Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Jessica Poiner
6.22.2026
SB 19 summary blog image
Getty Images/DigitalPixel
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

More than a year after it was first introduced, Senate Bill 19 has finally crossed the finish line. The legislation’s path to the governor’s desk has been a winding one, marked by plenty of additions and subtractions, but the final bill is one that lawmakers should be proud of. Let’s take a closer look at what it should accomplish once it becomes law. 

1. Help for struggling students.

When students take Ohio’s state exams, their results fall into one of five performance levels: limited, basic, proficient, accomplished, and advanced. The top three levels (proficient, accomplished, and advanced) are considered passing scores that are at or above grade level. The lowest (limited) is a clear sign that students are falling behind.

The bad news is that significant numbers of Ohio students scored limited during the 2024–25 school year. In elementary and middle school math, the percentage ranges from 23 percent in fourth grade to an abysmal 39 percent in eighth. English language arts is slightly better, but still worrisome, and ranges from just under 17 percent in fifth grade to more than 27 percent in eighth. To catch up to their peers—and be prepared for adulthood—these students will need intensive intervention from their schools.

The good news is that Senate Bill 19 will ensure they get it. The bill requires districts to provide evidence-based academic intervention services, free of cost, to every student who scores limited on a state test in math, ELA, or both. Students are also eligible if they earn a score equivalent to limited on a diagnostic assessment. Approved intervention services include high-dosage tutoring, additional instruction time, an extended school calendar, and learning support programs. Districts and schools can provide these services directly, through a contracted vendor, or via a combination of both, though they must ensure that intervention doesn’t supplant existing academic instruction. Students must receive services until they score proficient on a state test or diagnostic exam.

To bolster the likelihood that intervention expectations won’t become box-checking exercises, the bill includes two important provisions.

First, districts are required to notify parents or guardians that their student will be receiving intervention and provide a description of which services the student will receive and who will provide them. Schools must also “periodically update” families and provide resources for how they can help their students. These requirements should empower parents to keep a close eye on student progress. They’ll also provide additional information that can help balance inflated grades.

Second, beginning with the 2027–28 school year, the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW)[1] will randomly identify 5 percent of schools (that includes traditional district buildings, charters, and STEM schools) and review the academic intervention services they’re providing to students. As part of this review, the department will assess whether qualifying students are receiving the academic intervention they’re entitled to under law, as well as the types, methods, and quality of services. The resulting report must be posted by each school on its website, and will also be included in student opportunity profiles on state report cards. Collectively, these oversight provisions will hold schools accountable for actually providing high-quality intervention and offer additional transparency to parents and the public.

2. Help for high-achievers.

Struggling students aren’t the only ones who need extra support to reach their potential. High-achievers often do, as well. In Ohio, students who score accomplished or advanced are surpassing grade-level standards. They’re considered by the state to be on track for college, and their achievement is a clear indicator that they’re ready for more challenging work.

One of the simplest ways to support high-achievers is to give them the opportunity to take Algebra I in eighth grade rather than waiting for high school. Testing data indicate that high-ability students who take Algebra I in eighth grade almost universally perform well on the state’s end-of-course exam. Unfortunately, in Ohio, more than half of these students (55 percent) weren’t enrolled in algebra during eighth grade and thus didn’t take the end-of-course exam in 2024. Those who are most likely to be left out—even though they’ve met the same academic readiness benchmarks—are students of color and those from low-income backgrounds.

Senate Bill 19 levels the playing field by requiring districts to enroll any sixth grader who achieves advanced on their state math exam into a seventh-grade course that combines seventh and eighth grade math standards. If students earn at least proficient on their end-of-year test, they must then be enrolled in Algebra I in eighth grade. Students who score accomplished in sixth grade must also be enrolled in the combined course and placed in algebra, but only if they also have an average grade of A or B in a math course or earn a DEW-designated score on a math diagnostic. Parents will be permitted to opt out their children. The bill also requires districts to provide students in grades 3–5 who score advanced or accomplished[2] with advanced learning opportunities in math. Together, these provisions will ensure that opportunities are available to all high achievers, not just some.

3. Renewing the focus on math achievement.

During the 2024–25 school year, just 55 percent of Ohio students scored proficient or above on the state’s math exams. That means almost half of Ohio kids are moving from grade to grade without mastering the math content and skills they’ll need in adulthood. Senate Bill 19 aims to boost math achievement by focusing on curriculum, teachers, and district- and school-level accountability.

First, curriculum. The legislation charges DEW with reviewing core math curricula and establishing a list of high-quality core curriculum and instructional materials that are aligned with state standards and best practices. DEW must also establish a list of evidence-based math intervention programs. Unlike the state’s science of reading efforts, public schools will not be required to use curricula from the state’s list (more on the one exception below). But going forward, DEW will identify the reading and math curriculum that each building uses—and whether it’s been designated by DEW as high quality—on state report cards. 

Second, teachers. For prospective teachers, the bill requires the State Board of Education to assess whether they are proficient in math. Teacher candidates who apply for a license in the pre-K–8 grade band but fail to demonstrate proficiency on the math portion of the exam can still earn a teaching license, but schools will be prohibited from assigning them to teach math until they earn a proficient score. For current teachers, DEW will develop a professional development course that focuses on foundational knowledge in math, as well as a pilot series of professional development programs on evidence-based math instruction.

Third, district- and school-level accountability. Beginning with the 2026–27 school year, any district or school where 51 percent or fewer of students score proficient on the state’s third grade math test will be required to submit to DEW a math achievement improvement plan. (Public schools are already required to submit similar plans for reading.) These plans must contain an analysis of student performance data, measurable student performance goals, strategies to meet specific student needs, staffing and professional development plans, and instructional strategies for improving student performance. Schools with a plan must also use curriculum from the list established by DEW starting in the 2027–28 school year. Although implementation will matter immensely—merely having a plan isn’t enough to raise student achievement—requiring district and school leaders to create a plan is an important step.

***

Lawmakers in both the House and Senate deserve kudos for getting SB 19 across the finish line. It was a long and winding road, but the finalized bill is promising. If implemented faithfully, the provisions it contains could significantly boost math achievement in Ohio.


[1] DEW can contract with an organization that has documented expertise in supporting school improvement and academic interventions to help with conducting reviews.

[2] Just like with sixth graders, younger students who score accomplished must either earn an A or B in their course or earn a designated score on a diagnostic to qualify.

Policy Priority:
Standards & Accountability
Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction

West Virginia’s Teacher Union Strength Profile

This profile is one of 51 state profiles accompanying Fordham’s report, A Crowded Table: Teacher Union Strength in 2026, which updates Fordham’s 2012 rankings of state teacher union strength.

  • Read more about West Virginia’s Teacher Union Strength Profile

North Dakota’s Teacher Union Strength Profile

This profile is one of 51 state profiles accompanying Fordham’s report, A Crowded Table: Teacher Union Strength in 2026, which updates Fordham’s 2012 rankings of state teacher union strength.

  • Read more about North Dakota’s Teacher Union Strength Profile
Jeff Murray
6.22.2026
Gadfly Bites logo
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. You have been warned.

  1. The question of whether Cleveland Metropolitan School District (and a couple other rapidly-shrinking urban districts across the state) is flouting Ohio law by not offering their closed and underutilized buildings to charter and private schools goes decently high-profile in this piece. The critics arguing CMSD is not following the spirit (and probably the letter) of the law include a state legislator, a Cleveland city councilmember, and our own Aaron Churchill. Interestingly, CMSD simultaneously argues that they have actually offered some schools to charters recently but didn’t get any “viable proposals” out of it (hmmm…..), and that they didn’t even have to do that much because they somehow have two years to decide on all closed buildings before offering them to anyone. Po-tay-to, po-tah-to for now, I guess, but at least everyone does seem to agree that the pending SB 311—which we have discussed in this capacity before—will both define the process unambiguously and prove hard to evade should it become law. Which is nice. (Cleveland.com, 6/21/26)

  2. Similarly in this piece about rural schools, district leaders assert that school choice is somehow “draining” funding from them (and other districts too) and that it’s doubly harmful in their case because rural students have little or no access to such choices themselves. In the name of balanced journalism, several critics are quoted disputing those assertions, but honestly it’s the one big fact left out of the piece that would truly burst their bubble. And that is the continuing loss of student enrollment in these districts, same as larger urban ones. Alexander Local Schools—the primary “victim” of…whatever they think is going on at the state level—has less than 1,300 students currently. Not only are there single-building daycare centers in Ohio larger than this, student enrollment out there has shrunk by nearly 200 kids over just the last five years. Forget about vouchers or “neglect” by the state: The existential question is when are y’all going to give up the delusion of returning to days of increasing enrollment and start planning to dissolve, consolidate, or convert to a single K-12 charter school? It’s not too late for you to control the process…but it probably will be very soon. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/22/26)

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

Policy Priority:
School Funding
Topics:
Governance

South Carolina’s Teacher Union Strength Profile

This profile is one of 51 state profiles accompanying Fordham’s report, A Crowded Table: Teacher Union Strength in 2026, which updates Fordham’s 2012 rankings of state teacher union strength.

  • Read more about South Carolina’s Teacher Union Strength Profile

Connecticut’s Teacher Union Strength Profile

This profile is one of 51 state profiles accompanying Fordham’s report, A Crowded Table: Teacher Union Strength in 2026, which updates Fordham’s 2012 rankings of state teacher union strength.

  • Read more about Connecticut’s Teacher Union Strength Profile
The Education Gadfly
6.19.2026
Gadfly Guy
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

WHAT WE’RE READING

Sarah Sparks shares NCTQ’s new findings on how education schools are incorporating—or not—the science of reading into teacher prep programs. The fact that many ed schools still use outdated approaches comes as no surprise given Fordham’s recent survey of teachers themselves: Teachers who rely primarily on preservice training tend to know less about the science of reading than those who learn on their own or on the job.

—

Michael Coren reports on a new, large-scale study of Danish children that helps solve the mystery of why firstborns there tend to do better in school and in life. Spoiler alert: It’s the germs!

—

“The law has passed, now comes the hard part,” writes David Bass about the Education Freedom Tax Credit. He explains how the program provides an opportunity for philanthropists to help shape the future of school choice policy around the country.


Editor's note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli's Substack, SCHOOLED, a twice-weekly free Substack and email newsletter restarting the education-reform conversation.

Click here to subscribe for:

  • Sharp analysis of the week’s biggest K–12 debates

  • Curated commentary from across the ed-policy world

  • Lively discussion—including reader reactions and pushback

The Education Gadfly
6.19.2026
Gadfly Guy
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

CHEERS

Micah Ward covers findings from a new Brookings analysis of school board culture war conflicts, which are “rare and declining”:

Only about one in ten U.S. school districts had any media-documented conflict over Covid masking, critical race theory, book bans, or transgender student issues between 2018 and 2024, but those districts enrolled roughly three in ten of the nation’s public school students.

—

Last week, the Ohio House passed a bill requiring schools to provide additional academic support to struggling traditional public and charter school students—and making it easier for high-performing students to accelerate. “Too many Ohio students are falling behind in math,” my colleague Chad Aldis, Fordham’s vice president for Ohio Policy, tells Laura Hancock of Cleveland.com. “Students struggling in math will have difficulties demonstrating the critical-thinking and problem-solving skills necessary for twenty-first-century success.”

—

“Massachusetts lawmakers on Tuesday announced a deal to overhaul literacy instruction for the state’s youngest learners,” writes John Hilliard, who notes that, despite Massachusetts Teachers Association opposition, “lawmakers contend they have to act now to stop a decade-long decline in student achievement.” Their compromise mandates phonics-based instruction and bans cueing, while also empowering the state education agency to vet curricular materials and increase accountability. Mary Tamer is happy about the bill, so you should be, too.

JEERS

Sarah Sparks shares the findings from RAND’s 2026 State of the American Teacher and the American Life Panel surveys: Eighteen percent of K–12 public teachers plan to leave at the end of this school year, and less than a quarter say they plan to stay in the classroom as long as possible. As Sarah reports, the survey reveals declining rates of stress and depression among teachers, but burnout has increased, in part because of classroom management struggles.

—

Democratic socialist Janeese Lewis George won this week’s D.C. mayoral primary and is unlikely to face a serious challenger in the fall election. Her platform echoes complaints from the Washington Teachers Union, reports Kevin Mahnken, and threatens to undo decades of reforms that led to better outcomes for students, including the district’s rigorous teacher evaluation system:

Lewis George has declared that she will end IMPACT if elected. In responses to a candidate questionnaire circulated by WTU, she claimed the system “undermines educators’ expertise and students’ joy of learning.” While committing to retain mayoral control, she has also suggested that she will transform Washington’s office of the superintendent into an independent agency—an idea that could lead to less direct oversight over student data and standards, some worry.

I’m hearing from some local reformers that Lewis George will turn out to be OK on our issues. More to come on this one, for sure.


Editor's note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli's Substack, SCHOOLED, a twice-weekly free Substack and email newsletter restarting the education-reform conversation.

Click here to subscribe for:

  • Sharp analysis of the week’s biggest K–12 debates

  • Curated commentary from across the ed-policy world

  • Lively discussion—including reader reactions and pushback

Bruno V. Manno
6.18.2026
Path with sun and shade
Getty Images/Lari Bat
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

For several decades, K–12 ed-reformers and policy leaders have pushed to expand public school options and pathways. This has led to the creation of such alternatives as magnet and charter schools, microschools and learning pods, as well as dual enrollment, course choice, beefed-up Advanced Placement, and the importing into high schools of industry credentials and youth apprenticeships.

A new analysis from the University of California, Berkeley Center for Studies in Higher Education underscores just how much the system has expanded, bringing confusion in its wake. Participation in everything from Advanced Placement to non-degree credentials to workforce training has grown significantly over time.

Multiple pathways are a major gain, shifting from a one-size-fits-all model toward something closer to what I call opportunity pluralism. In that sense, the Berkeley findings are encouraging. They show that the system has, in fact, diversified. Students are participating in a wider array of education and learning options than ever before.

The problem, the authors suggest, is fragmentation. The U.S. has built a far more diverse K–12 education and training system, but not a coherent one. And a system with many entry points but weak connections among them can leave students stranded.

Consider dual enrollment, now available in some form in every state and the District of Columbia. It allows students to earn college credit while in high school, often at little or no cost. In theory, it’s one of the most promising tools for accelerating progress and reducing the cost of higher education. In practice, however, it’s often “random acts of dual credit.” Students accumulate credits that don’t transfer, don’t count toward a major, or don’t align with a clear program of study. The pathway doesn’t reliably lead anywhere.

A similar pattern appears with “credentials.” Many programs are designed to be quick, flexible, and aligned with employer needs. But without clear signals about quality, without strong connections to jobs, and without pathways for further advancement, they’re isolated experiences rather than stepping stones.

Even traditional degrees aren’t immune. Too many students enroll in college without a clear sense of how their program connects to a career. Too many leave without completing that degree. And too many who do complete it struggle to translate education into rewarding and remunerative work.

The result is a system that offers more opportunities to enter but fewer reliable ways to advance.

The next phase of education reform should be about closing that gap, and that requires rethinking what success looks like. It’s not enough to measure whether students enroll in a program or complete a credential. The more important question is whether they move forward, into better jobs, higher earnings, and continued learning. And that, in turn, calls for a more coherent system built on sequencing and signaling.

Students need pathways that aren’t collections of courses or credentials but structured progressions. A high school course should connect to a postsecondary program, which should connect to a job, which should connect to further advancement. Each step should build on the last. Some call it “stacking.”

Coherence also demands clear signaling. Employers need to understand what a credential represents. Students need to know what it’s worth. Without such signals, even well-designed programs struggle to translate into opportunity.

These challenges aren’t new. But they’re becoming more urgent as policymakers invest in new forms of education and training.

States will play a central role here. They are best positioned to map regional labor markets, align education providers, and build the sequencing that connects high school to postsecondary programs and jobs.

Employers, too, have a critical role, especially in signaling. When they clearly communicate what credentials they value and why, they give students and program designers the information they need to make good choices. They also hold the key to stackablity. In a system where experience matters, employers aren’t only consumers of talent. They’re producers of it. Work-based learning, internships, and apprenticeships are not add-ons. They’re central to making pathways work.

Washington can support coherence by investing in data systems that track outcomes across education and work, by tying funding to performance, and by encouraging transparency about results.

For years, the central challenge in American education was expanding access. That work isn’t finished. But the challenge is ensuring that the system becomes more navigable, connected, and accountable.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Career & Technical Education
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Jill Hoppe Elainah Elkins
6.18.2026
Young professional outside buildings
Getty Images/PKpix
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Editor’s note: This is the final post in a three-part series written by Elainah Elkins and Jill Hoppe, born in 1999 and 2000, respectively. There is growing discourse surrounding Gen Z, but the voices of Gen Zers themselves are often missing from the conversation. This is their response. Read part 1 here and part 2 here.

Perhaps no discussion about Gen Z stereotypes is more pervasive than the debate over how this generation performs in the workforce. Headlines and workplace anecdotes frequently portray young workers as lazy, unprofessional, entitled, or lacking essential skills.

As with many of the claims that we explored in Parts 1 and 2 of this series, we are not arguing that these perceptions are entirely unfounded, nor that previous generations didn’t also experience some difficulties when transitioning into the workforce. After all, no generation has entered adulthood with every skill and experience needed to navigate the workplace successfully.

However, some employers have encountered real challenges when managing and developing younger employees but focusing solely on these criticisms risks overlooking the broader social, economic, and educational forces that have shaped Gen Z’s transition into adulthood and work. Understanding these changing dynamics provides important context for why many members of our generation approach the workplace differently than those who came before us.

Troubling academic trends lead to lost skills

Employers, professors, and parents increasingly express frustration that young people struggle with skills once considered foundational. From basic math, reading, and writing skills to critical thinking and public speaking, Gen Z has consistently struggled across these areas. While these concerns are often framed as individual shortcomings, academic trends offer an alternative reasoning.

Overall student achievement has declined nationally since 2013, especially in core subjects like reading and math. According to 2024 NAEP data, reading scores for 8th graders were down, and a third of 8th graders are not reading at a “basic” level, which is a lower number than ever before. The numbers were just as dismal in math, with scores largely remaining flat or declining. Of course pandemic learning loss contributed greatly to academic decline as well.

It is important to note that for older Gen Zs like us, some claim that we were among the most well-educated sub-cohorts of any generation. Given America’s lackluster achievement trends, this isn’t an incredibly high bar. Regardless, it underscores a distinctive position within the generation: We experienced a period of significant educational change firsthand, watching as policies, practices, and expectations evolved for students. For example, many Gen Z students were in the cross-hairs of a transition from balanced literacy to science of reading reforms. As research and understanding of effective instruction continued to develop, schools adopted new approaches across a range of academic areas, contributing to educational experiences that could differ markedly even within the same generation. This left many in the generation to contend with instructional and foundational skills gaps that are only now being fully recognized as these learners enter adulthood with different generations of peers.

At the same time, the decline of rigorous career and technical education (CTE) pathways during the “college for all” movement meant many vocational and technical programs were weakened, scaled back, or disconnected from clear routes into stable, well-paying careers. While recent years have brought renewed efforts to strengthen these programs, many Gen Z students came of age at a time when CTE options often provided limited preparation for sustainable long-term employment.

Lastly, concerns about declining achievement have been accompanied by growing evidence of grade inflation. A considerable amount of research and commentary on the topic has found that grades have risen even as standardized test scores and other measures of academic proficiency have remained flat or declined. This has been true not only across the K–12 education system, but also colleges. As schools and higher education institutions are meant to be an accurate reflection of a student’s preparedness for the workforce, transcripts can sometimes paint a more optimistic picture of student preparedness than underlying skills would suggest.

Navigating the workforce amid (and after) a global pandemic

While we discussed the impact of Covid-19 on Gen Z’s mental health and relationship with technology, we must also consider how the pandemic shaped our transition from school to work.

For Jill and Elainah, that meant plans to study abroad in Sweden and an internship at a presidential library were traded for working at a retirement home and local brewery. Countless others also experienced internships being canceled, study abroad opportunities vanishing, and career-building experiences that previous generations may have taken for granted suddenly became inaccessible, leaving older Gen Zs without critical career development opportunities.

At the same time, our final years of college became increasingly virtual and disconnected. What had once been a quick visit to a professor’s office or an impromptu conversation after class became a string of emails and Zoom meetings. Career fairs and job events moved online. Student organizations struggled to maintain engagement. Networking became something done through LinkedIn messages rather than face-to-face interactions.

Interviews also moved almost entirely online. For some our age, their first professional job began in their childhood bedroom rather than an office. Onboarding, mentorship, and workplace relationships often took place through Zoom, Slack, or Microsoft Teams rather than through observing colleagues and learning workplace norms in person.

As remote and hybrid work became more common, dress codes relaxed and communication increasingly shifted to digital platforms and social media. The shift has shaped a new generational lexicon that includes phrases like “tea” and “ate down,” often perceived as unprofessional in traditional workplace contexts. Not only has this shift changed lexicon and communication, but the shift to remote work has disrupted the job market for recent college graduates. Gen Z was not simply entering the workforce, we were entering a workforce that was rapidly changing expectations and norms.

Even today, many older Gen Z workers have little experience with the workplace traditions that previous generations often describe. As the Gen Z point-leaders at Fordham, we frequently hear colleagues reminisce about office Halloween costumes, after-work happy hours, and even staff-produced music videos. For us, those stories feel like glimpses into a different era of work.

For younger members of Gen Z, the disruption began even earlier. High school students lost opportunities to participate in sports, clubs, part-time jobs, apprenticeships, student government, theater productions, and other activities that traditionally help young people develop leadership, communication, and interpersonal skills. Many spent critical years of adolescence learning, socializing, and collaborating primarily through screens. As younger Gen Zs graduate from high school and college, many of the shifts in networking, remote work, and workplace culture remain.

The American Dream feels out of reach

Finally, many of these criticisms overlook an important reality: For a growing number of young adults, the traditional promise that hard work leads to upward mobility feels increasingly unattainable.

Previous generations entered adulthood with a reasonable expectation that stable employment could eventually lead to homeownership, financial security, and a steadily improving standard of living. Today, Gen Z faces soaring housing costs, unprecedented levels of student debt, and rising living expenses. On top of that, Gen Zs who have graduated college and high school and entered the workforce face one of the most competitive and challenging job markets to enter. As a result, many young workers are understandably questioning whether devoting themselves to their careers will deliver the rewards it once promised.

This changing economic landscape has also influenced how Gen Z views work itself. Compared to previous generations, young workers are often more willing to prioritize work-life balance, set boundaries around their time, and resist workplace cultures that demand constant availability. Critics sometimes interpret these attitudes as laziness, entitlement, or a lack of commitment. Yet for many Gen Z workers, these choices reflect a pragmatic response to economic realities. If traditional markers of success feel increasingly out of reach, it is not surprising that many seek fulfillment, relationships, and well-being outside of work rather than making career advancement the central focus of their lives.

—

None of this means Gen Z is incapable of succeeding in the workforce. Rather, it suggests that our pathway into adulthood looked fundamentally different from that of previous generations. Policymakers, schools, and employers must collaborate to better understand the experiences that shaped this generation and create systems that support a successful transition into adulthood and employment for generations to come.

First, career readiness should be viewed as a continuum, not just a one-time discussion during senior year. Students need meaningful exposure to careers long before they are asked to make decisions about college or work. Beginning in middle school, schools should provide opportunities to explore different pathways, engage with employers, and connect academic learning to future goals. That support should continue after graduation through strong advising, mentorship, internships, apprenticeships, and other work-based learning experiences that help young adults navigate the transition from education to employment. Thankfully, we have already seen some great examples, though these best practices should be scaled across states.

Second, states should continue to focus on academic reforms grounded in evidence. Whether through science of reading initiatives, early screening and intervention for students with math difficulties, or high-dosage tutoring, states have an opportunity to learn from one another’s success and failures to implement change.

Finally, employers should invest in development and engagement of their staff, not just recruitment. If organizations want a strong workforce, investment cannot end once a hiring decision is made. Clear expectations, structured onboarding, mentorship, and professional development can help young employees build the skills and confidence needed while also helping them feel more connected to and invested in their careers.

While Gen Z continues to enter a highly competitive workforce, one that is being fundamentally reshaped by AI-driven automation and the displacement of entry-level roles, there is a clear need for stronger supports that help young people navigate this transition and build durable career pathways.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • Page 26
  • Page 27
  • Page 28
  • Page 29
  • Current page 30
  • Page 31
  • Page 32
  • Page 33
  • Page 34
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]