Jessica Poiner
5.26.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

For nearly a year, Ohio lawmakers have been working on Senate Bill 19, legislation aimed at improving student achievement. Recently, the House Education Committee released an amended bill. There are considerable differences between the newest and initial versions. But there is one difference, in particular, that directly contradicts the bill’s original purpose.

Under the original legislation, public schools would be required to enroll any child in grades 3–7 who scores at the two highest levels on their state math exam (“accomplished” or “advanced”) in an advanced math course the following year. These designations weren’t just plucked out of thin air. Students who score accomplished or advanced are considered to be on track for college. Their achievement is a clear indicator that they’re ready for more challenging work. And yet, the revised version of the bill only requires opportunities to be provided to students who score advanced. Those who score accomplished can still be enrolled in advanced courses, but—in a new and misguided twist—only if both the school principal and the student’s classroom teacher, in consultation with a parent or guardian, agree that the student would “benefit” from the opportunity.

Implying that students with a documented history of high achievement might not “benefit” from advanced coursework is absurd. 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. And yet, more than half of them (55 percent) weren’t enrolled in algebra during eighth grade and thus didn’t take the end-of-course exam in 2024. That’s nearly 13,000 students who missed out on advanced math opportunities despite proving their readiness. For reference, during the 2024–25 school year, just under 10 percent of seventh graders scored advanced on the state’s math exam. Meanwhile, 18 percent scored accomplished. Collectively, these students have demonstrated their readiness. But under the revised bill, only a third of them would have guaranteed access to advanced coursework.

What makes this subtle change particularly pernicious, though, is who it’s most likely to harm. Ohio testing data outlined in Chart 1 demonstrates that high-achieving low-income and minority students are more likely than their peers to miss out on advanced math. Less than 50 percent of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan native students who scored in the top two levels took algebra in eighth grade, while 56 percent of their White peers did so. A similar gap exists based on income: Just 45 percent of economically disadvantaged students who scored accomplished or advanced were enrolled in Algebra I in eighth grade, compared to 59 percent of their more affluent peers.

Chart 1. Percentage of seventh graders who scored accomplished or advanced on Ohio’s 7th grade math exam and took the Algebra I exam the following year

Don't water down SB 19 blog chart 1

One of the reasons why these gaps exist is that some schools, like those in economically disadvantaged urban areas, offer fewer opportunities for students to take advanced math. But that’s not the only reason. According to a nationally representative survey of teachers and principals published by the RAND Corporation in 2023, even when low-income and minority students attend schools that offer advanced math courses, they can still miss out if teachers and administrators fail to recognize their potential. Nearly one-quarter of principals said teacher nominations were included as part of the selection process for taking Algebra I before high school. And that’s a problem, says RAND, given that “previous research demonstrates that [using] subjective measures—especially teacher nominations—during the enrollment process is a known contributor to persistent disparities in representation in advanced math courses.”

The upshot? This change to SB 19 could prevent low-income and minority students from accessing math opportunities that their achievement track record proves they’re ready for. Constructing a bureaucratic roadblock for students who score accomplished will benefit districts, as it limits the number of students they’re required to advance. But it won’t help kids—especially those from underserved backgrounds.

If current practice is any indication, most of these students will be placed on lower-level tracks that can hinder admission into selective universities. Delaying algebra until ninth grade denies high-achieving, low-income students the opportunity to take calculus or high-level statistics as juniors and seniors. Not only that, it likely forecloses advanced physics, chemistry, or computer science courses that require strong mathematical skills as a prerequisite. Ultimately, these students will have less competitive college applications than their more advantaged peers—all because state lawmakers were unwilling to guarantee advancement opportunities.

Offering advanced coursework for high-achievers will challenge the status quo in many schools. But Ohio families deserve to know that schools are being held accountable for ensuring that all students are being prepared for success. Senate Bill 19, in its original form, would help accomplish that. Recent adjustments that water down its original intent should be rejected.

Policy Priority:
Standards & Accountability
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Jeff Murray
5.26.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Earning a bachelor’s degree has long stood as a marker of success—in one’s education journey, in life generally, and as the starting point for one’s career. Though the financial cost can be high (especially for those who struggled academically), the potential success is often deemed to be worth it. So millions of optimistic young people every year take out student loans to embark on the quest for a degree. But is misplaced optimism clouding some students’ judgment, and ultimately loading them down with long-term financial obligations that could have been avoided? A new research paper digs into some data to find out.

A trio of economists from the United States and Canada draw their data from two nationally-representative panel surveys of young people in the U.S.—the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) and the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09)—both of which tracked their initial subjects through age 30. Both surveys asked high-school-age respondents to rate their probability of earning a four-year bachelor’s degree by age 30; measured students’ academic achievement prior to college based on their performance on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB); and tracked college enrollment (or not), student loan usage (or not), and degree completion (or not)—also through age 30.

Survey data revealed widespread optimism among respondents about their likelihood of earning a college degree. On average, high schoolers in the sample reported a 54 percent probability they would enroll in college and, among that group, a 78 percent likelihood they would earn a bachelor’s degree (so 42 percent of the total sample). The average ASVAB score among respondents was 50 out of 99, in the middle of the typical range of scores. Students with lower test scores were less likely to predict college enrollment and degree attainment, controlling for other observable characteristics, while their peers with higher scores were more likely to predict both outcomes for themselves. So far so good.

However, longitudinal data showed that only 35 percent of all sample members actually ended up earning a degree by age 30, including a large number who predicted a degree while in high school but ended up never enrolling in college. Even those who did enroll showed a 23 percentage-point gap between their average prediction of degree completion (88 percent) and their actual completion by age 30 (65 percent). The researchers call this an “optimism gap” and break it out among various groups of students based on test scores, income, and other demographics. College enrollees who scored lowest on the ASVAB showed the largest optimism gap (about 37 percentage points), compared with those who scored highest (15 percentage points). That is: High school students generally overestimated their ability to earn a bachelor’s degree—compared to what the future actually held for them—with those at the lowest academic skill level overestimating by the largest extent.

Next the researchers examined whether inflated optimism drove students to take out federal loans to pursue a college path they were unlikely to complete. Among all college enrollees in the sample, 24 percent failed to earn a degree by age 30. Those who did not complete were just as likely to have student debt relative to those who persisted to a degree, though they owed a little less, presumably in large part because they attended for less time. The average non-completer owed about $11,000 at age 30, compared to $17,200 for completers.

Using these real-world outcomes, the researchers also model the hypothetical impacts of specific variables. Notably, they found that moderately increasing the student loan borrowing limit (from approximately 37 percent of average tuition and fees up to 56 percent) introduced long-term “welfare” losses (an economics concept that includes measures of income and consumption over a lifetime) among individuals who borrowed.

These losses would disproportionately impact the lowest ASVAB performers and those who were low-income—specifically, the young people with the highest “optimism gaps”—by nudging more of them from non-enrollees to college enrollees. In other words, if students were able to borrow greater amounts, more college students would do so and enroll in college, based on their optimism for degree completion. But because completion rates would be unlikely to change for the lowest-performing and lowest-income students, that group would simply accrue more debt.

By reducing the loan limit in their model, the researchers found that more low-performing and low-income students would choose not to enroll in college, regardless of their optimism for degree completion. Not only did this, predictably, limit their debt, it also modestly boosted their welfare in the long run.

The researchers conclude that “access to student loans can be harmful to some young adults in the presence of optimistic beliefs” and express hope that their findings “will be useful for researchers seeking to evaluate and improve the design of college financial aid.” But those are largely conclusions based on the modeling part of the research.

Unanswered here is the question of where students’ misguided optimism is coming from in the real world. Why are so many high schoolers who achieve an average (or lower) score on the ASVAB so sure they will succeed in college? Could it be the messages they received as a result of lowered classroom expectations and/or inflated grades? Or, more fundamentally, are they internalizing a “college at all costs” mantra coming at them from all directions when other postsecondary options could improve their long-term outcomes quicker, cheaper, and more directly? The report considers the choices made due to over-optimism to be “subjective,” which is true up to a point, but those choices are not made in a vacuum.

SOURCE: Emily G. Moschini, Gajendran Raveendranathan, and Ming Xu, “Optimism about Graduation and College Financial Aid,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (April 2026).

Policy Priority:
School Funding
Topics:
Governance
Aaron Churchill
5.22.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

The Ohio state board of education recently released draft revisions of its professional standards for superintendents. The document articulates the expectations Ohio has for the men and women who lead the state’s 606 districts that serve 1.4 million students. Though state law does not mandate use of these standards, they can guide school boards when hiring superintendents and evaluating their performance. They can also assist superintendents in understanding their own responsibilities.

First published in 2008, the standards contain five strands outlining the duties of a superintendent: 1) establish a vision and strategic plan for the district; 2) be an effective instructional leader; 3) communicate and collaborate well; 4) steward district resources; and 5) set district policy with the school board. The proposed revisions maintain these five areas, and even reorders them to signal greater emphasis on instructional leadership (a big improvement). The rest of the revisions are mostly wording tweaks.  

But there is one glaring change. As shown below, the proposed standards delete an expectation that superintendents “recognize the moral imperative to ensure the success of every child and recommend and enforce policies and governance practices accordingly.”
 

District supe standards blog figure 1

Erasing this line is baffling because, at a most basic level, it’s precisely what we ought to expect of superintendents.

The first part of the sentence calls on superintendents to “recognize the moral imperative to ensure the success of every child.” This statement is fundamental. Underpinning effective education is a conviction that each and every child can succeed, whether “success” means mastering specific academic content, completing assignments on time, participating productively in class, or passing a rigorous exam. Yet without this belief in children’s capacity to learn and succeed, education falters. Not even the most lavish amount of funding can overcome schools that expect little of their students.

The importance of this conviction likely explains the “moral imperative” language. In our anything-goes culture, some might object to the stern terminology. But the Cambridge Dictionary simply defines the phrase as “something that must happen because it is extremely important or urgent, and is the right thing to do morally” (emphasis added). It shouldn’t be controversial to obligate superintendents to recognize the extreme importance of understanding that every child has the capacity to succeed and to act with urgency to make sure they achieve success. The language also affirms that superintendents are in the right—acting ethically and morally—when they demand excellence and hold employees accountable for having high expectations of students, too.

The second part of the sentence directly challenges superintendents to act on this moral imperative by “recommend[ing] and enforce[ing] policies and governance practices accordingly.” In other words, superintendents are not merely to pay lip service to this moral imperative, but also operationalize it. What precisely this looks like in practice is not spelled out in the document. But here are some ways that superintendents might advance student success through district policy and practice:

  • Take action to dismiss poor-performing or chronically absent school employees.

  • Reward, and work to retain, high-performing teachers, no matter their seniority.

  • Add instructional time and/or create a summer school for students who need academic help.

  • Protect learning time by minimizing disruptions during the school day and school year.

  • Enforce disciplinary practices that promote an orderly learning environment.

  • Provide high-achieving students with the challenge and advancement they deserve.

  • Set the tone for the district by establishing a clear expectation that all students will succeed.

Words, attitudes, expectations, and beliefs all matter in education. So does school leadership. When push comes to shove, will school leaders hold fast to the “moral imperative” of educating every student or fall prey to low standards and expectations? The stakes are high—the futures of 1.4 million students are on the line—and Ohio must preserve a clear expectation that its superintendents adhere to an unwavering belief in the capacity of every student to succeed.

Policy Priority:
Standards & Accountability
Topics:
Governance
Jeff Murray
5.22.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

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

North star

Kudos to Hamline University doctoral candidate Don Allen for his even-handed op-ed published in the Minneapolis Times last week. In it he discusses the findings of a new report on the impacts of charter schools on local districts. Specifically, he cites the importance of nuanced understanding of data and of situating such research findings in the real world. Charters have been popular in Minnesota’s Twin Cities, increasing in enrollment while district schools have simultaneously lost students. But it is important, Allen says, “to recognize that the appeal of charter schools does not imply universal effectiveness.” Many charters have closed due to academic, financial, and organizational challenges, he acknowledges, although district schools experiencing the same difficulties have remained open. Both sets of problems should be dealt with, he writes, with the same goal in mind: Improving education options. Employing a double standard does nothing to support students and “undermines the credibility of many arguments opposing charter schools.” Check out this great analysis, and read the full research report here.

Win some, lose some – Rochester edition

The City Council of Rochester, New York, apparently has control of numerous long-shuttered district properties. (The Flower City is not immune to either the long-gestating student enrollment losses experienced by other city districts or the burgeoning of charter schools, as discussed above.) This week, city council voted to lease one of those closed district buildings to a charter school operator, with one member saying that a No vote would harm students and families of the popular Rochester Academy of Science, which was in need of additional space. “You are voting to make their lives, their educational journey, that much more difficult every day.” Unfortunately, the same sentiment did not apply the next day when another growing charter school tried to purchase a different closed building. Councilmembers voting No on this request cited their desire to turn the building in question into much-needed housing for the community instead…despite the fact that no developer has been or is planning to do so for the foreseeable future.

Charter flexibility – international style

Leaders of Fort Smith (AR) Public Schools are planning to launch a new charter school designed to serve children of military families relocating to the area in 2027. This includes the families of 900 pilots and support personnel from the Republic of Singapore’s Air Force, who will be training at the nearby Air National Guard base. The idea of the proposed Global Innovation Academy is to closely mirror the educational system of Singapore so that students experience as little disruption to their education as possible during their families’ deployment in Arkansas. “When students that are here for a year or two with us go back to Singapore,” said Fort Smith superintendent Martin Mahan, “their high-stakes tests include Singapore math and Mandarin. So we are trying to fill in the gaps of learning that they might experience as a military family.” But this is a benefit for U.S. students as well, he says, because “Singapore math is probably more concentrated on specific standards that are probably a little bit more advanced” than American standards. The new school, open to all interested families per state requirements, will also “enhance the opportunities for our own students, K-5, to really have a foundation in a foreign language, which I think is phenomenal.” Hopefully they’ll all be able to say “win-win-win” in Mandarin when they’re done.

Baseline data for the future

While we have focused on Indianapolis’ future lately—closely following the introduction of a new education model designed to be student-centric and to support those attending district, charter, and private schools alike—it is also important to understand the recent history of education there as well. Here’s a look at new research comparing student outcomes for district and charter school students across the Hoosier State, focusing on post-Covid recovery efforts. “Indiana’s charter school students have experienced greater academic growth in the years following the pandemic than their peers in traditional public schools,” says Chalkbeat reporter Amelia Pak-Harvey. “The study…also found that the gains were particularly pronounced for Black and Hispanic students, and for those who were among the lowest-performing and economically disadvantaged.” The new working paper can be found here.

*****

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

Policy Priority:
School Choice
Topics:
Charter Schools
Julia Hayes
5.22.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

School board members are possibly the most overlooked decision-makers in education, and they rarely dominate reform conversations. However, local school board members routinely approve one of the most important decisions school districts make: curriculum. As science of reading reforms accelerate across districts and states, this role is becoming more consequential—and more complicated. Despite this key role, most board members receive little to no training on evaluating whether those materials are high-quality and evidence-based.

So why does it matter that school board members understand the indicators of high-quality curriculum? For one, there is growing evidence that curriculum quality positively influences student outcomes. Several studies have found that the choice of math and science textbooks has significant effects on test scores; others indicate a positive impact on English language arts (ELA) achievement.

Examples of implementing high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) that led to better student outcomes can be seen in Duval County Public Schools in Florida and the Seaford School District in Delaware. In Duval, the county reported extraordinary improvement in grades 3, 4, and 5 math one year after implementing a new HQIM math curriculum. The county saw a 6 percentage point improvement in grade 3 compared with a statewide improvement of 3 percentage points, and in grade 4, scores improved by 3 percentage points, whereas the state showed no growth. In Seaford, where the multilingual student population has doubled over the last year, the district went from being one of the state’s lowest-performing districts on state tests to one of the highest after adopting a high-quality ELA curriculum.

Science of reading reforms have also sharpened expectations for the curriculum to be aligned with evidence-based practices and include coherent knowledge-building strategies. Therefore, curriculum adoption is no longer a routine approval, but a high-stakes instructional decision with significant implications for student achievement.

Most required school board training focuses on governance, ethics, and budgeting, while little to no training focuses on instructional quality or curriculum evaluation. Even organizations that increasingly acknowledge the importance of HQIM often treat curriculum knowledge as peripheral rather than essential to board service.

For example, the National School Boards Association offers optional webinars, research, and guidance on HQIM adoption, including a framework for evaluating curriculum and questions board members should ask during the approval process. School Boards for Academic Excellence similarly promotes a curricular audit program, evaluation tools, and guidance related to standards alignment and science of reading practices. As far as it can be determined from its public-facing materials, other organizations, such as School Board Partners, focus more heavily on governance, policymaking, and leadership skills rather than explicit training on evaluating HQIM.

These efforts are valuable, but they remain optional, uneven, and secondary to traditional board training priorities. In other words, resources and training on HQIM exist from these organizations, but there is little guarantee that all board members engage with them or develop a baseline understanding of curriculum quality before engaging in the curriculum approval process. As a result, many board members are still expected to approve curriculum without a basic understanding of how to evaluate its quality.

Without this knowledge, members may rely heavily on vendor claims, approve staff recommendations without scrutiny, or be swayed by political or community pressure. Discussions about curriculum approval can then focus on surface-level features rather than evidence of effectiveness and alignment to practices like the science of reading. Ultimately, when no one at the table understands what makes a curriculum high-quality, it becomes difficult to ensure districts adopt one.

However, it’s important to recognize that boards should not select curriculum themselves or override the opinions of educators and school leaders. Boards should merely serve as informed overseers of the adoption process, with the ability to evaluate curriculum proposals and ask informed questions to ensure districts adopt HQIM.

Ideally, with adequate training, members should understand what HQIM means and how strong materials can improve student outcomes. Additionally, they should recognize key indicators of a high-quality curriculum, such as standards alignment, evidence-based practices (especially relating to science of reading–aligned materials), and knowledge-building. Finally, they should ask basic but powerful questions during the curriculum process that help determine whether materials are effective and appropriate for their district.

A solution is for organizations like National School Boards Association, School Boards for Academic Excellence, and School Board Partners to provide universally required, lightweight training in recognizing and understanding HQIM. This could build on existing training structures through short HQIM modules in board-member onboarding, state-provided guidance on HQIM, and partnerships with organizations already providing resources in this area. States and school board organizations could also encourage broader use of existing curriculum evaluation frameworks and guidance questions that support informed oversight during the approval process.

School boards already have the authority to approve curriculum, but they should also have the basic knowledge needed to recognize high-quality curriculum and ask good questions before approving materials. Effective oversight requires at least a basic understanding of what a HQIM looks like. If we expect school boards to do this well, they need to be better informed.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Jeff Murray
5.22.2026
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. A recent Fordham Institute report and a previous interview with our Chad Aldis—on the topic of science of reading implementation in Ohio—were briefly discussed between host and guest during an episode of the All Sides program, a public affairs talk show on public radio here in Columbus, earlier this week. I supposed it’s better to be talked about than to be ignored entirely. But you guys can always call us to ask if we’re available to talk to. Anytime. (WOSU-FM, Columbus, 5/20/26)

  2. Now let’s talk about our one bright spot…before things quickly go south in today’s clips. Kudos to Aurora High School senior Ari Bernat, who collected his bachelor’s degree from Kent State University this week—earned while simultaneously completing his high school work, competing in sports, and holding down a job—thanks to Ohio’s College Credit Plus program. “It got busy, but I always managed to make it work,” he said. “There were a lot of late nights, writing essays, studying, taking tests, but in the end, it all turned out perfectly fine.” Well said, sir. Bernat also expressed surprise that more of his fellow teens didn’t seem to know about CCP. “What I’ve seen, especially in my high school, is most of the kids attending don’t even know this program exists and that they could essentially go to college for free. And I hope the governor does what he can, but,” he concluded, “it’s also on the schools.” (Fox 8 News, Cleveland, 5/22/26)

  3. Meanwhile, a senior at Minford High School in southern Ohio says she ended up losing the college classes she had been attending as well as $1,000 her family had to fork over to get her high school diploma after the weirdest quirk of bureaucracy caused her to leave school early, prior to graduation. What’s the issue? Backpacks, which are for some reason banned districtwide down there (don’t do an internet search for the reason; the results will not make you any wiser and will serve to make you sad for different reasons). Iliana Holbrook has a genetic condition that makes it hard for her to carry books and things without a backpack, she says, and when the district wouldn’t give her a break from the zero-tolerance ban, a stalemate ensued that was only broken when she left school five months short of the end of her senior year. (NBC4 News, Columbus, 5/21/26) Elsewhere in Ohio, East Knox High School senior Alex Anderson has been denied participation in his class’s graduation ceremony because he missed rehearsal, which school leaders say was capital-M Mandatory. Alex describes the car trouble he experienced while on the way to rehearsal, but it seems the bureaucracy there has a zero-tolerance policy for their rules as well. At least this one is a bit more familiar to me than the no-backpacks thing. My brother got snagged by a rehearsal edict at our podunk high school during his senior year back in 1981…after years of finding himself on the wrong side of various rules that teachers and principals regularly enforced on him. Just sayin’ reminiscin’. (10TV News, Columbus, 5/20/26)

  4. All 7 of my long-term, long-anguishing Gadfly Bites subscribers know that I have little tolerance for what I call the “dead kids” argument when it comes to education policies and actions. That is: “You can’t do X because KiDs wILL bE IrRePARabLy HarMeD!!!” Generally, it’s because the grievous harm arguments are exaggerated extrapolations of worst-case scenarios with only the meagerest bearing in reality—the shouting of which draws attention and unquestioning pity—but the debunking of which takes calm explanation, data, and nuance. And only one of those sides generally gets covered in the media. And I find it even more maddening in this case: Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s long-overdue closure and consolidation plan. Not only because the shouter’s portents of harm and possible child death from closing half-empty buildings and bringing groups of kids together in a single space dissolve with even the most cursory application of logic (not to mention the egregious stereotyping involved), but also because CMSD has demonstrably done a ton of work to plan, communicate, and work with impacted families to make sure that the best outcomes are realized for everyone involved. District officials in Cleveland deserve praise for their efforts so far and wholehearted support going forward, not unhelpful, baseless fearmongering at the 11th hour. (Spectrum News, 5/20/26)

  5. Arguments in the voucher groucher lawsuit are going to get an interesting public airing outside the courtroom next week, it seems, when the elected board of Mentor Exempted Village Schools welcomes high-caliber speakers from both sides into their chamber. Some elected board members are in favor of joining the coalition of districts funding the legal fight while others are opposed. Before they vote, they have opted to hear pitches from both the pro- and anti-voucher spokespeople. Should be a hoot, don’t you think? (Cleveland.com, 5/21/26)

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
The Education Gadfly
5.22.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

WHAT WE’RE READING

“Education Secretary Linda McMahon said states will be able to put conditions on scholarship organizations as part of the federal tax-credit scholarship program, weighing in on one of the biggest questions for governors considering whether to opt into the program,” writes Erica Meltzer in Chalkbeat. This is perplexing, contradicting as it does the conventional wisdom that the Treasury Department’s regulations are unlikely to let governors put their own stamp on the initiative. 

—

“In America’s college dorms and high school homerooms, young adults are seeing the world differently, occupying separate online spaces and even demonstrating an aversion to dating,” writes Kevin Mahnken. The Gen-Z partisan gender gap—with “girls repelled by Trump’s policies and boys disaffected by Democrats’ seeming indifference to their concerns”—is emerging much earlier and appears much wider than differences in older generations. —The 74

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