2019 was a busy legislative year in the Buckeye State. Flying under the radar amidst all the hustle and bustle was House Bill 2, bipartisan legislation that passed this fall with overwhelming support. Known as the TechCred bill, HB 2 establishes guidelines for the TechCred program that was created and funded in the state budget. The overarching goal of the program is to help Ohioans earn industry-recognized, technology-focused credentials and to help businesses upskill both current and potential employees. To accomplish this, the General Assembly allocated just over $12 million per year for two years to reimburse employers for bearing the cost of credential training for employees.  

If it lives up to expectations, this program—and the others included in House Bill 2—could have a big impact. It could support Ohio businesses: It allows employers to develop both current and potential employees and should improve the business community’s pool of skilled workers. It could help job-seekers: Adding meaningful, technology-based credentials to their resumes should open doors for thousands of Ohioans. It could also improve the state’s economy: Attainment Goal 2025 was established because Ohio has a steadily increasing gap between the percentage of jobs that require postsecondary education and the percentage of working-adults who have actually earned a degree or certificate. The deadline is looming in the distance, but this program should contribute to decreasing that gap.

Obviously, a program that provides public funding to businesses needs to have guardrails. Fortunately, TechCred includes a few important accountability measures.

First, only certain credentials are eligible for reimbursement. They must be industry-recognized, able to be completed in no more than one year, and approved by the chancellor of higher education. They must also be technology-focused, which means they “demonstrate the competencies necessary to succeed in an occupation that utilizes technology to develop, build, and deliver products and services.” They can include certificates—which require the completion of a training, course, or series of courses—or certification, which requires the passage of a standardized test. In December, an additional 219 credentials were approved, bringing the total up to 379. These include credentials in the areas of business, healthcare, cybersecurity, manufacturing, and information technology. Importantly, the list does not include credentials that reports have shown are in low demand by Ohio employers. 

Second, participating in the program requires businesses to do some legwork. They must identify potential employees who would benefit, as well as the skills and credentials that would best fill their company’s needs. They are also responsible for identifying and partnering with a credential provider. Universities, community colleges, technical centers, and private-training providers are all eligible as partners, but it is business leaders—not the state—that must reach out and establish a relationship.

Third, only certain businesses are able to receive funds. Once an employer has partnered with a provider, they must apply to be considered a program participant. There are eligibility criteria for both employers and employees. For instance, businesses must be Ohio registered employers, and employees—whether current or prospective—must be Ohio residents. The application, which can be completed online, requires employers to submit information on their business, the employees who will undergo training, and the provider they’ve selected.

Fourth, businesses can only apply during specific application windows. The applications are reviewed competitively by the Developmental Services Agency. These are not first-come, first-serve funds.

Finally, there are several limits on the funding itself. Employers can only receive up to $2,000 per credential, with one reimbursement available per employee for each funding round. In total, businesses are limited to $30,000 per funding round. Reimbursement is also dependent on completion; employers must provide proof of credential completion in addition to an invoice of the costs incurred and documentation of the employee’s wage after they completed the credential. The law also prohibits employers from requiring current or prospective employees who receive a credential through this program to accept a position or continue working for their business.

While there are definitely a few hoops to jump through, they don’t seem to have deterred businesses at all. The first application window, which occurred in October, resulted in the approval of 234 employers and 1,576 credentials. The second application window was open through the end of January, so we don’t yet know how many more businesses have applied. But given the expanded credential list, as well as the support of the Ohio Business Roundtable, it’s safe to assume there will be plenty more earned credentials in Ohio’s future.

It’s too early to declare the TechCred program a success. But early signs are positive, and there’s plenty of untapped potential left. Kudos to Ohio lawmakers and leaders for making this program a reality.  

1. So, as you probably know, the General Assembly voted to hose families interested in getting a voucher kowtow to the voucher grouchers rather than enacting some kind of quick fix to something that wasn’t broken or indeed rather than standing pat and letting the voucher program go forward as per existing state law. The governor signed off on the deal on Friday.  (Gongwer Ohio, 1/31/20) The Senate was said to have been “reluctant” to agree to what I think is properly termed a delay of the start of the EdChoice application window from February 1 to the ever-more-appropriate April 1, in the hopes that legislators can come to terms on some kind of action in the interim. (Dayton Daily News, 1/31/20) Jeremy Kelley calls it a “delay” in his piece, but Karen Kasler calls it an “extension” in her piece. Cheeky? Clueless? I guess if you look at it from a certain angle, that might be an appropriate word. No angle that I condone, mind you, but I can see it. (WKSU-FM, Kent, 1/31/20) The PD’s Patrick O’Donnell has an even more interesting choice of words. He says “vouchers are mired in confusion,” which, like others’ “limbo” claims from last week, is entirely false. It is state legislators who are mired in something, and it ain’t confusion. Additionally, Patrick suggests that “clarity is to come” during our politically-expedient fermata. To that I would say, “Don’t bet on it.” (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/1/20)
    
2. So fast was everything moving at the end of last week that Patrick has only today had time to make note of the fact that Lorain was nearly released from state oversight by an Academic Distress Commission as part one iteration of the voucher “fix”. It probably took him that long to try and craft a story which managed to make Lorain’s ADC even vaguely germane to the voucher situation. Might take even longer for it to actually be possible to do so. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/3/20) But speaking of Lorain, here’s an update on the dismantling of previous CEO David Hardy’s administration. You know, the administration that moved the district from an F to a D against enormous odds and almost allowed its operations to be given back to the folks who gave us those previous F grades? That administration. (Morning Journal, 1/31/20)
   
   

3. But back to the topic of vouchers for a moment. A former member of 98 Degrees had an op-ed in the Enquirer this weekend grouching about vouchers. No, not that former member of 98 Degrees… No, not that one either. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 2/1/20) I think this editorial from the Wheeling paper attempting to take Ohio’s legislators to task is about EdChoice, but sadly it appears that the editors do not know the difference between charters and private schools. Ouch. (Wheeling Intelligencer, 2/1/20)
    
4. Actually speaking of charter schools, here’s a random editorial from the PD published this weekend. Editors are opining against the “loophole” that almost—but didn’t actually—allow certain charter schools to get quality school funding the other week. (You know which ones I mean.) But seriously, given everything that has transpired in education policy over the last two weeks, does anyone even remember that situation? (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 2/2/20)
   
   

5. Here are some timely survey results of Ohio parents’ attitudes toward school report cards. Most pointedly, whether they prefer letter grades or some other form of reporting on school quality. (Columbus Dispatch, 2/3/20)
    
6. I surmised nearly a year ago that weed entrepreneur Pete Kadens was in danger of not being taken entirely seriously by the powers-that-be in Toledo when he wanted to use his green (pun intended) to help boost education in the Glass City. Turns out that that I was right on the money (that pun was also intended) back then. Snoop Pete says so in this story covering his visit to the editorial offices of the Blade in the wake of his surprise offer to pay for the college expenses—in full—of every graduate of Scott High School. And he wasn’t too pleased with that non-response either, he says. In the intervening year, however, the Weed Warrior has managed to get his foundation up on its feet (including some interesting names on his board) but still needed to build his “brand”. Hence the grand gesture. Money talks, I guess. Eventually. Although sometimes it just mumbles about going to White Castle. (Toledo Blade, 1/31/20)

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

Although most states are only about a year and a half into implementation of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), we’re seeing an uptick in conversations about what the next generation of school assessment and accountability systems should look like. Those discussions should begin with what we’ve learned since the passage of ESSA in 2015. The stakes are high, especially for those of us who see accountability as one of the primary mechanisms to drive changes in the quality of education provided to students from historically disadvantaged groups.

Through ESSA, Congress and President Barack Obama launched what is essentially a fifty-state experiment in how to best assess students and hold schools accountable for results. Notably, ESSA replaced the relatively rigid assessment and accountability regime of its predecessor, the No Child Left Behind Act, with a system that allows states much more latitude on which outcomes to include in state accountability systems, how to weight those indices in school ratings, and what to do about schools and districts that fall short of their benchmarks.

As loose as the basic structure of ESSA is, the law allows some states to go even further. Under ESSA’s Innovative Assessment Demonstration Authority (IADA), four states currently have waivers from the law’s assessment and accountability provisions. We at Education Reform Now have begun taking a close look at those states, beginning with New Hampshire, which in 2014, was the first state to be granted an innovative assessment waiver from the U.S. Department of Education under President Obama, and in 2018, was the second state approved to participate in IADA under ESSA.

Unlike many other assessment innovations that tinker around the edges, New Hampshire’s Performance Assessment for Competency Education (PACE) departs radically from systems that rely on standardized, statewide annual assessments. Districts participating in PACE are free of ESSA requirements that the same summative assessments be administered in math and English language arts (ELA) in grades three through eight, and that all students in the state, with some exceptions, participate in the same statewide assessment.

Instead, in the eleven districts participating in PACE, student annual assessment scores are determined through a combination of locally developed performance assessments—administered throughout the year to show mastery of individual competencies—and one or more of what PACE calls “Common Tasks.” Contrary to their name, the same “Common Tasks” are not given in all PACE districts, grades, or subjects. Instead, districts choose from a “bank” of items with the number of assessments administered in each IADA district varying between six and twenty-five per subject per year. Students in PACE districts also take the state’s summative assessments in math and English/ELA, but only once in each grade-span (three through five, six through eight, and ten through twelve) rather than annually in grades three through eight, as is the case in non-IADA states.

PACE presents a number of opportunities to improve instruction and boost outcomes, as well as some significant risks. If PACE meets the state’s ambitious goals, it may:

• Complement the knowledge and skills assessed under the original system by requiring students to synthesize information in multi-step problems.
• More readily reflect what students are actually learning in the classroom and what knowledge and skills they still need to master.
• Provide more actionable and timely information through flexible administration of multiple assessments throughout the year, which allow educators to personalize instruction.

However, PACE also poses a number of challenges and inherent risks, including:

• The processes and results of the PACE system are more complicated and less transparent than most states’ accountability systems that are centered around public reporting of summative assessments and other indices common to all schools and districts.
• The fact that assessments differ from grade to grade hinders the reliable measurement of student growth, as compared to traditional systems that make year-to-year, apples-to-apples comparisons.
• Tasks may vary in what they measure and their level of rigor. “Common tasks” vary across districts, which makes inter-district comparisons difficult and may hold students across the state accountable to different standards.

Given what seems to be prolonged stagnation nationally on student achievement, at least as measured by NAEP and some international indices, we recommend a spirit of open-mindedness when it comes to innovative approaches to assessment and accountability. Because both IADA and ESSA state plans are in their early stages, the jury is out on whether they’re better than traditional approaches at promoting college and career readiness. Nonetheless, regardless of how successfully the Granite State implements PACE, we caution against it being a model for other states. New Hampshire is relatively unique compared to states across the country: It is less demographically diverse, small in size, has few students, and has no large districts. As a result, a complex and localized system such as PACE will likely face additional hurdles if adopted elsewhere.

Happy National School Choice Week!

We are nearing the end of National School Choice Week (NSCW). Former Washington, D.C., mayor Anthony Williams celebrated with a Washington Post op-ed that lauded school choice generally and high-performing charter schools specifically. But he could not avoid a difficult truth: “Despite this good news, we remain a long way from ensuring that all students receive a high-quality public education.” It is a truth which keeps us all working hard every day.

Why we work

Closer to home, the Plain Dealer published a letter to the editor from a Columbus parent who described the positive difference the option of an online school made in her daughter’s life.

The view from the top

In a similar vein, the leader of Ohio Connections Academy had an op-ed in the Dispatch this week where she spelled out the importance of strong family engagement policies in making sure that more students are successful in an online education environment.

Quality charter school in Cincinnati

The Enquirer ran a great story lauding the Richard Allen Academy in Hamilton for its award of more than $200,000 from the state’s Quality Community School Support Fund.

Four schools in Dayton

The Dayton Daily News was able to laud four schools in the Gem City receiving awards from the fund. Kudos to Dayton Early College Academy, DECA Prep, Klepinger Community School, and Horizon Science Academy Dayton Downtown.

National news

A new report from the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools, published to coincide with NSCW, finds a number of states worthy of praise for the strength and quality of their charter school laws. Tennessee and Idaho are cited as making particularly large strides in the areas of funding and facilities policies.

Spring School Performance Institute workshop

Bring your team to a high-performing urban charter school to learn how to build a culture of academic and operational excellence. Join School Performance Institute at their upcoming Study the Network workshop. This workshop combines interactive sessions with live-classroom observations and conversations with key staff to help build your team’s capacity to create and implement change. Register today for the next workshop on March 17th, 2020! For more information, contact John A. Dues.

1. Before we get to the actual news you probably came here for, how about a related side trip? Our own Aaron Churchill was a guest on public radio’s All Sides with Ann Fisher yesterday morning, discussing the state of play regarding the EdChoice program. While Aaron was as awesome as expected, and while the show actually earned its title for once, I did have to stop listening when the homeschool parent called in looking for her state money! (WOSU-FM, Columbus, 1/30/20) By the end of the day, we had gone from side trip to sideshow, however, as it was reported that U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos had somehow become involved in DeFlap. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/30/20)
    
2. The one thing that became clear in listening to the All Sides discussion is that the voucher grouchers were flummoxed by the late night doings on Wednesday in the Ohio House. To wit: a brand new proposal from the Speaker to do away with the performance-based voucher program all together and to move forward with an expanded, solely income-based, EdChoice program. The grouchers, in full fight mode, did not seem to know whether they should attack this or not. It had some definite upside for them, I think. But perhaps the conference call hadn’t happened prior to the 10 a.m. radio show. It was kind of funny as the old talking points rang a little hollow in light of the new proposal. (Gongwer Ohio, 1/29/20) Jeremy Kelley did a good job of describing the horse trading that went on and that which was to come regarding the voucher program. But I will take issue with EdChoice being “in limbo” until said horse trading was completed. (Not the first time I’ve taken issue with the use of this word in the DDN.) Standing pat and making no changes was still an option, and the existing voucher program would go forward as planned (for the last seven years!) if no deal could be completed. (Dayton Daily News, 1/30/20)
   
   

3. I had, unfortunately, forgotten that there was another option. Hmmm… Maybe “limbo” was the right word after all, but only in regard to parents interested in applying for a voucher. (Gongwer Ohio, 1/30/20) That’s right. The latest proposal from the House was to delay the opening of the voucher application window (for new applicants only) from February 1 to the highly appropriate April 1 during which time legislative horse trading would continue. The Senate must agree to that change today. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/30/20)
    
4. The political finesse move described above should be very familiar around here. We’ll call it the ADC Maneuver. Speaking of which, the folks in Youngstown were both blindsided and flummoxed by the possibility that Lorain City Schools could be released from state oversight via Academic Distress Commission while their district would not. Of course, that was at least two legislative voucher proposals ago and may not happen at all now…or later. I’m sorry, was that really just yesterday they were talking about all that? Oy vey. (Vindy.com, 1/30/20) Wearily, determinedly, the CEO of Youngstown City Schools picked himself up after all that, dusted himself off, and got back to work trying to craft a new strategic plan to turn his district around. Again. (Vindy.com, 1/31/20)
   
   

5. Back in the real world, here is some lovely coverage of that school choice fair held in the Lima area earlier this week. (Hometown Stations, Lima, 1/30/20) The Superintendent of Lima City Schools herself manned her district’s table at the fair. As you can tell because she was the only school representative quoted in either piece. (Lima News, 1/30/20)
    
6. Holy cow. Praise the Lord and pass the green! Staying in Northwest Ohio to end the week, it was announced today that a local entrepreneur has pledged to fully pay college tuition, room, board, books, and fees for every 2020 graduate of Toledo’s Scott High School. Not only that, but he will pay for all those things for one parent or guardian of each of those grads too!! Loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers will remember retired business magnate Pete Kadens from his first foray into the Toledo education scene about a year ago. He is memorable because he made his money in the marijuana biz (with lots of hilarious puns and jokes from yours truly) and had some big ideas for a foundation to help Toledo City Schools students succeed. The whole thing went quiet after that first big splash and my personal supposition is that the source of his wealth might have been offputting to some. That or he just forgot. But Snoop Pete came back in a big way and it seems like lots of people are thrilled. I’ll be blunt: this is an awesome story. (13ABC, Toledo, 1/29/20)

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

High-quality academic offerings. Distance from home. Campus culture. Student safety and supports. Access to the arts, sports, and cultural opportunities. Price tag.

These are all things that my children and I researched as we have looked at colleges over the last year. Yet the categories were familiar, as these are the same concerns that fueled our school choice journey over the previous thirteen years.

Now that first journey is nearly over as we head for the next.

When my wife and I decided to have a child (little did we know that twins would result!) and to stay in Columbus while raising our family, we knew we’d have to be proactive and hands-on in regard to formal education. My parents had opted in the 1970’s to move out of the city, choosing a small rural school district as a better fit for my siblings and me. In 2001, Columbus City Schools didn’t look a heckuva lot better to me. They were getting low marks on school report cards, there were constant complaints about lack of funding, churn among building administrators, high-profile accusations of test-rigging, whining about the “drain” of public money for private school supports, judgmental comments from our neighbors about our duty to “go public” no matter what, and a troubling lack of emphasis on rigor and achievement (“all kids are successful, somehow, some way”), even in the district’s better-performing schools.

So we worked at it from start to finish, and that meant making changes whenever warranted. From preschool through twelfth grade, one of my kids attended four different schools; the other, five. None was a traditional district school. We did our diligence at every decision point—researching our options; talking to other parents (“Your kids are fine. They could do yoga all day and still ace the test.”); visiting schools, although our resident district made site visits very difficult to arrange; and attending multiple school choice fairs. (That helpful event was offered to families in my neighborhood but nowhere else in the city.) Transportation was a never-ending slog no matter where we went, as it has always been for many Ohio families attempting to utilize school choice. We were seeking all the elements noted above, but academic rigor was always at the top of the list. These priorities required multiple school moves over the years—when a change in school leadership changed the academic emphasis, for example, or when opportunities for extracurricular activities were limited by school size or grade level. We even made the difficult decision to send the twins to two different schools when one child’s needs gradually made an otherwise excellent school a bad fit.

Did it work? Was it all worth it?

Now that we’re looking at colleges and watching our children choose for themselves which institutions fit their aspirations, we believe our school choice journey was largely successful. At the least, our kids seem to have internalized the ways in which we researched and chose schools for them in the past, and are now applying those methods in their own way to the next phase of their education. They must now own the choice and the next journey.

Child-rearing in general seems like one of those puzzles that you can’t be sure is getting properly solved until you’re nearing the end. The moves seem right at the time; all the pieces fit in the moment. Often you can adjust on the fly when things seem to be off kilter. But “properly solved” doesn’t become clear until very far down the road.

We as parents are expected to do our best for our children throughout their lives. The process of researching and choosing a college is a time-honored tradition for high school seniors, counselors, teachers, and families—one that I am immensely pleased to be partaking in right now. But that process should start sooner. Here’s hoping that such efforts will become a vital part of the K–12 system, too. I feel that a child’s education journey should begin in the same way it ends: finding the best fit, with the help of a system designed to serve them, so that all children can become the highest and best versions of themselves. The smartest, most thoughtful, most confident versions ready to take on the world.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Education, a case that calls into question the constitutionality of the state’s “Blaine Amendment.” Montana, along with thirty-seven other states, passed so-called Blaine Amendments in the late nineteenth century in response to growing anti-Catholicism and growing anti-immigrant sentiment, and in an effort to halt the spread of Catholic schools across the country.

The Espinoza case could be described as a face-off between the First Amendment’s Free Exercise clause, which guarantees every American the right to live their faith, and the defense of the “separation of church and state.” But, looking deeper beneath the surface, it’s really a debate about whether any school can be—or even should be—values-neutral.

Through my work in both public charter schools and Catholic schools, and as I wrote in a recent Manhattan Institute report, I have come to believe that there is no such thing as a values-neutral school. Every day, we make decisions about what to teach, how to teach it and what behaviors to punish or revere. These are fundamentally decisions that are guided by values and that help shape students’ understanding of right and wrong, good and evil.

And so, the idea that public schools are values-neutral is misguided. When states prohibit public support for religious schools in the name of protecting children from the values they impart, the government is showing preference for secularism over religion—and arguably violating the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment.

But more than that, the idea that, even if they could be, that public schools should be values-neutral is dangerous. That’s because, today more than ever, not only do we need schools that impart knowledge and skills to the students they serve, we need schools that form the backbone of communities and that help students develop the habits of good citizenship. And perhaps the only way to do that well is to ground a school community in a clearly defined mission, vision and purpose—something that Catholic schools have been doing for generations.

In fact, the impact that the decline in religious institutions is having on communities is as well documented as it is scary. Indeed, the past decade has been defined, more than almost anything else, by two big trends. On the one hand, there is a marked decline in community. Institutions that used to draw people in and unify communities are crumbling. Church membership is down, Catholic schools are closing, VFW halls are emptying, and social trust continues its slow decline.

On the flip side, loneliness is up dramatically and so-called deaths of despair—suicide, drug overdose and alcoholism—are higher than ever. According to one study, “between 2007 and 2017, drug-related deaths increased by 108 percent among adults ages eighteen to thirty-four, while alcohol-related deaths increased by 69 percent and suicides increased by 35 percent.”

While many view these as isolated indicators, journalist and author Timothy Carney has found some evidence to suggest that these two separate trends are really two sides of the same phenomenon. In his 2019 book, Alienated America, Carney argues that the breakdown of community is likely driving the social isolation that has reshaped the American landscape.

In the book, Carney draws on a wealth of quantitative and qualitative data to describe the growing divide between communities that are thriving and those that are dying. Although it would be easy to assume that the divide falls purely along socioeconomic lines, with the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer, Carney’s research paints a different story. While wealthier communities do tend to be stronger, the difference between low-socioeconomic communities that are struggling and those that are thriving comes down to the strength of their community institutions and the strength of social capital and social cohesion in the community.

And so, as we consider the impact the Supreme Court’s decision in Espinoza might have on religious schools, we would do well to consider the impact Catholic schools have—not just on the students they serve but also on the communities in which they are located.

In 2014, Margaret F. Brinig and Nicole Stelle Garnett published Lost Classroom, Lost Community, in which they described the impact Catholic school closures have on urban communities. Given that more than 2,000 Catholic schools have closed in the past decade alone, their findings are dispiriting. Specifically, Brinig and Garnett found that, after a Catholic school closed, residents reported more crime, greater disorder and far less social cohesion and trust. And, for our nation’s poorest communities, where there are far fewer organizations knitting communities together, institutions like Catholic schools play a pivotal role in building social capital.

Brinig and Garnett’s research on the powerful and positive impact Catholic schools have on communities is not surprising when you consider the body of research that shows that Catholic school graduates are more likely to be civically engaged, to vote, to volunteer and to give to charitable causes than their public school and, in many cases, even their Christian school peers. And this Catholic school “civic advantage” stems at least in part from the fact that the mission and purpose of Catholic education goes well beyond preparation for college and career. Indeed, while Catholic schools have a strong track record of preparing students for college and careers, those short-term outcomes are a by-product of the focus on forming students with the values and habits they need, not just to thrive as individuals but also to serve others and to give back to their communities.

To that end, Catholic schools emphasize the importance of freedom and personal responsibility; it’s why they form students who understand that actions have consequences, and it’s why they focus on teaching the importance of service, of empathy, of forgiveness and of self-management.

For more than 150 years, Catholic schools have served American students of all faiths, and they have served, often in spite of pushback and even outright bigotry. Today, the legacy of Catholic schools is in danger, and it’s past time to come together and pave the way for the preservation of these community institutions, both because they serve students well and because we have yet to really consider what their loss will mean for our communities that need them most.

With thousands of Columbus students in need of a world-class education, it’s painful to see school district officials impeding the expansion efforts of a top-notch charter network by refusing to offer a vacant facility for sale or lease. If denying quality educational opportunities weren’t enough, the district is running afoul of state law, which requires districts to offer unused facilities to charter schools. The purpose of this provision is to make it feasible for public charter schools to access, at an affordable rate, classroom space that has already been paid for by taxpayers.   

Sadly, this isn’t the first time that an Ohio district has attempted to circumvent this well-intended law. In 2011, the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) avoided offering thirty closed buildings to charters by tearing some down, using others for storage, and classifying the rest with terms like “unusable.” In 2012, Cincinnati Public Schools lost a case before the Supreme Court of Ohio after attempting to prevent charter schools from obtaining their facilities. And in 2016, CMSD chose to demolish a vacant building rather than offer it to a charter school.

In 2017, things briefly looked a little brighter: The Columbus Board of Education allowed the Graham Family of Schools to purchase two of its buildings. Nearly three years later, though, we’re right back where we started. Columbus City Schools is now flouting state law by flat-out refusing to sell one of its unused buildings.

To understand why this is such a big deal, let’s consider the players. On the one hand is United Schools Network (USN), a home-grown charter network that opened its first school in the fall of 2008. USN serves 871 students in four schools located in Columbus. (All four are sponsored by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, our sister organization.) One hundred percent of its students are economically disadvantaged, and the vast majority of each school’s population is students of color. USN is rightfully considered one of Ohio’s highest performing charter networks. On the most recent state report cards, one USN school earned an A overall grade, two earned B’s, and one earned a C. Three of its schools also earned A’s on progress, while the fourth didn’t receive a progress grade because it serves students in grades K–1. Each of USN’s schools outperformed the school district in terms of overall grades, achievement, and progress.

On the other hand there’s Columbus City, the largest district in the state with just over 50,000 students. Like USN, state report card data identify 100 percent of its students as economically disadvantaged and the majority of its students as minorities. But Columbus City has far less impressive academic results. It’s most recent overall grade is a D. Only thirty-seven of its 109 schools earned an overall C or above, which means approximately two-thirds of its schools earned D’s or F’s. Only twelve schools earned A’s on progress. Those results aren’t anomalies, either—the district earned an overall F in 2017–18, the first year in which overall grades were assigned, and F’s in both achievement and progress in 2015–16 and 2016–17.

Finally, there’s the building they’re fighting over. According to the Dispatch, Monroe Middle School has “sat essentially untouched since it closed in June 2014,” and is characterized by boarded up broken windows, trash and dust, and profanities “etched in grime on its exterior walls.” USN founder and CEO Andy Boy told the Dispatch that his network has been trying to purchase Monroe for years. And legally, he should be able to. The Ohio Revised Code is clear that any facility that has not been used for school operations for one year must be offered by districts to schools of choice for lease or purchase. (In this year’s budget, the legislature changed the unused period of time requiring a sale from two years to one). The law specifically gives preference to high performing charters, which USN is.

But Columbus City Schools won’t sell. District officials claim they aren’t breaking the law because the district “has plans” for the building. But the law doesn’t permit districts to withhold unused facilities because it has “plans” to use them sometime in the future. It says they must sell buildings that haven’t been used for “academic instruction or administration” for one year. And as the Dispatch points out, those supposed plans for Monroe were last mentioned way back in 2016, nearly four years ago. The building has sat vacant even longer than that; it was closed in June 2014, meaning it has sat empty and unused far longer than the law allows.

It’s also worth pointing out that the district already has its hands full with other facilities issues. Back in 2018, I wrote about how it was waffling about whether to close or consolidate several buildings. A Facilities Task Force made up of community and business leaders reported that the buildings under consideration were “under-enrolled, underutilized, in poor condition, and unpopular with students.” Closing and consolidating these schools would have saved the district money and brought an additional infusion of cash. Based on the Dispatch’s description, the district clearly isn’t spending much keeping Monroe in good condition. But selling it would still be a financial boon. In fact, based on the most recent appraisal, the district could net over half a million dollars with the sale—money that is sorely needed in a district facing budget shortfalls.

In short, the district’s refusal to sell one of its vacant buildings is legally and financially questionable. But most importantly, it’s not in the best interest of the Columbus community or its students. Transforming a dilapidated building into a thriving school would almost certainly improve the neighborhood in which Monroe sits. And the students who would attend that school call Columbus home. USN serves Columbus families who want to exercise a choice they believe is in their children’s best interest. Unfortunately, their choices are being stymied by the district’s refusal to follow the law.

Columbus City officials need to ask themselves why they’re so afraid of what USN would do with a vacant building they haven’t used in years. It’s not impossible for districts and charters to peacefully coexist and be mutually beneficial. But until districts like Columbus follow state law regarding facilities, such collaboration will continue to be a pipe dream.