enrollment, charter schools, and private schools all popular options. Great stuff.

Enshrining choice

A signature-gathering effort is underway in Colorado. If successful, Initiative #138 will be placed on the November ballot, aiming to enshrine the right to educational choice in the state constitution. Supporters of the effort say that despite decades of bipartisan support for charters and other school options, legislative efforts to protect traditional school districts at the expense of charter schools and parental choice are on the rise. Only by writing it into the constitution will Centennial State families be assured that their right to choose the best education for their children will be fully protected.

Illinois lawsuit

Three charter school networks this week sued both Chicago Schools’ and Illinois’ state education boards, looking to strike down a recently-enacted state law that is intended to make it easier for charter school teachers to unionize in the state. The Illinois Network of Charter Schools, Intrinsic Schools, and the Montessori Network, claim that provisions of the law violate their free speech and property rights, and is preempted by federal labor law. “The act,” they say, “is a state regulatory measure that seeks to advance Illinois’ chosen labor policies in direct contravention of the rights guaranteed to charter schools and their employees under the National Labor Relations Act.”

How to be ready to apply for a federal grant

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools recently released a video series intended to help smaller charters, especially those operating as their own local educational agencies (LEAs), get ready to compete for federal education grants alongside larger and better-resourced networks. Topics include project selection, building internal capacity, writing a competitive application, planning for implementation, and more. The videos share wisdom and strategies from grant writers with long experience and success. You can check out all the videos here.

*****

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