A big surprise—and mountain of confusion—is coming to everyone who cares about educating poor kids, not to mention every policy wonk in the K–12 realm. The definition of “poor” and “disadvantaged” is in flux for the first time in my decades of engagement with K–12 education, and the outcome is going to be a prolonged period of instability and inconsistency. This was noted two years ago by the ever-vigilant Matt Chingos, but the implications haven’t yet sunk in.

For as long as I can remember, the primary gauge of poverty in the education system has been how many students qualify for a free or reduced-price lunch (FRPL) via the federally-funded National School Lunch Program. Eligibility has forever been based on a formula that considers family size and income.

This began—under Harry Truman—with lunch and now often includes school-provided breakfasts so long as one’s school participates in the programs, which are administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. They’re entitlement programs, currently costing around $16 billion per annum.

Operationalizing this has always involved a lot of paperwork. Families have to fill out forms. Schools have to distribute, retrieve, and tabulate those forms. There’s some (though not a lot) of verification to ensure that people are truthful. And there’s a lot of bureaucracy entailed in obtaining the subsidies and following the program’s many rules about what can and should and shouldn’t be served. (Is ketchup a vegetable?...)

The costs and hassles are why some schools don’t participate at all. But most do, and the program has grown and grown, such that close to half of all U.S. schoolchildren have been “FRPL-eligible” in recent years.

Which has also meant that the proportion of “disadvantaged” children in our schools has continued to rise even as the Census Bureau says childhood poverty is declining—and why FRPL eligibility has serious defects as a gauge of poverty. Indeed, it seriously exaggerates poverty’s extent—and distorts its locations—among students.

Yet dozens and dozens of other programs—and thousands of policy analysts—have used FRPL eligibility as a proxy for disadvantage when it comes to K–12 students. Indeed, the phrase “poor and minority” is even more familiar in the education cosmos than “career and college ready.” “Minority” brings its own issues, of course, as racial categories proliferate, divide and combine, as more kids scarcely fit any of them, and as some minorities turn out to be far less educationally challenged than others. But “disadvantaged” has forever seemed like a clear and consistent metric thanks to the ubiquity of FRPL. And it’s been the linchpin not just of policy analyses and data reporting—think of NAEP for example—but also of the distribution of many billions of federal and state dollars because all those formulas that seek to throw resources at disadvantage have relied on FRPL eligibility as an essential ingredient. So, too, have school accountability systems at least since NCLB required that “disadvantaged” pupils be treated as a “subgroup” within schools whose academic achievement would be monitored, and for which schools and districts would be held accountable.

That’s all now in flux. The reason—talk about good intentions yielding unexpected consequences—is that a number of districts, especially urban districts, aware that many of their schools had 80 or 90 percent (or more) FRPL-eligible pupils, asked if they couldn’t please just feed all of their students without the paperwork hassle of tabulating individual eligibility.

It made total sense, and Uncle Sam consented. In 2013–14, the Agriculture Department introduced the Community Eligibility Program (CEP) whereby districts and schools with heavy concentrations of low-income students could supply free meals to everyone. Participating districts were immediately spared from having to collect eligibility forms from every family. This made life easier for districts, of course, but it also meant that more kids got fed and fewer went hungry, for there had always been problems collecting those forms. Some kids didn’t want their classmates to know they were poor. Parents lacking proper documentation of their own were wary of government forms. Sometimes there was a language barrier. Mobility, too, was a factor. So yes, CEP makes total sense. Kids need food, and if schools are supplying it, they should supply it to everyone

But—a huge but—the spread of CEP means that fewer and fewer districts and states can use FRPL eligibility as the base for defining and measuring “disadvantage.” And that poses a huge challenge, starting with ESSA accountability, which requires states—if they want to keep getting Title I dollars—to measure “disadvantage” in all their (Title I) schools using a metric that is uniform throughout the state, as well as accurate and verifiable.

Although the distribution of federal education aid, such as Title I, generally relies on Census Bureau tabulations of “families living in poverty,” many states have long used FRPL eligibility as the measure of disadvantage for purposes of distributing their own funds according to formulae that give additional dollars to schools and districts with lots of needy pupils.

But with FRPL no longer able to support a “uniform” statewide system, at least in states where CEP is used by some districts, what are they to use? How will they concentrate dollars on schools full of poor kids? How will they report achievement for the subgroup called “disadvantaged?” And how will all those national data systems that rely on subsidized-lunch eligibility as a proxy for student poverty report how poor kids are faring?

Options are available, but none is problem-free. And what’s to happen when states choose different ones? At a State Board of Education meeting in Maryland the other week—ours being a state where three of twenty-four districts are using CEP district-wide and eight more use it for some of their schools—staff recommended replacing FRPL (which for some reason is known as FARMS [Free and Reduced Meals] in Maryland) with “direct certification,” whereby families receiving benefits from a series of federal welfare-type programs are matched against lists of children attending a particular school to get a nose count of “disadvantaged” students. The virtue of this approach is that it’s all done in “the back office” and families don’t have to certify anything new or fill out any forms. The problems are many, however, beginning with massive shifts for many districts and schools in the proportion of students deemed “disadvantaged.” There are bound to be inaccuracies as multiple bureaucracies seek to match lists that were devised for different purposes and tallied at different times. And the whole scheme will fluctuate whenever rules change for the various welfare programs that undergird it—programs overseen by different Congressional committees and administered by agencies that have nothing to do with either education or agriculture. Worse still, at least for purposes of federal formulas and data systems, other states are opting for different alternatives, such as asking all student families to report their incomes, or using eligibility forms for the families of students who don’t “match” via direct certification.

This mishmash is going to disrupt more data series, more trend lines, more analyses, and more formulae than you can count—certainly more than I can count. It will be erratic, unstable, uneven, and vulnerable to all sorts of glitches, changes, and reporting problems. And it’s going to disrupt any number of other programs and benefits that have been linked one way or another to FRPL eligibility, such as the connections that already exist among school meals, food stamps, and Medicaid.

I’m certainly not defending FRPL, which has long had its own full measure of challenges and malfunctions, as well as many reports of fraud, waste, and abuse. And there’d be no point in defending it, considering how CEP has already invalidated it in many places as a measure of disadvantage and a proxy for poverty. I’ve never understood why Census data haven’t been used routinely in K–12 education, as they are in so many other sectors and program domains. All I can say is watch out for the chaos ahead.

A recent federally funded evaluation examines the impacts of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. Overall, its authors estimate that participating in the program for two years reduced students’ achievement by about 10 percentile points in math and about 3.8 percentile points in English language arts, though the latter estimate isn’t statistically significant. However, the program did positively impact parents’ and students’ perceptions of school safety.

In general, these results are highly consistent with the results of a similar evaluation published last year, which found that program participation reduced math and reading achievement by 7.3 and 4.9 percentile points, respectively, after one year. And because these estimates are based on the results of a program-wide lottery, there’s not much to quibble with methodologically.

Conceivably, the latest negative achievement estimates could still reflect the “transition costs” associated with switching to a new school. But the consistency between the first- and second-year estimates doesn’t bode well for this hypothesis. The more likely explanation is that the performance of D.C.’s public schools—including both its district schools and its many charters—has improved to the point where at least some private schools are struggling to compete. (After all, D.C. boasts one of the country’s largest and highest-performing charter sectors, and its district system is famously reform-minded—recent scandals notwithstanding.)

Regrettably, some observers have tried to downplay the most recent results by arguing that concerns about safety should trump concerns about academic performance. But as Fordham has long argued, it’s not at all clear that parents or taxpayers should be forced to choose. D.C. charter schools are routinely closed for low academic performance, for example, yet few would argue that students’ safety has suffered as a result.

Unlike D.C.’s charters—and unlike voucher programs in Indiana and Louisiana—D.C.’s voucher program is not subject to any form of test-based accountability. So participating schools can continue to enroll new voucher recipients (and pocket the accompanying public funds) regardless of their academic performance.

This state of affairs leaves policymakers—in this case, the United States Congress—with three options:

1. Shut the program down and force participating families to send their kids to what they believe are more dangerous schools.
2. Leave the program untouched and accept that its mostly low-income and historically disadvantaged participants will be even less academically prepared than if they had attended a traditional public school or charter.
3. Add an accountability component to the program so that families can choose from a lightly curated list of private schools that (on average) provide both a safer environment and better academic preparation than the public schools students would otherwise have attended.

Because the study in question does not yield “value-added” estimates for individual schools, it’s difficult to say how many private schools would need to be culled for the third option to become a reality. But assuming that school performance is normally distributed, the number is probably modest. And in some ways, the question misses the point of the exercise: Kids need to be safe. Kids need to learn something.

Any program that fails to deliver on both counts needs improvement.

SOURCE: Mark Dynarski et al., “Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts Two Years After Students Applied,” U. S. Department of Education (May 2018).

Every two years, educational researchers eagerly await scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), eager to dive into the results and hypothesize reasons for changes—or lack thereof—in the data. But what NAEP actually reveals about education across the fifty states is more complex than simple score comparisons. In a recent report from the Brookings Institution, Matthew Chingos follows NAEP cohorts from fourth to eighth grade, finding that students in some states make gains at both levels, while others lose early gains by eighth grade or, conversely, catch up despite a slow start.

NAEP analyses typically compare students in the same grade across years. Instead, Chingos tracks cohort four-year growth from 2003 to 2017 (for example, comparing 2013 fourth grade scores to 2017 eighth grade scores). Rather than using raw NAEP scores, the report uses demographically adjusted scores calculated by Chingos and his colleagues at the Urban Institute. These adjustments use restricted-use student-level data to account for demographic differences across states, controlling for race, English language learner status, free or reduced-price lunch eligibility, birth month and year, frequency with which a language other than English is spoken in the home, and Individualized Education Plan status. NAEP tests different students in each administration, but tracking birth cohorts controls for statewide policy or economic changes that might affect 2011 fourth graders (the same cohort as 2015 eighth graders) differently than, say, 2017 fourth graders.

In math, Chingos finds a roughly positive correlation between cohort four-year growth and higher eighth grade scores, but many states deviate from that pattern. For example, Delaware and South Dakota had nearly the same eighth grade average score, but over ten points of difference in average growth; while Delaware’s students tested much better in fourth grade, South Dakota almost caught up within four years. Chingos posits that some states are teaching math skills earlier, thereby scoring higher on the fourth grade assessment, but that this does not mean students are actually learning more by high school, demonstrated by less improvement in later scores. He supports this by comparing a decade’s progress: All fifty states show an increase in fourth grade scores between 2003 and 2013, but only thirty show gains in the same cohorts’ eighth grade scores from 2007 to 2017. An average 7.6-point increase in fourth grade scores falls to an average of 0.3 points by eighth grade; in twenty states, the fourth grade gains were gone within four years.

Reading results show even more examples of states with similar average eighth grade scores but very different average four-year growth. However, while ten-year average gains in reading at the fourth grade level are lower than in math, at 3.3 points, less of that gain is lost by eighth grade, where the average gain is 2.6 points. Florida and Nevada had particularly notable persistence in their score gains, with Nevada fourth grade scores improving by 11.6 points from 2003 to 2013, and their eighth grade scores improving by 9.7 points from 2007 to 2017 (reflecting the same cohorts of students). In California, quick gains make up for an early deficit: Its fourth grade average score is nearly ten points behind that of North Carolina, but its eighth grade average is slightly higher.

Chingos’ cohort-tracking method addresses but cannot entirely overcome the primary limitation of NAEP—that every administration tests different individuals. And the demographic adjustment can only account for six factors on which NAEP collects student-level data.

The exploratory analysis highlights the importance of middle school, raising the question of what fourth grade improvement means if benefits appear lost within a few years. Middle school determines whether students will enter high school on track, and states should consider how to mitigate the risk of fade-out when crafting reforms.

SOURCE: Matthew M. Chingos, “What can NAEP tell us about how much US children are learning?” Brookings Institution, May 2018.

1. Here’s a sentence I never thought I’d type: Columbus City Schools just bought the former headquarters of ECOT in an auction. District reps call it “a solid investment”. There are still many questions (and many jokes) outstanding. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/12/18) As you can see, there’s more to that Dispatch story than just the auction news, but I’ll leave the details aside for now and simply suggest that ECOT seems to have become an education-related boogeyman throughout Ohio. Whatever is ailing your school district is ECOT’s fault – maybe the fact that it ever existed is the problem, maybe its sheer size, maybe the dissembling of administrators or reps, or even its very closing – no matter how nonsensical the connection may seem. Case in point: a group of homeowners in tiny Jefferson Township school district has petitioned for their property to be rezoned into another district. This is due to the closure of ECOT, says a lawyer, and therefore the request should be denied. How this is even possible and how Jefferson Township’s extreme and persistent suckitude may have contributed to the “disgraceful and shameful” request are not explained. The money equation on both sides IS discussed at length, however. (Dayton Daily News, 6/12/18) Meanwhile, Dayton City Schools’ board of education yesterday heard some concerns over the cost of moving its district HQ across the street. The move has already been approved by the board, but the cost estimates are rolling in now and have spooked at least one board member. Which is, of course, curious since the district has been handing out retroactive raises like Mardi Gras beads for the last two months. Why the sudden trepidation on spending, I wonder? Probably ECOT’s fault. (Dayton Daily News, 6/12/18)
    
2. Here is a lovely profile of a group of smart and ambitious college-and-career-bound kids in Cleveland Metropolitan School District. If you are like me, you will read this and puzzle a bit over the intro used by the author – a public radio host in the CLE – and you will be left with a question: What exactly did CMSD do for them to assist in their pursuits and boost their awesomeness? The answer, I think, can be found in the literal circumstances of the interview day. School was not in session for some reason but the doors of the building were open so this interview could take place. Downright metaphorical if you ask me. If there is anyone beyond just these young men themselves to cheer on here, it is perhaps the “extracurricular” Health Professions Affinity Community program led by the Northeast Ohio Medical University. Kudos to all. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/10/18) Speaking of kudos, the CTE students at Washington High School in Massillon have apparently earned tons of them this year. From in-class success to awards on the local, state, and national levels, it seems to have been a banner year for the Tigers. This story is a detailed and almost hilariously celebratory look at the past year and is completely worth a read. Design, marketing, 3D print/manufacturing, television production, etc. Sounds like a great program with lots of benefit to students. (Canton Repository, 6/13/18)
    
3. We have already covered this school year’s “successes” in Akron City Schools (successful “hand-holding” of students by teachers, successful “capstone projects” that take nearly two whole days start-to-finish, successfully posting a nearly-meaningless graduation rate, etc.), so it’s appropriate that we now look forward to the busy summer season, preparing for next year. That prep is mostly cosmetic at this point, and expensive. (Akron Beacon Journal, 6/11/18) But the crown jewel of the 2018-19 school year in Akron – the new I Promise School – took a big leap forward this week free of charge as hundreds of volunteers swarmed into the school’s future home to clear out furniture and equipment. Volunteers included staffers and interns at the LeBron James Family Foundation and students from King James’ alma mater, St. Vincent-St. Marys High School. I assume the documentary camera crew was there as well, not working gratis per union contract. The extremely cosmetic changes (black and white paint! decals!) at this building will start very soon. (Akron Beacon Journal, 6/12/18) Meanwhile, in Lorain City Schools, summer means “school leader bootcamp”. That starts today with an eight-day summit meeting where all building leaders and district-level chiefs get on the same page with CEO David Hardy and his turnaround plan. It is followed by intensive homework to turn the plan into specific actions and programs to begin on Day One of the 2018-19 school year. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 6/11/18)
    
4. The state board of education met this week to talk about some stuff and to vote on some stuff. First up, a committee recommended some tweaks to the Jon Peterson Special Needs Scholarship Program, but those did not include a one-year-of-prior-existence rule for new providers. So there’s that. (Gongwer Ohio, 6/11/18) Another committee recommended not increasing the cut score for promotion on the state’s third grade reading test. (Gongwer Ohio, 6/12/18) The full board got to hear state superintendent Paolo DeMaria’s self-evaluation for the last year, some plans he’s got for next year, and how much he loves visiting schools more than any other part of his job. Don’t blame you there, chief. (Gongwer Ohio, 6/11/18) Probably the biggest news is that the supe’s long-gestating strategic plan for K-12 education in Ohio was approved by the board. In other business, however, the board voted against a territory transfer out of Columbus City Schools (see above, and you can probably blame ECOT). (Gongwer Ohio, 6/12/18) And what’s in that plan? I think the headline on this PD piece actually explains it pretty well, although my interpretation is probably slightly different than some. Basically, however well your school does on math and ELA now is how well it’s going to do on social-emotional learning and critical thinking skills. But can you hand-hold someone to leadership skills? Seems unlikely, but I guess we’ll find out. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/12/18)
    
5. If all of the above sounds like the recipe for an academic death spiral, happily the MJ is here to remind you that Ohio now recognizes multiple tests besides the GED for adults to get credit for high school if they didn’t graduate. Can we just skip the high school part and go straight to the test? (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 6/12/18)

To anyone who has attended or sent their children to a Catholic school, or worked in one, the findings of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s study Self-Discipline and Catholic Schools: Evidence from Two National Cohorts are no surprise. Catholic schools are dedicated to educating the whole child—mind, body and spirit—with a focus on the development of intellect, personhood, and relationships. Those foci are evident in the study’s major findings: Catholic school students exhibit more self-control and self-discipline and are less likely to act out or be disruptive than students in other private or public schools.

Why do Catholic school students attain more self-discipline than their peers at other schools? There are several reasons:

1. The transmission of the Catholic understandings of freedom, happiness, and moral objectivity are taught to children at a young age. Happiness, Catholics believe, is the fruit of living with the personal freedom that is the foundation for the pursuit of virtue-guided morality. Catholics believe that teaching morality in accordance with Gospel values enables all members in a Catholic school community to show self-discipline and respect for oneself, for others, and for all of creation. Judeo-Christian virtues such as kindness, humility, and diligence are not only explicitly taught in Catholic schools, but they shape the foundation and backdrop for everything that happens in those schools. The mission of Catholic schools is to foster scholarly achievement and responsible behavior, concepts that are complimentary, not mutually exclusive.
2. Catholic schools partner with parents who are the primary educators of their children. The school collaborates with parents and guardians in promoting the values that are begun at home and fostered and celebrated in the schools. Catholic schools strive to create connections among students, the family, the school, and the church so that all share in belonging to a caring faith community. This partnership enables students to see and emulate healthy relationships that promote inclusion and encourage students to be responsible, responsive, compassionate, and empathetic to the beliefs, feelings, and needs of others.
3. The Catholic school is a community of faith that encourages reverence, respect, and concern for others in a spirit of hospitality that welcomes all, regardless of their religious traditions. Catholic schools create a supportive and challenging climate that affirms the dignity of all persons as children of the same God. Catholic schools teach students how to live in relationship with one another and to be kind and accepting of others rather than exclude them. Catholic schools live community values by promoting collaboration and teamwork among students in classroom activities that develop habits of listening, valuing other opinions, and personal responsibility. Self-discipline, rather than the harsh caricatures of Catholic school discipline of yesteryears, is the goal and hallmark of Catholic school culture.

What can other schools learn from this “Catholic School Effect”? Catholic educators, following the example of Jesus Christ, care deeply about their students and their intellectual, human, and spiritual development. Teachers are role models who share their faith, time, and talents while creating educational environments that are warm, trust-filled, and encouraging. Though Catholic school teachers may publicly and explicitly reference faith as motivation, all teachers can and should attempt to create a “values-based” environment that helps students develop social and relationship skills that can mirror much of the Catholic school ethos. But if parents do want a faith-based environment for their children, why shouldn’t they be supported in exercising that choice?

As the Fordham study says, “Catholic schools in particular are doing something meaningful in the realm of self-discipline... To the extent that school choice programs can widen access to great schools—Catholic or otherwise—that boost academic performance and self-discipline, they deserve our eternal support.” Test scores on NAEP, SAT, and other national assessments prove that academically Catholic school students consistently outperform their public school counterparts, and now we welcome this study’ additional validation of the mission of Catholic schools: To form students in faith, to help them grow in knowledge, and to teach the students to show their love of God through service to others.

We should not underestimate the power of religion to positively influence a child’s behavior—and shouldn’t restrict families’ support of choice in schooling on the basis of religion. The National Catholic Educational Association, as well other Catholic and religious organizations, support the full and fair parental range of school options for everyone. While we will continue to be supportive of parental/school choice for all, we are pleased to share the good-news conclusions of the Fordham study about the priceless treasure that is Catholic education—academic excellence, faith formation, and service to the common good of society.

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

1. A new report on the status of Youngstown City Schools’ turnaround efforts was released on Friday. There are some positives, to be sure, but the negatives are kinda big and kinda troubling. They seem to indicate that reforms pushed by the Academic Distress Commission and CEO Krish Mohip, no matter how good, are not filtering down to the classroom level. The focus on “teaching and learning” seems to be fuzzy after more than two years. (Youngstown Vindicator, 6/9/18)
    
2. Speaking of school districts operating under the aegis of an Academic Distress Commission, Lorain City Schools announced another new hire last week. He is Kenan Bishop, a veteran of several highly regarded northeast Ohio charter schools (a term which is absent from this story, interestingly). His title: chief equity and achievement officer. Seems that Lorainians are trying to plow the same furrow as Youngstowners, as noted above. For the sake of district students, let’s hope Lorain can get there, and do so quickly. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 6/8/18) Meanwhile, the ongoing series of Q & As between the Chronicle and Lorain CEO David Hardy continues. This week’s edition could be an entry in the “All the Wrong Questions” YA book series by Lemony Snicket, I think, but it does include a couple of good chuckles and even a tiny nugget of actual information. (Elyria Chronicle, 6/10/18)
    
3. In non-ADC news: What could be a better laboratory for STEM education than a construction site? And when that construction site happens to be for one of your own new school buildings, you’ve got a ready-made pipeline for your students to learn, don’t you? Well, if you’re Chillicothe City Schools, the answer is just for one of your students. And just in the summer. And just for “a lot of observation work”. But it’s the opportunity that counts in STEM, right? (Chillicothe Gazette, 6/10/18)
    
4. Finally today: Springfield’s 32nd annual Peace Camp for kids. Now more than ever, you know. (Springfield News-Sun, 6/10/18)

Two years ago, JPMorgan Chase & Co. launched a $75 million five-year initiative called New Skills for Youth (NSFY). The goal was to expand access to high-quality career and technical education programs that can lead students to postsecondary degrees, credentials, and well-paying jobs.

As part of the initiative, the company partnered with the Council of Chief State School Officers, Advance CTE, and Education Strategy Group to run a multi-year grant competition for states interested in strengthening their CTE sectors. In 2016, twenty-four states and Washington, D.C., were awarded grants worth $100,000 as part of phase one, which required states to conduct a comprehensive needs assessment and develop a three-year action plan. In early 2017, phase two began after ten states were awarded $2 million apiece to expand and improve career pathways for high school students over the course of three years. These states include Delaware, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Wisconsin.

The first year of phase two is now complete, and a recently released 2017 snapshot outlines the “notable progress” that selected states made in designing, enhancing, and scaling high-quality career pathways. Here’s a look at how a few of these states addressed four of the most crucial aspects of high-quality CTE.

Access and equity

In order to truly leverage the potential of CTE, it’s vital that all students, regardless of their background or needs, have the opportunity to enroll in high-quality programs. The NSFY state that best exemplifies progress in this area is Delaware, where Delaware Pathways—a state-wide initiative aimed at engaging students in career exploration and training—has transformed the state into a national leader in career pathways. Last year, Delaware focused on addressing the specific challenges that students with disabilities face by providing training for teachers on how to establish support systems that aid these children as they enroll and move through their career pathways of choice. The state also began working with the National Alliance for Partnerships in Equity to create a school-based support model that would combine resources from the Department of Education, the Division of Vocational Rehabilitation, and the Department of Health and Social Services. By breaking down barriers between these three departments, Delaware will be able to ensure that all students have the access and support they need to succeed. So far, their efforts seem to be working: Enrollment in Delaware Pathways programs is on track to reflect the population of the state.

Data

As CTE grows in popularity and prominence, it’s important for states to gather quality and meaningful data. Kentucky is leading the way on this front by improving its cross-sector use of labor market data. The Blue Grass State has one of the strongest longitudinal data systems in the country, which is run by an independent agency known as the Kentucky Center for Education and Workforce Statistics (KCEWS). In August 2017, the state legislature identified KCEWS as the primary source for labor market information. Since then, a variety of groups—including the Department of Education, the Workforce Innovation Board, the Cabinet for Economic Development, and the Chamber of Commerce—have been working in tandem and using KWECS data to match the state’s most highly valued industry certifications with existing career pathways. As a result, the Department of Education is in the process of phasing out or transforming CTE programs that aren’t aligned with high-demand, high-wage industries.

Employer engagement  

One of the most difficult aspects of cultivating a high-functioning CTE sector is bridging the gap between schools and employers. Louisiana accomplished this by creating education subcommittees within the state’s sixteen regional Workforce Development Boards (WDBs). These subcommittees are responsible for helping to craft goals for K–12 career-pathway participation and credential attainment in high-demand industries. By leveraging already-existing WDBs, the state has been able to ensure local buy-in and align K–12 goals to regional economic and workforce development needs.  

States have also started leveraging technology to bridge the gap between schools and employers. Louisiana, for example, utilizes a virtual video conferencing platform called Nepris that allows teachers to bring industry experts straight into their classrooms as guest speakers, mentors, and competition judges. Wisconsin uses the Inspire platform, an online portal that allows employers to connect with students for work-based learning experiences, job shadowing, and interviews.

Program quality

As states grow their CTE sectors, it’s important that they don’t sacrifice quality for quantity. Massachusetts—one of the highest performing CTE sectors in the nation—offers an excellent example of how to maintain quality and rigor. A 2016 report on the Bay State’s early-college landscape identified five high-quality design principles, such as providing equitable access, establishing guided academic pathways, and leveraging effective partnerships between schools and local businesses. These design principles were used as the basis of the state’s work to identify high-quality college and career pathways (HQCCPs) via a two-step application process. Programs that are formally designated by the state as HQCCPs receive ongoing support and technical assistance, are held accountable for student performance, and are eligible to receive grants to support their implementation efforts. As the state continues to identify and scale up HQCCPs, the Massachusetts NSFY team plans to establish a priority list of industry-recognized credentials that have labor market value.

***

The programs and solutions outlined above reflect only a small portion of the progress made by New Skills for Youth sites. The individual snapshot profiles provided for each of the phase-two states are treasure troves of innovative ideas and solutions, and other states would be wise to carefully consider them.

Disclaimer: The Fordham Institute recently received a research grant from the JPMorgan Chase Foundation for a study that is currently in the field, looking at the alignment (or lack thereof) between CTE course offerings and regional labor market demand. 

1. A final batch (one assumes) of graduation-time stories today. Here is coverage of a recent “signing day” for a small group of Akron-area kids going straight from high school to jobs in the manufacturing sector. In fact, most of them are already working at those jobs earning in the mid-$30,000 range with benefits and tuition assistance for future college work. Most of the talking in this piece is done by representatives of the businesses or the non-profit which worked to connect the kids with the jobs. Akron City Schools reps, wisely (if you ask me), kept quiet. (Akron Beacon Journal, 6/6/18) Unfortunately (if you ask me), Mansfield City Schools spokespeople are all over this piece. Why “unfortunately”? Because while this story about rising ninth graders starting out on a dual high school diploma/college degree track already sounds good on the surface, there are enough red flags and question marks for me that I am skeptical of its actual goodness. Red flags such as: The jobs they are being herded into making $30K tops (see above) and the kids needing to work to support their families while still in eighth grade. And questions such as: How were these students chosen for this and are the skills they will learn suitable for any other profession should they have second thoughts down the line? (Mansfield News-Journal, 6/6/18)
    
2. The headline of this piece says that Lorain’s school board members can’t decide whether they want to (need to? have to?) put a levy on the ballot (Elyria Chronicle, 6/7/18) But that headline must refer to their official, on the public record, said during the recorded minutes comments. Because this follow up piece seems to make very clear the stance on the topic of those board members who chose to be quoted. Both of these articles are worth a read in detail just to see the thought processes on display, if I might charitably call them that. It’s also interesting to note the reference to the public’s access to district information via local newspapers. Or should I say, ironic to note. (Elyria Chronicle, 6/8/18) Meanwhile, district CEO David Hardy seems to be chugging along with his business, announcing this week his extremely impressive pick for new leader of Lorain High School. It is unfortunate that a leader of this caliber (Ohio native, multiple degrees in education and leadership, teaching and school leadership experience in the U.S. and abroad, fluent Spanish speaker, etc.) will likely be pilloried by the Lorain school board because 1) his title will be “executive director” rather than “principal” with all the differences that entails, and 2) dude was TFA. Wonder if the newspapers can help get the important information out to the public on this? (Elyria Chronicle, 6/7/18)
    
3. It seems the theme of our clips today is that traditional districts in Ohio don’t implement adapt very well to change. So then, how about we throw all that out and opt for homeschooling instead? For the first time, the annual convention of Ohio Christian homeschoolers is taking place in Columbus this weekend and I must admit I learned something from this brief look at the event in the Dispatch. I thought I knew what the main reasons for homeschooling were, but I was surprised to learn that the “separation” of parents and children (physically, I think she meant) during a traditional school day is a prime motivating factor for a number of homeschooling families. Live and learn, Murray. Live and learn. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/7/18)

Catholic schools are the largest provider of private education in the United States, yet most of the research on their performance has ignored what may be the biggest reason that parents (or guardians) send their children to Catholic schools—namely, self-discipline.

In a new report I coauthored with Michael Gottfried for the Fordham Institute, Catholic Education and Self-Discipline: Evidence from Two National Cohorts, we address this gap in the literature by examining the “noncognitive skills” of Catholic students in two nationally representative cohorts of elementary students to see if attending a Catholic school is associated with greater self-discipline. Although prior studies have considered outcomes that are plausibly related to this skill (such as graduation and voting), to our knowledge our study is the first to examine Catholic students’ self-discipline directly (and the first consider their behavior in elementary school).

In the study, we gauge students’ “self-discipline” by externalizing behavior problems (lower likelihood of arguing, getting angry, fighting, etc.) and self-control (higher likelihood of controlling one’s temper, respecting others’ property, and handling peer pressure, among other things). Overall, we found that students attending Catholic schools exhibited better self-discipline than comparable students in other private or public schools, as measured by both of these scales. And despite prior research that suggests Catholic schools have particular benefits for low-income populations, there is little evidence that these students are any more or less likely to acquire self-discipline than their higher-income peers—good news insofar as it suggests that attending a Catholic school benefits all children.

So called “noncognitive skills” like self-discipline have been linked to many positive outcomes for students, including academic achievement, high school graduation, lower rates of crime and drug use, and employment in the years following schooling. Consequently, policymakers across the country are eager for sound advice and/or new thinking when it comes to encouraging the development of these skills. And in recent years, numerous scholars have sought to meet this need, using a variety of ingenious approaches. Someday, perhaps, one or more of these approaches will allow us to incorporate “noncognitive skills” into our accountability systems. But in the meantime, the logical place to begin any conversation about these positive behaviors is with schools that are already proving successful in instilling them in kids.

Because I did not attend Catholic school myself, I found myself drawn to the websites of Catholic schools as I was preparing for this project. I read dozens of mission statements, school handbooks, and testimonials from parents that addressed themes such as educating the whole child, service to others, community, and ethics—in addition to academics. Based on this informal review, Catholic schools clearly have a unique brand (just as magnet schools that highlight their unparalleled arts or sciences programs, or elite private schools that boast of their rigorous academic preparation, have distinctive brands). For Catholic schools, the core of that brand is a dual focus on “human development” and academic success—a strikingly sane approach that serves as an implicit rebuke to educational researchers’ and policymakers’ tendency to fixate on test scores.

Ultimately, our report raises as many questions as it answers. Chief among them: What accounts for the Catholic School Advantage? Do teachers in Catholic schools exhibit more patience when dealing with unruly children? Do these kids respond more positively to lesson plans and activities that are dedicated to introspection or other forms of personal development?

For researchers, answering these sorts of questions likely requires a more qualitative approach—one that focuses on observing actual classrooms and talking to actual teachers and parents about how their kids are doing.

How does self-discipline develop? Certainly it comes in part from institutions of civil society such as home, family, and church. But schools can make a difference too, and over the years Catholic schools—the largest provider of private education in the United States—have been particularly committed to the development of sound character, including the acquisition of self-discipline.

How well has that worked? Given the widespread interest and importance of improving student behavior and reducing the need for harsh forms of external discipline, it would benefit all sectors of the education community to know whether children in Catholic schools actually exhibit more self-discipline than their peers—and if so, what other public and private schools might have to learn from them about how these positive behaviors can be fostered.

To that end, a new Fordham Institute study, Self-Discipline and Catholic Schools: Evidence from Two National Cohorts, asks two questions:

1. Are children in Catholic elementary schools more self-disciplined than similar students in other schools, as measured by their likelihood of arguing and fighting and the ability to control their temper, among other things?
2. Is the relationship between Catholic school attendance and self-discipline stronger for certain types of students?

To lead the study, we recruited Michael Gottfried, Associate Professor at the University of California-Santa Barbara (UCSB). Dr. Gottfried has conducted several studies of young children’s socio-emotional development, social-behavioral skills, and overall school readiness. Jacob Kirksey, a doctoral student at UCSB, helped to analyze the data and co-wrote the report.

Gottfried and Kirksey analyzed two waves of nationally representative data on elementary school students that were collected as part of the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Kindergarten (ECLS-K). The first, ECLS-K: 1999, contains data on a nationally representative cohort of children who entered kindergarten in 1998–99. (Our study includes data from kindergarten, first, third, and fifth grades.) The second, ECLS-K: 2011, contains data on children who entered kindergarten in the 2010–11 school year. (Our study includes data from kindergarten through second grade.)

Each of these cohorts comprises 15,000 to 17,000 kindergarteners who attended public schools and 1,000 to 2,000 who attended non-public schools, of whom close to half (41 percent to 49 percent) attended Catholic schools. For both cohorts, teachers rated the frequency with which children engaged in certain behaviors, thus making possible the authors’ analysis.

To account for the many readily observable differences between Catholic school students and their peers in other private or public schools, Gottfried and Kirksey compared children who attended Catholic schools to a subset of students who attended other schools but who closely resembled the Catholic school students in other respects. However, because families who send their children to Catholic schools make a conscious choice to do so, they likely differ from other families in unobservable ways. So, in addition to comparing children who attend Catholic schools to children who attend public schools, the authors also compared them to children in other private schools, both religious and secular. Because these families also chose to opt out of the public school system, we consider them the most plausible comparison group.

The analysis revealed three key findings.

First, students in Catholic schools are less likely to act out or be disruptive than those in other private or public schools.

Children in Catholic school exhibited fewer “externalizing behaviors”—that is, they demonstrated more self-discipline—than matched peers in other private schools. According to their teachers, Catholic school children argued, fought, got angry, acted impulsively, and disturbed ongoing activities less frequently. In the first cohort, the size of this difference increased over time, from -0.06 standard deviations in kindergarten, to -0.27 and -0.29 standard deviations in first and third grades, to -0.34 standard deviations in fifth grade. A similar pattern emerged when comparing children who attend Catholic school to those in public schools, though the differences are generally smaller and do not increase over time.

The second cohort reveals a similar pattern, with children in Catholic schools exhibiting fewer externalizing behaviors than those in other private or public schools. However, the difference between Catholic schools and other private schools disappeared between kindergarten and second grade.

Second, students in Catholic schools exhibit more self-control than those in other private schools or public schools.

Teachers at every grade level reported that students in the first cohort (1998–99) who attended Catholic schools exhibited greater self-control than those in other private schools. Specifically, they were more likely to control their temper, respect others’ property, accept their fellow students’ ideas, and handle peer pressure. Like the difference in “externalizing behavior,” this difference is smallest in kindergarten (0.10 standard deviations), though in this case there is no clear trend between kindergarten and fifth grade.

In a similar vein, Catholic school students who entered kindergarten in 2010–11 exhibited more self-control than students in other private schools. Moreover, for this cohort, the difference between these groups grows steadily over time, from 0.15 standard deviations in kindergarten to 0.26 standard deviations in second grade.

Third, regardless of demographics, students in Catholic schools exhibit more self-discipline than students in other private schools.

Prior research suggests that Catholic schools do a particularly good job of boosting the achievement of low-income and minority students. Consequently, Gottfried and Kirksey tested for differences in the relationship between Catholic school attendance and externalizing behaviors and/or self-control based on individual characteristics, including race, gender, socioeconomic status, and family immigrant status, as well as initial behavior (as rated by kindergarten teachers).

Interestingly, there were no systematic differences between any of these groups. Students in Catholic schools, regardless of their personal characteristics or backgrounds, exhibit more self-discipline than students in other private or public schools. Thus, there is at least some evidence that attending Catholic school may benefit all sorts of children, at least when it comes to reducing the frequency of externalizing behaviors and fostering greater self-control.

Note that these findings are not causal. Despite the authors’ efforts to construct a plausible control group, there may be unobservable differences between Catholic and other private school students, so their estimates of the “effect” of Catholic school attendance may be biased. Still, the findings suggest three key takeaways.

1. Schools that value and focus on self-discipline will likely do a better job of fostering it in children.

Since Catholic school doctrine emphasizes the development of self-discipline, it seems likely that Catholic schools devote more time and attention to fostering it. And their apparent success in doing so suggests that schools that focus on self-discipline are capable of inculcating, developing, and strengthening it over time—in the same way that other schools might focus on athletic skills to win track meets or football games. If other schools took self-discipline as seriously as Catholic schools do, they would likely have to spend less time, energy, and political capital on penalizing students for negative behaviors.

2. Assuming that these results reflect a “Catholic Schools Effect,” other schools might consider both explicit and implicit methods to replicate it.

In general, we know little about how schools, including Catholic ones, can foster self-discipline. But it seems likely that both direct and indirect methods play some role in Catholic schools’ success—and that at least some of these methods are transferrable to other contexts. For example, an explicit focus on self-discipline might be reflected in a school’s curricula, whether formal or informal. Similarly, a school’s discipline policy could enumerate any number of approaches whereby teachers and students could forestall bad behavior. Alternatively, higher levels of self-discipline may be fostered implicitly—for example, through educators’ daily interactions with students in the classroom or via well-chosen and well-managed extracurricular activities with mentors or other adults who model self-discipline.

With a bit of effort, more non-Catholic schools could adopt such practices and be intentional about their implementation. Indeed, some “no excuses” charter schools are already doing so.

3. Don’t underestimate the power of religion to positively influence a child’s behavior. But in the absence of it, schools can adopt courses or programs that might foster self-discipline.

The most obvious feature that Catholic schools and similar faith-based schools have in common is their focus on religion—including such specifically Judeo-Christian values as humility, obedience, kindness, tolerance, self-sacrifice, and perseverance. It is difficult to pin down how or why these values may influence a child’s behavior when encountered in this context. Perhaps students are more likely to internalize such values when they know they are loved not only by their teachers but by their Creator, or when they perceive that misbehavior may have eternal consequences. Maybe it’s something else entirely. Regardless, one thing is certain: Religion can mold hearts and minds in ways that suspensions, restorative justice, and Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports (PBIS) can’t begin to match.

That doesn’t mean that such secular approaches—and schools—don’t have their place. Of course they do. And so do character education, ethics classes, and civics, all of which can contribute to the development of self-discipline. School leaders should choose the options that best suit their kids and culture.

That said, these results suggest that Catholic schools in particular are doing something meaningful in the realm of self-discipline. So it’s deeply unfair that the politics of education continue to prevent many parents from accessing them, and it’s a tragedy for the nation that many of these valuable educational institutions continue to close.

To the extent that school choice programs can widen access to great schools—Catholic or otherwise—that boost academic performance and self-discipline, they deserve our eternal support.