Last year, Fordham helped facilitate The Building Bridges Initiative, bringing together a diverse group of leaders from left, right, and center to build a bridge back to bipartisan education reform. And while we had great success, we worried that we were focusing too much on advocates in the center and neglecting those with more extremist points of view. (We also had, yes, run out of funding, thanks to the increasing polarization of education philanthropy.)

Fordham has never been afraid to push the boundaries, however. And in the spirt of extremism (and with truck-loads of culture-war-oriented grantmaker dollars available for such ends), we are launching a new project: The Burning Bridges Initiative. This pioneering program will defy the conventional norms of safe spaces by providing an explosive arena to discuss the wildest, wackiest, and most controversial ideas in education and politics, aiming to bring the vitriol of social media to the formerly tame arena of in-person convenings.

The group will meet periodically throughout the year to battle over divisive topics. Our moderator and professional instigator, Candace Owens, will start meetings by dropping bombs like “We should make Bibles required textbooks in schools” or “What do you think of Antifa?” and then just seeing what happens. We’ll then dive headfirst into the deep end with debates on Covid vaccines administered by school nurses, whether registering high school seniors to vote is a pro-civics exercise or a threat to election integrity, and whatever else could get us canceled.

We’ve been working hard to enlist group members. But this has proven difficult, so we’re also accepting volunteers. Want to join?

Fans are eagerly anticipating Taylor Swift’s new album, “The Tortured Poets Department,” set to release this month. But Swift, renowned for her ability to reinvent her musical style and explore diverse themes, sparked a debate among fans and critics alike last week when she dropped a single from the album. The song, “Choice Unbound,” has ignited speculation about its underlying message: Is Taylor Swift advocating for school choice?

With lyrics like “I’m breaking free, chasing my dreams, exploring all the choices for me,” some listeners couldn't help but be surprised that Swift seems to be trading her love ballads for political commentary. They interpret the song as a subtle nod to the controversial topic of charter schools (though others dismiss those theories as terminally-online delusion).

Swift, known for her cryptic lyrics and hidden messages, has remained tight-lipped about the true inspiration behind “Choices Unbound.” But that hasn’t stopped fans from dissecting and debating every word, searching for clues about her stance on education policy.

“It’s obvious,” concluded Corey A. DeAngelis, school choice evangelist, on X. “Taylor is using her platform to advocate for school choice. This is the way!”

If we weren’t all Swifties before, we are now.

In a move that has left students more perplexed than ever, schools across the nation have unveiled a slew of innovative grading methods. The aim is to dismantle America’s long and sordid history of inequitable grading. And educators, especially those fresh out of ed schools, are showing how imaginative they can be in assessing student work.

Leading the charge is Moe Geldman, author of Grading for Niceness, who’s birthed a brave new world. Traditional approaches like A–F grading are, of course, out. But so are recent alternatives, like 0–4 grading. In their place is Geldman’s magnum opus: the Emoji Scale.

One of the early adopters, Kindly Middle School in Fargo, North Dakota, has replaced letter grades with emojis that include 😄 for excellent, 😐 for satisfactory, and 😢 for needs improvement. They’ve also eliminated in-line textual comments on assignments in favor of, for example, 🤯 for deep insights, 🤫 for run-on sentences, 🥸 for suspected plagiarism, and 🤓 for perfect answers.

So far, students are 😢 over the change. “I used to love sending 👀 to my friends,” says one seventh-grader, “but now they think I’m jealous of their grades. This has ruined what used to be so much 🤪.”

Despite the pushback, educators remain committed to their new grading methods. “It’s all about keeping students engaged and thinking outside the box,” Principal Noma Faleyers says. “And if that means grading their work based on 💃, 🤹🏻, and 🏄🏻, then so be it.”

On Friday, Representative Virginia Foxx (R-NC), chair of the House Education and Labor Committee, announced that her committee has voted to recommend to the full House that it impeach Education Secretary Miguel Cardona on grounds of invisibility.

Assuming that the House proceeds to issue articles of impeachment, Cardona will be the seventh Biden cabinet member to be impeached during the second session of the 118th Congress.

“We have heard for months now that a certain Miguel Cardona was nominated and confirmed as U.S. Secretary of Education,” Foxx explained, “and for months we have looked forward to making his acquaintance. But to date, we have neither seen nor heard any evidence that a person by that name is actually serving as Education Secretary. We have repeatedly phoned the Secretary’s office—we have that number in speed-dial from when my dear friend Betsy DeVos was there—but we always end up in a voicemailbox that is too full to take further messages.

(I and all my colleagues in the media have had the same experience. See figure 1.)

Figure 1. Monthly headlines in America’s four biggest newspapers about Betsy DeVos and Miguel Cardona during their tenures as U.S. Secretary of Education

“It’s disappointing,” Foxx added. “We’ve been told that Mr. Cardona is a nice man and was a fine fourth-grade teacher. It would be nice to meet him. And, of course, we have a few things to ask him about.

“Perhaps he’ll turn up for his impeachment. But I have to add that not having a visible Secretary of Education appears to have coincided with a modest rise in student test scores across the country.”

After two years of trying to incentivize students to return to school, many districts are finally demonstrating success by deploying innovative strategies. Never mind sending home notifications to parents letting them know how many days their child has missed. And forget truant officers. They’re useless when parents don’t answer the door.

A few creative superintendents, however, have emerged as national leaders in motivating students to attend school in 2024. Superintendent Gedda Outabed of LAUSD, for example, says her district has closed the chronic absenteeism gap by 0.01 standard deviations (the district interim goal) by simply offering free Skittles, Sour Patch Kids, and Hot Tamales to kids who show up for at least an hour.

Superintendent Abby Sentz in Broward County, Florida, has also seen remarkable progress in getting students back to school. Her secret? Rewarding attendance with opportunities to miss class. Each day of attendance earns students points that they can use for a variety of rewards, including customizing their virtual avatars to play their favorite video game during history class. As they accumulate more points, awards also include (excused absence) field trips to Disney World, SeaWorld, and Universal Studios. Perfect attendance gets students enough points to take off the month of May.

What superintendents were most excited about trying in the coming months, though, is a new “No Attendance Points System,” where students earn points simply by thinking about attending school. It’s a new twist on the old approach that’s sure to lead to decked-out avatars, lots of hair-raising roller coaster rides, and a wonderfully steep drop in absenteeism.

Tenth grade Micky intently writes a hand-written apology letter on an old-fashioned desk. Today, he’s one of several students in his school’s new “Restorative Justice Room” (RJR). Scented candles burn in the corner and Mongolian throat singing plays quietly in the background. An eleventh-grader is daydreaming and cracking his knuckles. Another student, only in for lunch, rushes through her math homework.

The counselor was out sick today, so the dean of students Martin Philips filled in. “Our restorative justice system was missing something,” he explained to me. “And at first, we couldn’t pinpoint what it was. But then we discovered the missing piece: the ‘restorative act.’”

“It really varies by student and the behavior we are trying to punish—I mean, respond to,” he said. “For some, it might mean spending time in the RJR during lunch with similarly misbehaving peers. For others, staying after school and spending time in a classroom might help. For others, taking a ‘mental-health day’ at home has worked well.”

“We realized we are most likely to restore justice in the classroom when a student has some time to think about what they did,” Philips said. “We didn’t want them to miss class time, so it made the most sense to do it during all the other times.”

Two years ago, the school made a commitment to abolish any and all use of punitive discipline—detentions, suspensions, and expulsions, in particular. And Philips is proud to see that goal met.

Rarely do you see media coverage in Ohio about a public charter school embarking on an ambitious expansion. It’s not that the press is hostile to charters; it’s that such expansions don’t often occur in Ohio. That’s because Buckeye charters typically lack access to the resources that allow them to undertake large-scale capital projects. It’s also why recent news reports about Cornerstone Academy are worthy of note. The 1,000-student Westerville charter school managed to secure $30 million in bond financing via the Columbus-Franklin County Finance Authority for a significant facilities project.

This is terrific news for Cornerstone and its students. Yet those same articles illustrate a shortcoming in Ohio’s charter facility policies: lack of access to affordable financing for capital projects. Cornerstone will be paying 7 percent interest on the bond. While that seems normal in today’s high-rate environment, it’s still a lot to pay for debt service.

And it’s a lot more than traditional districts typically pay for capital projects. Dublin City Schools, for instance, recently secured $95 million in bond financing at 3.99 percent interest. Similarly, Bowling Green City Schools just obtained $73 million in financing at 4.08 percent.

It is true that charters, unlike districts, can close or be closed and they don’t have the power to tax, factors that may help to explain Cornerstone’s higher interest rate. But—just like districts—charters are public schools, held fully accountable for being fiscally responsible, as well as for their academic results. Charters also provide tens of thousands of Ohio families with additional public school options, and on average, they outperform their local school district.

To grow at scale, charter schools need access to more affordable financing. The high cost of debt servicing discourages many charters from undertaking capital projects in the first place, which often means they operate in less-than-optimal facilities. And when they do embark on substantial facilities improvements, the high interest rates they must pay tie up more of their budget with debt service and leave fewer dollars for classroom instruction. Given these challenges, it’s no surprise that only a handful of Ohio charters have ever accessed bond financing for capital projects.

Recognizing this problem and the disadvantage it poses to charter schools and their pupils, five states—Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Texas, and Utah—have created “credit enhancement” programs. Ohio lawmakers should do that, too. But what exactly are these programs, how are they structured, and what savings do they actually deliver?

A recent report from the Local Initiatives Support Corporation (LISC) provides a useful guide. LISC describes such programs this way:

State bond credit enhancement programs represent one of the most effective and least costly options available to lower the cost of financing for charter school facilities. These programs significantly reduce taxpayer dollars spent on facility debt service by effectively substituting the state’s generally far superior credit rating for that of the charter school, resulting in a lower interest rate and reduced debt service payments.

LISC notes two basic approaches to providing enhanced credit:

• Formal guarantee: Arizona and Texas guarantee—legally obligate—the state to cover bond payments in event of a default. In these states, charters were incorporated into a larger bond-guarantee program that is available to school districts.[1]

• Moral obligation: Colorado, Idaho, and Utah pledge—via a non-binding “moral obligation”—that the state will provide funds to cover payments if a charter school defaults.

Both routes effectively enhance the credit of charter schools, usually just a notch below a state’s own credit rating but higher than the rating a charter would receive on its own.[2] States, of course, do not actually pay the regular bond principal and interest—that remains the responsibility of the school. They only intervene if a school does not make a payment. This added layer of security reduces the risk to creditors and lowers charter schools’ interest rates. 

To insulate the state from risk, states set aside an up-front amount to cover the possibility of default. In Colorado, for example, the legislature initially appropriated $1 million as a dedicated reserve fund, and over the years, it’s added another $6.5 million to it. Another $8.1 million has been contributed from participating charter schools, which pay a nominal fee to receive the enhanced credit, along with another $1 million from interest earnings. With no defaults—and thus no draws on the reserve—Colorado’s reserve fund stood at $16 million as of 2023.

In addition to maintaining a reserve, states also set minimum criteria that charters must achieve to receive enhanced credit. In Colorado and Utah, for instance, a charter must receive, prior to participating, a non-credit-enhanced investment grade rating to participate. This, too, minimizes the risk to the state—and as the table below indicates, no defaults have actually occurred in states with bond enhancement programs for charters.

According to the LISC analysis, credit-enhancement programs in other states have delivered huge savings to participating charter schools. In Colorado, for example, $1.1 billion in charter facilities financing has been credit-enhanced, saving schools $130 million in debt service expense. Texas’s credit enhancement program has produced some $770 million in savings for its charter schools. These savings have been accomplished, again, without any defaults on a credit-enhanced bond.

Table 1: Credit-enhanced bond financing for charter schools, and estimated cost-savings

* * *

The bottom line is that, by enacting supportive facility policies, other states have enabled quality charter schools to expand and thus to serve more families and students. In fact, some of the nation’s finest and fastest growing charter networks—e.g., Basis, Great Hearts, and IDEA—call these states home. Regrettably, Ohio still lags behind. Creating a strong credit enhancement program would go a long way toward enabling Ohio’s best charters to educate more students.

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

A long journey

By any measure, Dayton teacher Shareka Gibson has paid her debt to society. But it took nearly eight years after her release from prison to rebuild her life. It’s an involving story, worthy of your time and attention. It’s good to know all of the agencies and individuals in Montgomery County and elsewhere working to help former prisoners re-enter society. Today, Ms. Gibson teaches science at an unnamed charter school in the Gem City, and she says her background has allowed her to connect to some of her students in a positive and hopeful way.

Momentum and more

The Ohio Department of Education and Workforce last week released its various lists of high-performing schools as determined by state report cards. Three charter schools earned the Overall 5-Star Building Award: Imagine Akron Academy, Horizon Science Academy Primary – Columbus, and Citizens of the World Charter Schools – Cincinnati). Kudos to those outstanding schools. Many many more charters across the state also earned The Momentum Award for schools that have “demonstrated outstanding improvement in achievement while also continuing to show growth”. Great work!

Send money

It’s finally real! Legislation passed in 2023 requires school districts in four Indiana counties to share a portion of new tax dollars they receive from increasing property values with charter schools in their boundaries. Last week, Indianapolis charters got their first look at how much money they can initially expect: Around $4 million shared out among them for the 2024-25 school year. It’s interesting that news coverage makes it sound both like small potatoes and something that will really hurt the district all at the same time. One thing is for sure, it’s likely to be game changing for those schools receiving it.

Significant opposition

Colorado House Bill 24-1363, introduced earlier this month, is aimed at “charter school accountability”, but would, among other things, allow traditional districts the ability to revoke a charter if that district’s enrollment is decreasing, allow community members to appeal an approved charter, and end the no-cost allowance for charters to rent district facilities. While introduced and championed by fellow Democrats, Governor Jared Polis is not a fan of the legislation. “Colorado is a national leader in education access, innovation and choice,” Polis’ office said in a statement. “Public charter schools are a popular option in Colorado, serving around 15 percent of our school-age children. This bill would weaken, rather than strengthen, school choice in Colorado, and the governor strongly opposes it.” Kudos, Governor!

Message to the legislature

Speaking of lawmakers, the executive director of the Louisiana Association of Public Charter Schools had some choice words for those in her state who might be thinking of pursuing legislation that would micromanage education. “The Legislature should focus less on laws dictating how to educate students and resist the temptation to create more training and curriculum mandates that have nothing to do with the basics of learning and core subjects,” she writes. “While it is always with good intentions, these mandates are not moving us closer to improving literacy rates.”

Go toward the sunshine

Perhaps the biggest charter news of the week was the announcement that New York City’s Success Academy is considering expansion outside the Big Apple—way outside. Success founder and CEO Eva Moskowitz testified at a Florida State Board of Education meeting on Wednesday, saying that New York has been “a rather hostile political environment” for charters and that she is in search of “friendlier terrain” for expansion. She later added she’s looking for “a place that’s high-growth, that’s high-innovation, that is welcoming to parental choice.” The Sunshine State would very much fit that description.

*****

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

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

1. One of the reasons why the eclipse-day school closures (end of the world is a week from Monday, y’all!) bother me so much is that, anecdotally, it seems there are lots of other such days already baked into the school calendar around here. Here is a story where a Columbus City Schools parent lays it out for real. “When they have a Wednesday off, they’re not just losing Wednesday,” is just one of mom’s receipts. However, if what “some parents say…” sounds bad, what school officials say in response seems even worse. Getting a day away from kids to do professional development is seen as a “stress reliever” for teachers. What’s the main stressor? Their own students. Why are PD days always on Wednesdays? “Typically, if we schedule it on a Friday or Monday, sometimes our attendance is not as high.” There’s so much more said out loud and visible between the lines. Read it yourself and see. It sounds like a mess to me…and it sounds like parents are getting wise. (WOSU-FM, Columbus, 3/28/24)
   
   

2. “Why haven’t you talked about Lorain City Schools in ages?” I hear you asking in frustration. Because there hasn’t been anything worth reporting in a long time, that’s why. But that changes today! Who would have thought that Lorain City Schools would be one of the few districts that actually seemed to learn something positive about using pandemic-era technology to support students? Not me, man. But here is a nice story about a choral/band project that was able to involve the entire district via Zoom. However (you knew there was going to be a “however” from me, didn’t you?), it sounds like a pretty enormous undertaking that I would be willing to bet consumed a lot of staff and student time. Given our previous clip—coupled with the years of academic concerns in Lorain—perhaps this was NOT the most optimal use of large blocks of time for literally every student in the district, even if it does represent a fine and laudable use of technology. (The Chronicle-Telegram, 3/29/24)

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

Some consider Checker Finn to be the Obi-Wan Kenobi of education reform. He is the master, wise one, and main influencer of thought for so many who populate education reform efforts today (and one of these authors in particular). Recently in these pages, the wise one authored a piece entitled “Education reform is a bipartisan endeavor.” While it’s uncomfortable, this time we find ourselves in slight disagreement with Finn.

We say “slight” disagreement because we wholeheartedly agree with the view that education should be an American value—not owned by one party or another—and that we must have a generally agreed upon philosophy regarding the purpose of our education system. As a country, we need a rich vision for public education that ensures every young person develops the knowledge, skills, and character that enable their individual success and our success as a society.

Where we possibly disagree is whether “bipartisanship” is a goal in and of itself when attempting education policy. It is true that if bipartisanship is possible, whether in education policy or any issue, it is the preferred result. All policy is better when it is developed gaining a broad base of support across the political spectrum. And we believe this was the process our founders envisioned—a give-and-take negotiation, often involving compromise by all parties, that ultimately achieves the support of a broad majority. A process that always attempts to maximize the number of Americans who benefit from any particular policy implementation, and that contemplates those who may not benefit and those who might even be harmed.

Historically, bipartisanship was highly regarded, symbolizing a commendable compromise and a collective victory—particularly in the education sector. We still view it as desirable. We understand, however, that the current political climate often interprets bipartisanship as weakness, a capitulation to opposing views. As a result, the political incentives for bipartisanship have been largely lost—and bipartisanship is now elusive, if not impossible. While we remain hopeful for a shift back to a more positive perception of bipartisan efforts, the present reality of the political landscape necessitates a different approach.

In a recent paper for the Aspen Institute, we introduce the notion of “cross-partisanship” as a potential strategy for today’s education advocates to consider.

In our analysis of state policy, we observed many initiatives that received support from a wide range of political actors. But these were not necessarily “bipartisan” efforts in the traditional sense. Instead, they could be termed “cross-partisan,” which we intend to denote modern political collaboration—policy success in spite of wide political backing, not because of it.

Advocates aiming for cross-partisan support will need to strategize on engaging policymakers by appealing to their primary political interests—and their core base of political support.

Factors in building cross-partisan support

As part of a larger body of work focused on rebuilding a broad base of support in education, we conducted focus groups and individual interviews with education leaders and looked across the state legislative landscape over the past couple of years. We found several themes and shared factors among successful policy initiatives. They didn’t guarantee success in all cases, but they seemed necessary, if not sufficient: Without them, efforts were much less likely to succeed. Following is a brief synopsis of the five factors that we identified (which we unpack more thoroughly in the aforementioned Aspen paper).

1. Problems and solutions are easy to communicate. Policy initiatives must be easy to communicate if they’re to result in a broad base of support. The success of policies like those grounded in the science of reading demonstrates the power of simplicity and relatability in communication.


2. Policy changes are responsive to local context. It has been famously said that all politics is local. Policy solutions tailored to specific local problems can often transcend political polarization.


3. Political cover is present. When a change in policy is new, or potentially controversial, it helps for there to be “political cover”—support by a higher political power, voting bloc, or higher order policy imperative (an existing law or an unexpected event that demands action, such as a pandemic or recession).


4. Both sides get their win. It’s important to acknowledge that, in politics, everyone is trying to achieve a win for their side. A key to cross-partisan success is finding a path for each side to claim that win.


5. Strategic use of media. It is undeniable that the media are powerful in shaping public policy. Some might argue that it is more useful in impeding progress rather than accelerating it. A fair point. But its potential as a force of good should not be underestimated.

When one or more of these factors is present—and of course the more the better—it allows for success within the political incentive structure we currently have, not the one we wish we had.

These instances of support exemplify what we now describe as “cross-partisan,” denoting support that transcends traditional partisan boundaries but emerges from people with differing political philosophies. The hallmark of cross-partisanship is that the “why” animating the support can be vastly different for various members of the coalition, which is to say they’re not pursuing identical interests but the initiative serves multiple interests.

Adopting a cross-partisan approach may be the new strategic imperative for success in education policy—imperative not just for a legislative win, but for the long-term well-being and prosperity of our children and communities. Examples from various states illustrate that, despite deep-seated political divides, it is possible to make meaningful improvements in education that “cross over” the political divide.

Different political actors may need to take different roads to the ultimate destination of a common-ground solution. Let’s not get hung up on the road traveled and focus instead on the destination reached. The success of all of our students, and our country, depends on it.