1. A quiet weekend in clips, but what we do have is all on the same topic: report cards. The Plain Dealer is looking toward the release of state report cards later this week. There is a lot of focus on the three districts on the brink of an academic distress designation—one is cautiously optimistic, the other two seem resigned to their fate. Chad Aldis is on hand as the sole voice in support of overall school grades, to make their debut on report cards at long last this year. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 9/10/18)
    
2. Same anticipation is afoot in the Mahoning Valley. Most of the word count is reserved for Youngstown CEO Krish Mohip, who is expecting to see some good outcomes on growth measures for his district. The rest of the districts interviewed here seem to be expecting status quo. (Youngstown Vindicator, 9/9/18)
    
3. Finally, state legislators have their eyes peeled for those report cards as well. The chairs of the education committees in both House and Senate assert that report card data will influence any future discussion of changing the state’s graduation requirements that occur in their respective chambers this fall. Can’t wait. Link (Gongwer Ohio, 9/7/18)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox (in case you have already anticipated wanting to register for such a thing)? Subscribe by clicking here.

In the final days of August, the Ohio Department (ODE) of Education and the State Board of Education released their five-year strategic plan for education. It includes a state-level vision, a goal focused on high school graduates, four learning domains, ten priority strategies, and three core principles.

The bulk of the plan is a breakdown of the ten strategies that ODE and SBOE plan to use to achieve their declared goal. Although each of these strategies is worth studying in depth, there are three in particular—those that are aimed at improving standards, assessments, and accountability—that deserve a close look:

Strategy 4: Identify clear learning standards and guidelines that reflect all four equal learning domains.

Strategy 5: Move toward a varied system of assessments to appropriately gauge the four equal learning domains and allow students to demonstrate competency and mastery in ways beyond state standardized tests.

Strategy 6: Refine the state’s accountability system to be a fairer, more meaningful process that reflects all four equal learning domains.

Each of these strategies contains a reference to the “four equal learning domains:”

​

The key word, certainly implied by its use in each of the strategies, is “equal.” Going forward, ODE and the state board intend for these domains to be equally important within the state’s standards, assessments, and accountability system. That’s a pretty significant change because two of the four don’t factor into our current system.

The top two domains cover the kind of traditional, concrete academic competencies that are core to schooling. Ohio already has state standards and assessments for many of these subject areas, and they are included in our state accountability system through annual student assessment in subjects like math and English language arts. But the bottom two domains are far more abstract. The examples provided for these two categories—things like creativity, self-management, and relationship skills—are generally considered to be non-cognitive, or “soft skills.” While these have long been understood as critical to student success, they aren’t part of Ohio’s current accountability system in any formal capacity.

The inclusion of non-academic domains and non-cognitive skills in Ohio’s overall plan is not without merit. Research shows that possessing non-cognitive and social-emotional learning (SEL) skills can affect both academic and life outcomes. Teachers who complement their academic instruction with access to SEL opportunities are helping students develop skills that have long-term benefits. Not to mention the well-documented SEL benefits of extracurricular activities. In fact, these skills are so important that the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which is responsible for administering the PISA assessment, has taken an interest. They recently released a working paper that includes a conceptual framework for their new international study on social and emotional skills, and the survey’s findings will be released in 2020.

Given the research and international attention, it’s no surprise that ODE and the state board have included SEL as part of their plan for educating the “whole” child. The decision to commission a standards advisory group to recommend SEL standards for all grades (Ohio only them for kindergarten through third grade at the moment) is a wise move. Ohio should be giving teachers and school leaders guidance and resources on SEL.

Unfortunately, the plan goes beyond just establishing standards and collating resources. Under strategies 5 and 6, it suggests that these soft skills should be assessed and included in the state accountability system.

That would be a serious mistake. Ohioans have been vocal about their desire for fewer assessments and a less complicated report card. Numerous state board members have expressed grave concerns about over-testing. Superintendent DeMaria has recommended cutting a number of state tests. Legislators have proposed bills aimed at streamlining report cards. Why, then, would ODE and the state board publish a strategic plan that increases the number of assessments students must take and adds even more measures to state report cards? Even if the state opts for non-traditional tests—like student portfolios, projects, or experiences—it doesn’t change the fact that they are tests that will take time to administer, prepare for, and collect data on.

More concerning, the plan ignores the advice of leading researchers who have repeatedly warned about the danger of including SEL measures in high-stakes accountability systems. A 2017 report from the Learning Policy Institute concluded that although states could use SEL measures at the local level to inform teaching, learning, and program investments, “states should not use measures of students’ social-emotional competencies for high-stakes accountability purposes.” This is because they are still too new, weren’t designed for cross-school comparison, and are particularly vulnerable to reference bias—meaning that a person’s individual frame of reference or beliefs can influence how they report on or evaluate themselves and others.

Angela Duckworth, the researcher who is credited with popularizing the concept of grit, has also conducted research that demonstrates the danger of reference bias in SEL measurements. In 2016, she wrote a piece for The New York Times that carefully outlined why measures of character shouldn’t be included as part of high-stakes accountability metrics. She explained: “Policy makers who assume that giving educators and students more reasons to care about character can be only a good thing should take heed of research suggesting that extrinsic motivation can, in fact, displace intrinsic motivation. While carrots and sticks can bring about short-term changes in behavior, they often undermine interest in and responsibility for the behavior itself.” Carol Dweck, whose research covers fixed and growth mindsets, has also expressed reluctance about using mindset measures for high-stakes accountability.

And then there are the implementation issues. The plan’s assessment strategy says that skills within the non-academic domains “can be observed by individuals trained to do so.” There are no details about who these individuals are or what kind of training they would have to undergo, but considering how tight Ohio’s purse strings were during the recent budget cycle, ODE probably won’t be hiring a bunch of professionals to conduct these assessments. That means all the work is probably going to fall on teachers. Given that SEL measurements are prone to reference bias—and all kinds of subjectivity— there should be some serious concern about how the state plans to overcome differing norms and prevent efforts to game the system. After all, there’s a reason that not a single state opted to measure SEL for school performance despite new flexibility under ESSA.

To be fair, the strategic plan is just that—a strategy. There are no mandates and few details included in its contents, so it’s not clear how ODE and the state board will assess SEL skills or incorporate them into school report cards. In fact, the plan is carefully worded to say that embracing the four domains will merely “inspire the state to explore innovative approaches to assessments that go beyond academic content” (emphasis mine). At the end of the day, the power to add assessments and change the accountability system still rests solely with the General Assembly.

But it should worry lawmakers, advocates, families, and the general public that ODE and the state board appear to be recommending adding assessments and changing the accountability system in this way. There is no question that both organizations should be promoting SEL. They should create a clearinghouse of resources for teachers and leaders. They should invest in effective and meaningful teacher training. They should consider all the evidence and keep a close eye on upcoming research from respected organizations like OECD.

But they should not be calling for SEL skills to become part of our assessment and accountability system. And they especially shouldn’t be “shying away” from traditional academic competency to do so. SEL is a key component of student achievement and growth, but it’s not the only component. Content mastery matters too, as do “hard skills.” NAEP scores, ACT scores, and remediation rates indicate that Ohio still hasn’t figured out how to make sure all of its students are achieving at high academic levels. Until it does, policymakers should be focused on how SEL skills can complement academic mastery, not replace it.

When I graduated from Stuyvesant High School—considered one of the best public schools in the country—I thought I was a great writer: I had received A’s on virtually every one of my high school essays. When I got my first written assignment back as a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania, however, I was shocked to see a C- on the page, and a note scrawled in red: “You should get help at the writing center.” Essentially, I had been sent to remediation.

“We hold students to high expectations” is practically a mantra in this country—but in truth, we are failing at it. Each year, we send hundreds of thousands of students off to college who, upon arrival, discover they are underprepared. As my own experience demonstrates, the problem is not limited to graduates of low-performing public schools.

When I received that first C- at Penn, I was angry that I had a false confidence. Today, as the leader of almost fifty K–12 schools, I better understand how difficult it is for teachers to consistently maintain high standards for their students. The reality is that holding students to high expectations takes a tremendous amount of work. When teachers give high grades for mediocre work, no one asks any questions and they can carry on as before. When they give more realistic grades, they have an obligation to follow up with detailed feedback, more support, and better instruction. It’s not surprising then that most—often unconsciously—opt for the first course of action.

To counteract this retreat from excellence, school leaders must provide ongoing training and support around setting a high bar and holding students to it. At Success Academy, this is our highest priority. It starts each year at T-School, a four-week intensive summer training for teachers and instructional leaders, which launches with what we call “State of Our Schools.” This session is an opportunity to galvanize our educators toward excellence—not excellence as defined by state tests, but as demonstrated in great writing, in mathematical and scientific thinking, and by the education that our most competitive students in the nation receive. We don’t talk vaguely about high expectations; we point out that the bar for excellence is actually quite concrete—defined by nationally normed tests like the SAT, the SAT IIs, and Advanced Placement exams.

Educators can’t hold students to a high bar if they don’t have a clear vision of what excellence looks like. Often teachers—and principals—have a definition of excellence that defaults to the best work produced in their classroom or school; if the “best” work is not great, expectations for all their students inevitably shift downwards. In State of the Schools, we re-familiarize SA educators with how high the bar is and call out where we have failed to hold our students to it. We examine samples of students’ writing, their responses to math problems, and explanations of scientific concepts, and we share examples of challenging academic tasks our scholars will have to successfully tackle in high school if they want to gain admittance and financial support to the nation’s top colleges. We remind our educators that when we tell students that poor work is great, we are doing them a grave disservice.

Of course, one two-hour session is not sufficient for teachers and school leaders to put this message into practice—it merely establishes a unified and ambitious vision to inform, motivate, and inspire. Over the following four weeks of T-School, and throughout the school year, principals observe teacher practice, and school managers observe principal practice. Leaders scrutinize student work to assess gaps in critical thinking, and examine teachers’ feedback to ensure it is actionable and focused on the quality of students’ ideas. They study and share exemplary samples of both to calibrate standards. And they provide coaching, so that principals and teachers get better at helping students reach excellence.

As the year progresses, we hold two to three additional State of Schools to assess where we are in relation to our objectives. We evaluate student performance against our excellence bar, and we revise curriculum, assessments, and training—sometimes all of the above—to ensure we are asking our scholars to put forth the level of thinking, writing, and problem solving necessary for true college readiness.

The battle for excellence is tough and ongoing, and merely commanding teachers to raise their standards is grossly insufficient. Ultimately, holding students to a high bar requires a zealous and persistent commitment by everyone—from superintendents, principals, and parents, to assistant teachers and office staff. Everyone must share a clear understanding of what excellence is, and give students the realistic feedback and dedicated support they need to meet the ambitious expectations of which we know they are capable.

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in a slightly different form on Linkedin.

Eva Moskowitz is CEO and Founder of Success Academy Charter Schools.

Columbus Dispatch Editorial: Charter schools deserve fair rules for bus rides

The Columbus Dispatch editorialized this week on the transportation challenges facing charter schools. The editorial explains that charter schools and their families have been complaining of unreliable bus service from school districts for years and that a recent conflict between Columbus City Schools and local charter schools suggests that state officials need to address this persistent problem. The Dispatch also recognizes that all schoolchildren, whether attending a district or charter school, should receive the transportation that their parents’ tax dollars pay for.

A response to the popular question: “Do charter schools take districts’ money?”

James V. Shuls, an assistant professor of educational leadership and policy studies at the University of Missouri-St. Louis, wrote an op-ed in The 74. Shuls argues that you can believe charter schools take districts’ money away only if you think students, and the funding that comes with them, are district property.

Charter schools and unified enrollment systems

In recent years, unified student enrollment systems have become increasingly popular. Unified enrollment allows students to fill out one application, rank their top school choices (often including both district and charter schools), and gain admittance to their highest ranked available school. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has released a new report exploring the pros and cons of unified enrollment and providing an overview of how these systems have been designed and implemented in six public school districts across the country.

School discipline resource for charter schools

Many schools are working to make school discipline practices more equitable, trauma-sensitive, and effective. A new program called Think:Kids focuses on charter schools in particular. The program is helping charters transform their disciplinary programs to be evidence-based and trauma-sensitive using Collaborative Problem Solving, an approach that helps at-risk children build critical skills like flexibility and problem solving that can improve discipline.

Upcoming events

Upcoming events for the next few months include: The School Performance Institute’s upcoming workshop (September 13, Columbus), Education Next’s 2018 Poll Event (September 14, Washington, D.C.), the 2018 NACSA Leadership Conference (October 22-25, Orlando) the 2018 National Dropout Prevention Network Conference (October 28-31, Columbus) the Ohio School Improvement Institute (November 15-16, Columbus), and the 2018 National Summit on Education Reform (December 5-7, Washington, D.C.).

* * * * *

Did you know you could have every edition of Ohio Charter News delivered right to your Inbox? You can subscribe by clicking here.

In a recent report, school-funding expert Howard Fleeter analyzes Ohio districts’ revenues stretching back to 1999. His study concludes that, in the two decades after the DeRolph school-finance litigation, Ohio made only moderate progress in creating an equitable funding system. According to his calculations, the gap in state and local revenue that the wealthiest districts generate versus the poorest narrowed from 8 percent in 1999 to 5 percent today. In an interview with the Columbus Dispatch, he sums up the results: “We lowered the gap, but not by a whole lot. Getting them [the poorest districts] to the same (level) of the high-wealth districts still isn’t adequate ... because their costs are higher. They have kids who cost more to educate.”

Those of us at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute agree with Fleeter that schools serving more disadvantaged children should receive more public aid. And we respect his more than two decades of work on school finance; his voice is highly influential in the ongoing funding debates, and appropriately so. But all this doesn’t mean that his results should go without challenge. In this piece, I wish to raise a few questions about his analyses and share some skepticism as to whether the state’s poorest districts are underfunded.

Let’s first take a closer look at the key chart in Fleeter’s report, displayed below. The focus of his analysis is on local and state revenues for districts in quintiles 1 and 5—i.e., the poorest and wealthiest 20 percent of districts, respectively, in terms of property values. In FY 1999, the chart shows that Ohio’s poorest districts received $6,033 per pupil in state and local aid, while the wealthiest received $6,524 per pupil—an 8 percent gap. Fast forward to FY 2019[1] and the poorest districts now receive $7,808 compared to $8,192 per pupil for the wealthiest—a 5 percent difference. Bearing in mind the notion that poorer schools should receive more (not less) in public funding, these results appear to be discouraging in terms of achieving funding equity goals.
 

​

A few observations and questions, however, are in order:

• First and most striking is the decision to deflate FY 2019 dollars to 1999 dollars, rather than inflating the older to the more current (the standard practice). While Fleeter’s method is not technically incorrect, it vastly understates the current levels of school funding. For example, the chart above displays a statewide average of $7,567 per pupil in state and local revenue, even though in FY 2017 this amount was about $11,500 per pupil. Regrettably, the “deflated” amount made it into the Dispatch’s coverage of this study, an egregiously misleading statement of funding levels, especially given that the public already underestimates true amounts of school funding.
• Second, note that federal revenues are excluded even though they are part of the overall equity picture. While these revenues pale in comparison to state and local revenues, poor districts tend to receive more federal aid than wealthier ones, so excluding these dollars results in an incomplete picture.
• Third, the poorest districts in this analysis are defined only by their property wealth. This is one way to look at poverty, and it may have been the only “wealth” variable available from 1999 to 2019. But it’s also possible that this measure may not capture districts that are actually educating the state’s poorest students. For example, Columbus and Cincinnati have relatively high levels of property wealth, but they also serve predominantly low-income children. Would the results change based on different definitions of “poor”?

With these points in mind, let’s take another look at the situation. What follows focuses on funding amounts in FY 2017, the most recent year in which we have full datasets. Instead of just considering state and local revenues, the following figures rely on the “total expenditure per pupil” statistics produced by Ohio Department of Education, which also include the spending of federal dollars. These data represent all operational spending, and they exclude capital expenditures, as well as the spending and enrollments of charter schools (save for a small number of “conversion” charters sponsored by districts).[2] The following set of charts show districts’ average expenditure per pupil based on four indicators of (dis)advantage; districts are ranked along these metrics and then divided into quintiles of roughly equal enrollments.[3]

The first two charts focus on districts’ property values per pupil and their median incomes. Figure 1 shows that the poorest districts in property values—quintile 1—slightly outspend their counterparts in the top quintile. Specifically, they spend $12,771 compared to $12,235 per pupil in quintile 5—a small advantage of $536 per pupil.

Figure 1: Operating expenditure per pupil by district property valuation per pupil (FY 2017)
 

​

Of course, property wealth or the lack thereof is not the only equity measure that policymakers might care about. When examining median incomes, Figure 2 shows that districts with the lowest incomes spend more than those with the highest—a more sizeable advantage of $1,167 per pupil.

Figure 2: Operating expenditure per pupil by district median income (FY 2017)

​

One might also want to consider whether districts educating disproportionate numbers of higher-need students spend more. Key indicators of student need are whether a child is economically disadvantaged (ED), black, or Hispanic. On average, these student groups achieve at lower levels than their peers and may need additional resources. Both Figures 3 and 4 indicate that the highest-need districts—quintile 5 in these charts—spend substantially more than districts with the lowest fractions of ED or black and Hispanic populations (quintile 1). Figure 3 shows that districts serving the highest percentages of ED students spend on average $13,962 per pupil, or $2,454 per pupil more than the lowest ED districts. Meanwhile, Figure 4 indicates that districts enrolling the highest percentages of black and Hispanic students spend upwards of $14,000 per pupil—or $3,810 per pupil more than districts with the lowest percentages of students from these race/ethnicities.

Figure 3: Operating expenditure per pupil by percentage of economically disadvantaged students (FY 2017)

​

Figure 4: Operating expenditure per pupil by percentage of black and Hispanic students (FY 2017)

​

***

These charts, of course, cannot tell us whether funding equity has improved or weakened since the conclusion of the DeRolph cases—one of the main concerns in Fleeter’s analysis. Nothing in the piece here suggests that his calculations of state and local revenues are incorrect. But by looking at total operational expenditures, which include federal dollars, and analyzing different indicators of disadvantage, we see the picture can change dramatically. As other studies have concluded, examined in various ways, Ohio’s funding system looks quite fair.

1. The b-side of a higher-profile Dispatch editorial from earlier this week opines on the topic of transportation for charter school students in central Ohio. This is in light of complaints in a piece paper earlier in the week indicating that charter school students were being ill-served by the district in charge of their school bus access. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/5/18) Speaking of the universality of school choice across Ohio, let’s talk football! For the first time ever, two charter schools sponsored by Fordham will meet each other on the gridiron tonight! Congratulations to both teams! (Max Preps, 9/7/18). Regardless of who wins down in Sciotoville tonight, I think that the COF team—a new non-public, non-tax supported “08 school” which we’ve discussed here previously—would happily take on both teams simultaneously. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/6/18)
    
2. A pretty wide ranging group of leaders in Stark County—education, business, medical—got together for a forum this week, talking about the gap between jobs and education in the area. It is an interesting two-way street described here: more jobs beget a more educated populace and vice versa. Where does it start, though? (Canton Repository, 9/6/18) Editors at the Rep opined on the forum and its messages today. (Canton Repository, 9/7/18) Those same editors opined on Mike DeWine’s proposed education plan, released yesterday, and the putative plans of Richard Cordray. Both are running to be the next governor of Ohio, of course. You can read about DeWine’s education plan here, if you are so inclined. (WOSU-FM, Columbus, 9/7/18)
    
3. Let’s take a quick lunch break before the end of today’s clips. The inner workings of the school lunch program in South-Western City Schools are pretty interesting – technology, hardware, meal choices, and funding are all covered here. (ThisWeek News, 9/4/18)
    
4. Refreshed from our Bosco sticks and mixed vegetables, we take a look at what is termed a “turnaround strategy” at Dayton’s Belmont High School under its brand new principal. It involves bullhorns and dress codes based on academic standing and some enumerated “high” expectations that made me go to look up the meaning of that word. But everyone interviewed for this piece says it’s working so far—and heaven knows that Dayton City Schools in general and Belmont High School as one specific example—so who am I to cast aspersions? (Dayton Daily News, 9/4/18)
    
5. Finally today—and speaking of confusing definitions of “high”—there are still folks who believe that the state’s more rigorous graduation requirements are too darn high. Last year’s “temporary” non-academic diploma pathways have been allowed to expire and the legislature has as yet taken no action regarding any extension of those pathways. But at least one member of the state board of education is interested in doing whatever she can to lower the requirements as far as the board has authority to go. Yay. (Gongwer Ohio, 9/6/18)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox (in case your love of low bars leads you to want to register for such a thing)? Subscribe by clicking here.

The passing of Senator John McCain last month had a profound effect upon our nation’s conscience and countenance. If a life of service is a life well lived, McCain’s was a prodigious one, the likes of which we may never see again. The outpouring of personal stories and tributes from both sides of the aisle surpass those given even to some presidents. His iconic story will undoubtedly endure while those of lesser men fade from memory.

McCain may have been denied the brass ring of the presidency, but that hasn’t stopped some from wondering how things might have been if he had prevailed. In my mind, this would include the trajectory of education policy, considering that a McCain presidency would have partially supplanted an historic period in school reform. While the responsibility of education falls largely to the states, the presidential bully pulpit is a sizable one, and my guess is that McCain would have seized it like the fighter that he was to play a prominent role.

Pundits have varying opinions when it comes to our nation’s best education presidents. Again, given its province in the states, we talk far more about education governors than we do presidents. But they are tone setters, and leadership matters even when it comes to the arcana of education policy. From LBJ’s focus on poverty and Reagan’s call to action to Bush 43’s elevation of accountability and Obama’s putting it on steroids, there is no lack of contenders. Although McCain was known more for his leadership on foreign policy than as an education champion, there are five clues to suggest that he would have brought his out-of-the-box persona to school reform as well.

The first would have been McCain’s choice for education secretary. It’s no secret that he would have tapped the inimitable Lisa Graham Keegan, former Arizona state superintendent of public instruction and McCain’s education advisor for both of his presidential bids. I’ve had the honor and privilege of working with Lisa a few times, and I can say I know few people as eminently qualified as her to wield the authority of a cabinet secretary. A pioneer on accountability and school choice, Lisa’s deep knowledge and vivacious spirit would have been a formidable one-two punch in that office, and she would have been as effective—if not more so—than any of its previous occupants.

Second, McCain would have taken a novel approach to school choice by connecting a push for federally sponsored vouchers with his crusade for campaign finance reform. While it would have likely fallen flat with lawmakers, funding vouchers from a separate pot of money might have served to blunt some of the politics. McCain’s words here were compelling too:

We will find the necessary money for those most in need, by taking it from those least in need. We give hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies to the producers of ethanol, to oil and gas and sugar manufacturers who are wealthy beyond the dreams of most hard-working Americans. I challenge my opponents to join me in taking the money that we've been giving to the special interests and spend it instead on a child in need.

His approach wouldn’t have been toeing the party line, but as we came to expect from the “maverick,” it typifies the independent thinking that McCain would have brought to bear in crafting education policy.

Third, McCain could have altered the course of history for one of education reform’s castoffs: virtual charter schools. In a speech to the NAACP during his 2008 campaign, McCain said:

We can help more children and young adults to study outside of school by expanding support for virtual learning. So I propose to direct 500 million dollars in current federal funds to build new virtual schools, and to support the development of online courses for students. Through competitive grants, we will allocate another 250 million dollars to support state programs expanding online education opportunities, including the creation of new public virtual charter schools. States can use these funds to build virtual math and science academies to help expand the availability of Advanced Placement math, science, and computer science courses, online tutoring, and foreign language courses.

If one of Race to the Top’s tenets had been to cajole states into putting their shoulder to the cyber-charter wheel, could we have averted the disastrous results that have been panned by advocates and the media alike? Perhaps not, but it’s a counterfactual worth contemplating if you consider how—at the very least—it might have kept virtual charters from flying under the radar for so long. While hope is not completely lost for online schools, McCain might have helped to prevent them from digging themselves into such a deep hole.

Fourth, McCain’s home state of Arizona has been an exporter of assets like Great Hearts and BASIS, as well as a proving ground for other high-performing, mom-and-pop charter management organizations. Granted, the state has earned the scorn of some critics for a “Wild West” approach to charter authorizing, but the label has also been a source of pride. When it comes to education reform and school choice, there are no pale pastels in the Grand Canyon State, but bold colors befitting of the state’s late political giant.

Finally, as a self-professed bookworm who spent his childhood bouncing around over twenty schools, a President McCain would have brought a unique and valuable perspective to this enterprise. Presidential historian Jon Meacham wrote, “You can tell a lot about a president—or a presidential candidate—by what he reads, or says he reads.” A study in contrasts with the current officeholder, McCain would have brought an audacious vision to education, and dared greatly to achieve it. I’m saddened by his departure from the arena.

Children in the state of Connecticut are being denied access to schools that have plenty of room for them because of the color of their skin. Yup, that’s right. Available seats in the magnet schools of Hartford—and beyond—sit empty despite long waitlists for admission.

And this denial of opportunity is happening in the name of integration.

“Those seats just stay empty, no matter what,” Robinson said. “Even if I want Jarod to have a seat, he can’t get in unless kids from the suburbs come in too. It’s like Connecticut says, ‘You have to have a white kid in a classroom for a black kid to be educated.’”

Year after year, LaShawn Robinson entered her son Jarod’s name into the lottery for one of Hartford’s magnet schools and year after year, he was denied admission even though the school had room for him. Now Ms. Robinson and six other plaintiffs are taking their case to federal court.

After a 1996 supreme court ruling in Sheff v. O’Neill that held that racial segregation in Hartford schools violated the state constitution, lawmakers responded by passing a racial quota law. The law required Connecticut school boards to reduce racial, ethnic, and economic isolation by various methods—including creating magnet schools. To ensure these schools remained diverse, the law required magnet schools’ enrollment to be at least 25 percent white or Asian. In other words, magnet schools cannot have more than 75 percent black or Hispanic students.

That’s right. A law was passed that requires at least 25 percent of the student body in Connecticut magnet schools to be white or Asian. But as it turns out, white and Asian families are not choosing to send their children to Hartford’s magnet schools, largely because they already have high quality schools in their neighborhoods. This dearth of white and Asian applicants leaves huge numbers of seats vacant, despite tremendous demand from black and brown families. And consider this: A family with children of different races can gain admission for the white (or Asian) child but not the black or Latino one. Two children, one family, and the siblings can’t attend school together because they don’t both have the “right” skin color.

The Pacific Legal Foundation has taken up the case and is suing on behalf of LaShawn Robinson and six other Hartford families who believe that their children’s constitutional rights are being denied. The lawyers working on the case are also adamant that the law is unconstitutional.

The Connecticut Parents’ Union is raising its voice too, and held a press conference at the State Department of Education earlier this week calling for “No Empty Seats.”

Editor’s note: This article originally appeared in a slightly different form on the Good School Hunting blog.

The views expressed herein represent the opinions of the authors and not necessarily the Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

1. We’re back! And there’s a lot to cover. So let’s get to it: There are apparently some “relentless attacks” going on out there somewhere. They are, apparently, an effort to “pin” some current statewide office candidates with “blame” for something related to the demise of ECOT. Fordham’s Chad Aldis is in here as well, trying to inject some reality to the discussion, but I fear it is too late. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/1/18)
    
2. Chad also features in this piece covering the ongoing discussion of Ohio’s graduation requirements. Chad is on record as supporting academically-rigorous requirements. This story is about pretty much the opposite if you ask me. (Dayton Daily News, 9/4/18)
    
3. Editors in Columbus opined late last week on the topic of the state’s newly unveiled education master plan, calling for balance. (Columbus Dispatch, 8/30/18)
    
4. Speaking of the state’s newly unveiled education master plan, the brains behind that plan—State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria—was visiting schools in far northern Fremont, Ohio, yesterday. There are a number of interesting points in here – including praise for a new “learning lab” that “mimics online schools like ECOT” and how important “enrollment numbers” are to rural districts. (Fremont News Messenger, 9/4/18)
    
5. According to the internet, it was at least 95 degrees in Fremont yesterday. School was in session and Paolo looked cool as a cucumber in his suit and tie in the pictures. Which is great. Here in central Ohio, Columbus City Schools called off classes early yesterday due to that heat—the fourth school day in a row for that—and today classes are simply cancelled entirely. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/4/18) When Columbus City Schools calls off for the full day, that usually means cancellation of busing for charter and private school students across the area as well. As a result, a bunch of those schools are also closed today. I don’t know how bad this really is, though, since this piece from late last week makes it seem like charter school students were already being pretty ill-served by the district’s transportation system this school year. What’s one more day? (Columbus Dispatch, 8/31/18) Meanwhile, the elected school board in Columbus is chewing over the recommendations made by their school closure committee. Decision-making is on a “fast track”, board members suggest, but the outcome is still unclear. Whatever happens, I doubt it will improve transportation. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/4/18)
    
6. Schools were closed in the Cincinnati suburb of Finneytown due to the heat also. It has attracted the attention of a state representative who wants action. Well, information first. Then action. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 9/5/18) Not to worry, though: high school sportsball practices and games are not stopping for the heat. (Elyria Chronicle, 9/5/18) But you know what is stopping? The practice of competitive balance in Ohio. That is the reorganization of high school athletic conferences in an effort to—among other things—account for students in charter and STEM schools as well as homeschoolers who are eligible to play varsity sports at the high school in their district of residence. The Ohio Supreme Court issued a stay pending their review of the litigation being pursued by a group of Cincinnati-area Catholic schools. Here is an opinion piece on the topic written with patented sports-columnist sass. (Marion Star, 9/1/18)
    
7. I have made the prediction that the forthcoming documentary on LeBron James’ new I Promise School in Akron will be called “We Are Family”. But right or wrong, it is time for me to think about the inevitable sequels and a clutch of recent clips from the ABJ can help. First up, “I Promise – Where the Money Comes From”. Boring, but important. (Akron Beacon Journal, 8/3/18) Next will be “We are a Bigger Family”, in which we see the I Promise school model expanding nationwide, as many folks hope. (Akron Beacon Journal, 9/3/18). Finally, how about “I Promise – The Potential for Return on Investment”? That is the topic of the editorial board’s opinion piece on just what I Promise might achieve. (Akron Beacon Journal, 9/4/18)
    
8. Finally today, as long as you all keep subscribing and reading and loving Gadfly Bites—which I see as nothing less than a vital service doing hella good in the community—your humble clips compiler can get a BOGO tuition deal at Capital University in Bexley! The Murray twins are going to be Crusaders! Wooohooo!!! Wait, what do you mean? I’m sure they had me in mind when they created this plan. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/5/18)
    

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox (in case your love of a deal leads you to want to register for such a thing)? Subscribe by clicking here.

Were there any shootings at your workplace last year? Want some time to think about it? Better check the files or ask the H.R. department. Maybe you were out that day or forgot. Are you really, completely, hand-to-God, one hundred percent certain you know for a fact whether there was or was not a shooting at your work in the last twelve months?

It’s not a trick question. Of course you’re certain. If someone had fired a shot in anger in your office, factory, or school, it’s something you wouldn’t forget quickly. Or ever.

If you missed the news in the run-up to the Labor Day holiday, Anya Kamenetz of NPR committed a remarkable act of journalism last week. According to U.S. Education Department data for the 2015–16 school year, 240 schools reported at least one incident involving a school-related shooting. “NPR reached out to every one of those schools repeatedly over the course of three months,” Kamenetz reported, “and found that more than two-thirds of these reported incidents never happened.” Of the 240 incidents reported by the U.S. Ed Department’s Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC), NPR was able confirm only eleven.

Eleven versus 240 is not, to put it blandly, a small discrepancy. Kamenetz cited a separate investigation by the ACLU of Southern California, which could also verify fewer than a dozen of the incidents, while confirming an astonishing 59 percent error rate in the CRDC data, which also informs our views and policy positions on things like chronic absenteeism—over six million students reportedly missed fifteen or more days of school—and corporal punishment. (Aside to Ms. Kamenetz: If NPR wants to continue its valuable service playing MythBusters, track down some of the 110,000 students the CRDC data claims were subjected to corporal punishment. I’ll wager heavily that number is wildly overstated, misreported, or based on an impressionistic definition that most of us wouldn’t recognize or accept as “corporal punishment.”)

If an incident as rare and binary as a shooting—either a gun was fired in a school or it was not—is challenging to recall, record, and report accurately, then how much confidence should we have in OCR statistics or other data on attendance, access to rigorous coursework, special education services, incidents of bullying, and the myriad other data points that inform education policy and practice? Do we even want to talk about charged and volatile issues like school suspensions and disparate impact? If we are relying on 100,000 public schools to accurately capture, code, and self-report a wide spectrum of critical data, it is not unreasonable to wonder what else they get wrong. And how wrong.

The Data Quality Campaign, a thirteen-year old nonprofit that advocates for improved collection, availability, and use of high-quality education data, was sufficiently alarmed by the NPR report to issue a statement noting that good data “takes time to collect and report accurately…Because the information used in the NPR story is from the first year that all schools were required to report information as part of the CRDC, it still needs the benefit of time to ensure that the data is both accurate and reliable.” Most school-level data is self-reported, explains Paige Kowalski, the organization’s executive vice president. Much depends on the person responsible for data entry in a school (seldom a full-time responsibility). What is their job? Do they understand how this information is used and why it might be important to do it accurately? Are there stakes attached to getting it right? “It gets down to what does it take to get quality data, what’s the role of the feds, what’s the role of the state, what’s the role of the district?” she explains. “And finally, that person who sits in the school who has the phone on their ear, typing with one hand, talking to a student across the way, and eating their lunch all at the same time.”

Kowalski recalls being astounded early in her career that "states didn’t have an accurate count of the number of boys and the number of girls enrolled in their schools because it was up to the district to determine data fields and definitions. We couldn’t get gender right,” she tells me. “But once we understood why, it wasn’t complex to fix.” Another frustration was over the wildly different ways four-year high school graduation rates were counted and calculated. The challenges, she says, tend to be a function of how questions are worded, data collected, coded, and reported. Reasonable explanations, but they don’t bolster the public’s confidence that we are on firm ground when we make confident assertions about “what we know” based on data.

The eyebrow-raising NPR report caps off a bad few months for data, research, and evidence-based practice. Researchers failed to replicate landmark studies like the “marshmallow test” of delayed gratification. The validity of the widely cited “30 million word gap” study of home language has come under suspicion. Last month Jay Greene of the University of Arkansas lit a small brush fire that deserved to be bigger calling into question whether political bias affects what research gets published in leading journals. (Spoiler alert: It does). Earlier this year, a feel-good story about graduation rates at a high-poverty Washington, D.C., high school turned out to be mostly bogus. We continue to tout “historic” high school graduation rates having no idea whether kids are graduating college and career ready, or being merely kicked up and out via various credit recovery schemes (I know which way I’m betting).

It’s not surprising when data with stakes attached, like graduation rates, are off; schools have every incentive to report data casting themselves in the most favorable light. It’s harder to explain away getting something like school shootings egregiously wrong, neither noticing nor caring when the data don’t pass the smell test. Credulousness is surely a factor. The lines between education research, advocacy, activism, and agenda-driven media coverage get blurry at times, increasing the likelihood that we will either actively promote or fail to apply appropriate skepticism to “policy-based evidence-making.” If you favor strict gun control measures to combat school shootings, for example, then an epidemic level of incidents reaffirms your sense of crisis and advances your narrative and prescription. If the idea of arming teachers to stop school shooters alarms you, it behooves your policy argument to note how vanishingly rare are such events. Making decisions on behalf of children is muddied even further with wholly invented data and statistics wielded by the nakedly self-interested pushing for changes in curriculum, pedagogy, and practice. You’ve surely heard, for example—and perhaps repeated—that we must be radically transform schools, since 85 percent of the jobs that today’s students will do as adults haven’t been invented yet. Or maybe it’s 65 percent. No, wait. It’s 60 percent. But such imprecision hardly matters when one-third of all jobs are about to be automated. Or one-half. Or whatever.

The crisis of confidence in data, if that’s what this is, ostensibly benefits the testing-and-accountability wing of ed reform, since, as my colleague Mike Petrilli notes, it’s hard to misreport test scores. It also bolsters the arguments of those of us inclined to weigh more heavily parental prerogative, including greater latitude for school choice. If we can’t trust our data to tell us what’s going on in schools, what parents see with their own eyes is less easily dismissed. But the bottom line is this: If your pet reform policy, program, or initiative rests on “what we know” based on school-reported data, this might be a good time to change the subject.