Dale Chu
4.16.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

At a White House summit last month, first lady Melania Trump turned heads by entering alongside a humanoid robot, promising a future where machines might tutor children in art, philosophy, and other intellectual pursuits. “Our children will develop deeper critical thinking and independent reasoning abilities. The AI-powered [robot] will boost analytical skills and problem solving and adapt in real time to a student’s pace, prior knowledge, and even emotional state,” she said. The idea is dazzling—and it made for some striking photos—but it raises a more specific question than is often asked: not what AI can do in education, but whether humanoid robots themselves are likely to play a meaningful role in schools.

The most likely near-term use cases for robots lie in low-paid sectors and professions that are struggling to attract enough workers to meet need—like, quite sadly, elder care. They would fill gaps in such systems under the reasoning that a robot may be better than nothing at all.

There is no comparable problem in the supply of adults willing and capable of teaching children; educator shortages are more localized and uneven than is often suggested. So long as human teachers are available, it is therefore hard to imagine humanoid robots being chosen instead. That does not mean, however, that robots have no role to play in schools. It simply means that role is likely to be far more limited, and far less glamorous, than the first lady’s vision of robot philosophers and tutors suggests.

If anything, the more plausible uses for humanoid robots in education are in the kinds of jobs that are harder to staff, lower paid, or more transactional in nature. In most districts, school support staff (e.g., cafeteria workers, bus drivers, custodians, playground monitors) represent a substantial share of school employees. These roles are also subject to higher turnover. If humanoid robots can reliably take on some of these harder-to-staff positions, they could help stabilize school operations, and potentially free up resources to better compensate teachers or invest in intensive tutoring and other student supports.

To be sure, a robot that can monitor a hallway, supervise a lunchroom, or assist with routine logistics may not be ideal. But in a situation where schools struggle to hire and retain staff for these roles, it is arguably better than leaving those functions understaffed, unsupported, or shifted onto already stretched teachers. Humanoid robots are unlikely to take center stage in the classroom. Their foothold, if any, will be at the margins of how schools function.

At the same time, caution is warranted. Schools are social institutions that help shape norms, relationships, and a sense of community. The presence of adults in hallways, cafeterias, and playgrounds contributes to a culture of supervision, care, and belonging that cannot be easily replicated by machines. Replacing too many human roles risks eroding the very fabric that makes them work.

This points to a broader challenge. The question is not simply where robots can be deployed, but where they should be. The same logic that makes robots attractive in moments of scarcity can, if applied too broadly, lead to a gradual hollowing out of human institutions. What begins as a practical response to labor shortages can, without discipline, evolve into a default preference for automation, even in contexts where human interaction matters most.

For education, that would be a mistake. Schools will always need talented people to do the work of teaching well. In fact, the rise of AI may create an opportunity to do just that. As automation reshapes the labor market, more young people may find themselves searching for stable, fulfilling work. As my colleague Mike Petrilli has argued, teaching could become a more attractive option, particularly if policymakers focus on improving working conditions and compensation.

However far the technology advances, the image of a robot instructor entering a classroom captures both the appeal and the limits of the idea. It is easy to imagine machines layered into the routines of schooling, especially where tasks are repetitive and predictable. It is far harder to imagine them displacing the relationships at the center of teaching and learning. The more likely future in education is not one in which robots replace humans, but one in which they remain peripheral tools—useful in discrete ways, but never central to how children are taught or how schools are run.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction
Teachers & School Leaders
Julia Hayes
4.16.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

“If teachers can’t manage student behavior today, they must be worse than they used to be.” It’s a claim I’ve heard often, particularly from people who have never worked in a school. As a former teacher, this claim makes me furious. The belief is simplistic and wrong. Teachers are not worse than they used to be. The job has fundamentally changed—especially when it comes to student behavior—and that has made success harder for even the most skilled teachers.

What exactly are those changes? For one, teachers are constantly taking on new responsibilities that extend far beyond instruction to include academic differentiation, social-emotional learning, and increased documentation and compliance. This stands in sharp contrast to earlier expectations, which were more narrowly centered on instruction.

Teachers are also supporting a student population with more complex needs than ever before. These range from behavioral to academic to emotional and mental health challenges. Compared to pre-pandemic years, teachers are reporting that these needs are both more widespread and more intensive.

On the behavioral side, teachers report that disruptions have become more persistent and more serious. An EdWeek survey in 2023 found that 70 percent of educators said students were misbehaving more than in 2019. These challenges are now a routine part of teaching, as 58 percent of teachers report addressing behavioral issues every day in their classrooms, in addition to their teaching duties. The pandemic has only intensified these challenges, with 48 percent of teachers, school leaders, and district leaders in 2025 stating that behaviors were worse when compared to pre-pandemic behaviors.

Academically, the challenges are just as significant. Before the pandemic, teachers reported that 40 to 60 percent of students were showing signs of disengagement in learning. After the pandemic, over 80 percent of teachers said that student motivation and engagement had declined even more. Today, 47 percent of teachers say that students showing little or no interest in learning is a major problem in their classrooms. The share rises to 58 percent among high school teachers. In my experience, teachers go above and beyond to make learning both engaging and differentiated, yet many students remain disengaged. When students are disengaged, even strong instruction has limited impact, making it far more difficult for teachers to improve academic outcomes.

The mental and emotional demands are equally pressing. Since the start of the pandemic, 69 percent of public schools have reported an increase in the share of students seeking mental health services compared to pre-pandemic levels. Today, 28 percent of teachers report that they have to help students with mental health challenges daily. Additionally, 48 percent of teachers say that anxiety and depression are major problems among students who attend their school. These realities create increasingly difficult working conditions for teachers who want to help these students but often lack the time, training, or resources to do so effectively.

A major factor driving these changes in the profession is the evolution—and, in some cases, weakening—of discipline policies. National data show that discipline practices shifted dramatically during the pandemic. The number of students suspended from school fell by roughly 75 percent compared to pre-pandemic levels, reflecting both policy changes and a reduced reliance on removing students from classrooms. About 66 percent of teachers report that current discipline practices at their school are very or somewhat mild, while just 2 percent report they are very or somewhat harsh. Another 31 percent say they are neither harsh nor mild. Additionally, 67 percent of teachers say they do not have enough influence over discipline practices at their school.

As a result, many educators feel unsupported by administrators when addressing student misbehavior. Elementary and middle school teachers in particular have said they need more support in dealing with student discipline from their administrators, and that support would improve their mental health. Without consistent consequences, it becomes far more difficult for teachers to establish and maintain classroom authority, even for experienced teachers working within unclear or inconsistent systems.

Let’s consider the central question again: Are teachers worse today if they can’t manage student behaviors? After considering all the ways that the job has changed over the last decade, the answer is clear. Teachers have not forgotten how to manage classrooms, we’re just asking them to do more than they ever have before. To be not just instructors, but also counselors, behavior specialists, family mediators, and more.

We should be far more cautious in treating every classroom challenge as a teacher failure, when many of these challenges reflect a broader societal strain. This is not to say that all teachers are effective today, but it’s important to remember that there were ineffective teachers in the past, too. Most teachers today are committed, capable, and working tirelessly under increasingly difficult working conditions. Rather than asking whether teachers are worse, we should be asking whether we are setting them up to succeed.

What, then, can administrators, district leaders, and policymakers do to improve working conditions for teachers?

  1. Strengthen educator preparation programs. The way these programs train prospective teachers is outdated and does not address the most crucial things teachers run into during their careers. Teacher candidates need more preparation for classroom management, behavior systems, and navigating parent and family dynamics, and less emphasis on abstract theory. More practical, applied training would better equip candidates for today’s classrooms.

  2. Rebuild school-based support systems. Although some schools and districts offer support to teachers of all levels, the lack of consistency across schools makes it difficult to ensure that everyone receives the support needed to succeed. Given the scope and complexity of the job, all teachers should have access to meaningful supports, such as instructional coaching, mentorship for early-career teachers, and targeted professional development. While these supports may not eliminate the challenges teachers face, they can make them far more manageable.

  3. Clarify and enforce discipline policies. With student behaviors on the rise, teachers need consistent backing from their administrators when it comes to discipline. To ensure that teachers feel supported in dealing with student behaviors, administrators should establish clear discipline policies, support teachers in enforcing them, and strike a balance between fairness and accountability.

  4. Work with teachers, not against them. Rather than assuming that teachers are the issue, leaders should partner with them to improve working conditions. Teacher voices must be central to these efforts, as they are the ones navigating these challenges every day. One-size-fits-all mandates are unlikely to succeed; solutions should be responsive to local context and student needs.

  5. Acknowledge limits. Schools cannot solve every challenge alone. Cross-sector support is necessary to address the broader social and emotional issues affecting students and, in turn, teachers.

Are teachers worse today if they can’t manage student behaviors? Absolutely not. The job is harder, more complex, and less supported than ever before. If we want better classrooms, we must improve the conditions in which they work.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Jill Hoppe
4.16.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Communities In Schools (CIS) is a program that addresses not only academic needs but also the personal, familial, and community barriers that hinder student success. Founded in 1977, CIS has operated for nearly five decades, expanding from a small pilot program to a nationwide network that now serves more than 2 million students in 3,000 schools across 29 states and the District of Columbia.

Funded primarily through private and local sources, CIS staffs high-poverty K–12 schools with an on-site coordinator who connects students to both in-school supports and external community resources including food assistance and housing services. While all students in a CIS school can access the coordinator, a subset of students with greater needs are referred for intensive “case management.” These case-managed students meet with their coordinator nearly once per week.

A recent study conducted in partnership with Harvard’s EdRedesign Lab evaluates the program’s impact on both short-term outcomes such as test scores, absences, and suspensions, and long-term outcomes including high school graduation, college enrollment, and adult earnings. To estimate causal effects, each CIS school is compared with a demographically and academically similar school that never adopted CIS, using more than five years of pre-adoption data to ensure the schools followed similar trends before the program began.

In Texas, where nearly half of all CIS schools are located, researchers linked Texas Education Agency records with CIS administrative data for more than 16 million students enrolled in public schools between 1995 and 2019, 3.3 million of which attended a school that implemented CIS by 2019. Because most Texas programs began after 2010, earnings at age 27 are estimated using the staggered rollout of CIS programs outside Texas. Researchers linked national Census and IRS tax records to track over 689,000 children born between 1978 and 1992 who grew up in neighborhoods that ever hosted a CIS program into adulthood.

The findings indicate that CIS programs in Texas have positive academic impacts. “High-risk” students in CIS middle schools—defined by the authors as those in the top quartile of predicted need, meaning students most likely to face academic or personal barriers—experienced gains in math and reading scores (0.18 and 0.05 standard deviations, respectively) after three years of exposure to the program compared to high-risk students in non-CIS middle schools.

CIS case-managed students receive tailored support based on their needs. “Academic needs” include challenges directly related to learning, such as difficulty with coursework or literacy, while “non-academic” needs refer to barriers outside the classroom like family-related obstacles or food insecurity. Gains in math are nearly twice as large for case-managed students with primarily academic needs than for students with non-academic needs (0.103 vs. 0.056 SD). Based on the sample, case-managed students are disproportionately female (53.4 percent), from racial minority groups (87.2 percent), and low-income (71 percent).

Academically, they begin well behind their peers: Even students at the 75th percentile within this group score below the statewide average in math. Low-risk students experience no effects on their test scores, positive or negative. This finding illustrates that targeted, personalized supports, such as tutoring and housing support, are essential to the program’s success, especially for high-risk students.

In addition, three years of middle school exposure to a CIS program closed 13 percent of the gap in high school graduation rates between high- and low-risk students, with increases of roughly three percentage points for high-risk students, regardless of whether their needs were academic. Although the program had no effect on four-year college enrollment, it increased two-year college attendance by 2.9 percentage points, and raised earnings at age 27 by an average of 1.54 percentile points, or about $1,140 per student annually.

Importantly, only about half the impact on high school graduation is explained by improvements in test scores. The rest can be explained by improvements in non-cognitive measures such as absence and suspension rates. In other words, the program’s impact extends beyond academics, and purely academic metrics may understate its long-term value.

The program is also notably cost-effective compared with other interventions. The authors note that every $1,000 of investment in CIS increases annual earnings at age 27 by $406, compared with roughly $40 for class-size reductions, although critics argue that class size experiments may overestimate positive effects. These results underscore how addressing students’ out-of-school needs can complement and strengthen efforts to improve academic outcomes.

While the researchers clearly explain impacts on school-related outcomes like academics, graduation, and college enrollment, further research could explore how CIS addresses non-school related outcomes like food insecurity, housing status, and mental health. CIS does not replace federal programs like SNAP, Head Start, or TANF, but site coordinators help families access and navigate these and other community resources. During periods of inconsistent and diminished federal support for low-income students and families, the need for strong local coordination becomes even more urgent. When safety-net programs are weakened or fragmented, models like CIS may become even more critical in ensuring that vulnerable students do not fall through the cracks.

SOURCE: Benjamin Goldman and Jamie Gracie, “When Resources Meet Relationships: The Returns to Personalized Supports for Low-Income Students,” Opportunity Insights (December 2025).

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Jeff Murray
4.15.2026
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. In case you might have missed it, Fordham Ohio’s newest Senior Research Fellow is OSU professor Vlad Kogan. He is quoted extensively in this Spectrum News piece because the topic is one of his specialties: Why so many districts are facing fiscal crises right now. The answer is that they used temporary federal Covid relief funding to make long-term spending commitments that they can no longer afford. While Prof. Kogan talks about the exemplary disaster that is Columbus City Schools, the main point of the Spectrum piece is actually the opposite of that: One central Ohio district that managed to avoid the fiscal cliff. It’s was a two-step process for them, from what I can see. A) Be New Albany-Plain Local Schools, one of the wealthiest districts in the state, and B) “When we were thinking about how are we going to spend this money…I always made it very clear that we should probably do more one-time purchases.” Easy peasy. (Spectrum News 1 Ohio, 4/13/26)

  2. While we danced around it a bit in the above Bite, “long-term commitments that school districts can no longer afford” generally means staffing. Cleveland Metropolitan School District, the OG disastrous exemplar on this front, announced more than 400 layoffs this week in an attempt to right their listing fiscal ship. These include teachers, classroom aides, principals, and assistant principals. The pushback from employee unions, students, and parents has been immediate and loud. But these long-term staffing decisions originally paid for by temporary funding that has since dried up are a bedrock cause of the looming budget collapse in CMSD and cutting the unsupported spending is absolutely vital to staving off that collapse. (Signal Cleveland, 4/13/26) Another bedrock issue impacting district finances across the state: Facilities. Once again, CMSD is a standout example…and not in a good way. Student enrollment has been falling sharply and steadily in CMSD (and elsewhere) for many years, accelerating after Covid-era disruptions and schools’ response to them. However, districts have refused to right-size their physical footprints in response. They have been inefficiently operating “zombie buildings” (filled to 50 percent or less of capacity and thus costing a ton per student to run), repurposing buildings that are empty of students for other low-capacity uses (like monthly board meetings or even textbook/furniture storage), and paying tens of thousands to demo buildings as a last resort (yet holding onto the land and paying to maintain and secure it). All of thi$ to avoid state law which requires unused district buildings to be sold to charter or private school operators. This piece grudgingly indicates that district leaders may be coming to their senses in this regard—only because of that looming budget bomb and only with the promise of spending big to build something new in its wake. But it’s seems to me that CMSD is at last running out of excuses to close the underutilized Collinwood High School and out of loopholes to save them from offering it to a competitor. (Signal Cleveland, 4/13/26)

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
Aaron Churchill
4.14.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

The Ohio House Education committee recently added an amendment to Senate Bill 19 that threatens to upend state testing. If passed into law, it would require the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce to seek a waiver from the U.S. Secretary of Education allowing for a “nationally normed referenced” (NRT) test instead of the current state assessment. If approved, Ohio would change course on assessments.

Shifting to an NRT for the state assessment appears on its face to violate the federal education law known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), as well as the Trump Administration’s commitment to transparency and comparability. But even if the secretary were to grant such a waiver, the NRT proposal is still a bad idea for Ohio. Here’s why.

1. It would undermine a fair, standards-based assessment and accountability system.

Standards and assessments go hand in hand. Content standards outline the knowledge and skills that students are expected to acquire at the end of each grade, while an end-of-year assessment gauges the extent to which students actually meet those standards. For instance, Ohio expects fourth grade students to “use decimal notation for fractions with denominators 10 or 100. For example, rewrite 0.62 as 62/100.” Thus, the fourth-grade math assessment might ask a student to write 7/10 as a decimal to demonstrate understanding of the content standard.

An integrated standards-and-assessment system is the fairest way of holding schools accountable for student learning. Think of it this way, using the example above: Without a standards-based assessment, a fourth grader might be asked to write 3/8 as a decimal. But that would be an unfair question because rewriting fractions with denominators outside of 10 and 100 are not expected under Ohio’s fourth-grade standards.

Recognizing the important link between standards and assessments, ESSA requires states to administer standards-aligned tests in accountability systems. The key passage reads:

The assessments under subparagraph (A) shall...be aligned with the challenging State academic standards, and provide coherent and timely information about student attainment of such standards and whether the student is performing at the student’s grade level.

Nationally-normed referenced tests do not meet this requirement—hence the need for a waiver—as questions are not tied to any particular state’s learning standards. Though NRTs can play a role in education—they are typically used to track student progress throughout a school year—they are not intended for use in state accountability systems. If used this way, NRTs undercut state standards, as schools are no longer held accountable for helping students achieve them.

2. It would throw state testing into turmoil—yet again.

Switching state tests is not like flipping a switch. Each assessment has its own IT requirements, administration procedures, test-score reporting formats, and more. Consider that Ohio’s test administration manual runs a dense 144 pages, covering important details such as test security, teacher and student logins, practice tests, and test-timing protocols. More than a decade ago, the annoyances and frustrations associated with changing state tests—from the OAA/OGT to PARCC—boiled over to the point that state lawmakers booted the new vendor out of Ohio. Fortunately, testing has settled down since then, with ten years of mostly smooth sailing under the state’s current assessment system. It seems unwise to risk throwing state testing into convulsion yet again, especially to move to a test that is less fair. Why put schools through another disruption?

3. It would open the door to a national testing company to impose its priorities onto Ohio schools.

As their name implies, NRTs are produced by testing companies that provide products and services across the entire country. As noted earlier, many American schools appropriately use these tests for diagnostic purposes. But the state test is different: It should reflect what Ohioans believe students should know and be able to do, not what a national testing company thinks is important (see the recent criticisms of the iReady test).

To ensure that the state test reflects local values and priorities, Ohio implements an assessment program that incorporates the expertise of the state’s educators. The learning standards, upon which the assessments are built, were developed and are periodically revised based on feedback from teachers and the wider public. The tests themselves are vetted by educators across the state. By contrast, there’s no guarantee that Ohioans would have any meaningful input if an NRT were used for the statewide assessment. If Ohio wants to maintain control over its state testing program—and it should--it must reject the idea of outsourcing assessment to a national vendor.  

4. It would scramble achievement trends and limit the ability to track progress.

An oft-overlooked benefit of a stable assessment program is the ability to track long-term educational progress. When Ohio made the (messy) transition to its current state tests, we lost a connection to historical achievement data. The tests were so radically different that meaningful analyses—like comparing 2005 OAA to 2015 PARCC results—weren’t possible. Breaking the trend line limits state and local leaders’ ability to understand whether initiatives are moving the achievement needle. Is the science of reading improving reading proficiency statewide? Is a district’s new math or reading curriculum boosting achievement? Without consistent test data, it will only be harder to tell.

A better path forward on state assessment

It’s been suggested that the move to an NRT would reduce testing in Ohio schools. Concerns about assessment burdens are legitimate, and there are indeed ways that Ohio could make state tests less burdensome as well as more useful to parents and educators. But Ohio need not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

First, regarding time burdens, it’s important to remember that Ohio has a cap on annual testing time. Under state law, students may not spend more than 2 percent of the school year—roughly 20 hours—on state assessments and local diagnostic tests combined. In addition, students may not spend more than 1 percent of the school year on test preparation. These are smart guardrails that should curtail significant over-testing. If concerns are percolating about testing time, state lawmakers could start by ensuring that these provisions are being enforced.

Second, as for improvement options, the SB19 amendment also includes promising language that directs DEW to develop a plan for a “next-generation, computer-adaptive” state assessment. This plan would outline how the testing system aligns to state academic standards, minimizes testing time, ensures a rapid turnaround in results, allows testing windows later in the school year, and reports students’ grade-level status and percentile rankings. These are all worthy of investigation—we have recommended some of these features before—as they have the potential to make state testing more efficient and its results useful to teachers and parents. The scope of these upgrades would be much narrower than making a wholesale switch to an NRT—more like going from an iPhone 16 to iPhone 17. Lastly, by directing DEW to create a plan, rather than rushing headlong into changes, it could also help the state avoid another testing mess.

Ohio should maintain a stable, standards-aligned state assessment system, one that reflects Ohio’s educational priorities and includes input and feedback from Ohio educators. Carefully exploring how the state can build a better system makes sense. But let’s think twice before abruptly pulling an NRT off the shelf.

Policy Priority:
Standards & Accountability
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Jeff Murray
4.14.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

The college visit is a time-honored tradition in the search process, and how such tours go likely plays a role in any final application decision. A new working paper looks at one college visit wildcard—the weather—to see if something so arbitrary might actually sway kids’ final decisions.

The single college under study is unnamed (dubbed “institute of higher education” or IHE), but the trio of researchers all hail from Amherst College. They look at ten years of prospective student tour data at IHE—from summer 2016 through fall 2024, excluding summer 2020 through spring 2021 due to Covid restrictions—comprising more than 47,000 individuals. Data on participants include hometown, race, and gender. A proxy for family income is based on their residential zip code, sourced from the American Community Survey for the year of their visit. Hourly weather data from all visit days come from a resource called Visual Crossing Corporation. Details on college application and matriculation (or not) come from the National Student Clearinghouse. All tours were conducted on foot along designated routes, lasted approximately one hour, were mostly outdoors (with short stops in a couple of buildings along the way), and took place regardless of weather conditions. While some colleges give brownie points to applicants who took a tour, our researchers assure us this is not the case at highly-selective IHE.

Using a set of temporal fixed effects models, they find that “bad” weather of any kind reduced tour participants’ likelihood of applying to IHE. Hot weather—relative to what are deemed “moderate” temperatures for the area—reduced applications by 10.1 percent, and cold weather reduced applications by 5.9 percent. Relative to sunny conditions, precipitation reduced applications by 8.3 percent, and cloudy conditions reduced applications by 4.9 percent. Negative impacts of cold temperatures were driven entirely by students from warmer home states, who experienced a 14.6 percent reduction in applications. Tour weather effects tended to be larger for male than for female tour participants.

White tour participants experienced near-zero effects of tour weather; while Black, Hispanic, and Asian participants experienced large-magnitude impacts. For one example, precipitation on a tour reduced application rates for Asian individuals by 18.5 percent. Results are similar whether students registered for their tour several days ahead (that is, likely without regard to a timely weather forecast) or at the last minute. Finally, having one tour in bad weather had little to no impact on students ultimately attending college in general, but of course there are no data on their tour experiences at other schools leading up to the ultimate choice.

While “immoderate” weather on a tour day does seem to sway the application decisions of prospective students, there’s no way to know whether this is a good or a bad thing. Perhaps a calm and sunny day in March is a rarity, belying weeks of unbearable swelter or torrent that a new college freshman will end up hating despite what they saw on their tour. Maybe one chilly early April downpour is just the last call of winter, driving a prospective student to avoid a school and miss out on a halcyon spring at a great college. Recruiters and parents can only hope that no matter how influential a single day of weather is, that it is only one piece of data among a large and growing set of informational sources that young people will consider before making their final, fateful decision.

SOURCE: Olivia Feldman, Joshua Hyman, and Matthew McGann, “‘Feel’ as a Determinant of College Choice: Evidence from Campus Tour Weather,” NBER Working Paper (March 2026).

Policy Priority:
School Funding
Topics:
Governance
Jeff Murray
4.13.2026
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. Only two clips today, but they are—serendipitously—the same story with just a small temporal or geographical shift differentiating them. First up, Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s longstanding financial woes may at last resulted in what should be a significant reduction in force—both teachers and administrators—although leadership actually provided no specific details about number of positions or timing of layoffs as yet. Steep and persistent student enrollment declines are correctly identified as a major contributor to the fiscal crisis, but school choice in the Cleveland area gets outsized blame in this coverage. (Cleveland.com, 4/11/26)

  2. Wooster City Schools is much smaller than CMSD, but its elected leaders appear to be peering into their crystal ball and seeing a CMSD-style future for themselves anyway. That’s why they have decided to forgo a previously-announced plan to put a facilities-funding issue on the November ballot, cognizant that several previous efforts have failed and seeing a potential budget deficit on the horizon for which they may want to come to voters for new operating funds instead. Neither elected board members nor the author of this piece mentions student enrollment losses—lower in magnitude but definitely happening there, and reducing their funding just the same as in Cleveland—probably because there is far less prominent a school choice scapegoat to blame in Wayne County. How will things go? Only time will tell. (Your Ohio News, 4/13/26)

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