I recently watched a seventh-grade math lesson that did a better job than I ever did as a teacher asking kids relatable theoretical probability questions. How would you represent the probability of a six-foot-tall seventh grader? How would you represent the probability of getting a test in school in any given week? Making sense of where students were coming from was a fascinating puzzle. Why did one student think the probability of there being a six-foot-tall seventh grader was absolutely certain (6/6) while another student thought it was unlikely and round to 0/6? Why did everyone represent all of their probability fractions using a denominator of 6? (The experimental probability lesson the day before involved dice, of course.) Watching a lesson with great content and instruction reminds me, without question, that every student can be a math person.

Unfortunately, math learning results far from match that clear potential. Looking at math learning outcomes closely is the most heartbreaking thing a lover of mathematics can do. The overall outcomes are gutting; certain student subgroups have starkly disparate outcomes—with single digit proficiency quite common—and the Covid drops were stark.

These outcomes—and the sense that “we did a lot around reading so we need to pay equal attention to math”—is leading math to get worthy attention by state leaders, policymakers, and education reporters right now. The approach to both reading and math policy conversations misses the mark in ways that will limit their long-term impact.

When policymakers ask, “what should we do to improve reading outcomes?” there are a few clear and obvious things that most experts agree would make a positive difference. In foundational skills in reading, there are teacher training, curriculum, and assessment moves based on well-established research that seem like they will help. As I have written about before, I worry that the reading policy reforms project too much confidence that a narrow set of (important) strategies will strengthen outcomes in a subject that is highly interconnected and notoriously hard to move. I worry they focus too much on foundational skills (decoding) alone and lack attention to implementation—especially around school leadership team capacity building—that will make or break success. I worry the reading reforms are set up for disappointment and even backlash when those plays don’t lead to immediate positive growth.

In contrast, when policymakers ask, “what should we do to improve math outcomes?” answers feel murkier. Many have pointed out that we don’t have a “science of math” the way we have a “science of reading”—meaning there have been relatively few neuroscientific studies dedicated to understanding how kids learn math compared to how kids learn to read. Others feel there are things that are well understood about how kids learn math, but those findings are not yet instantiated well in curriculum or practice (commentary on this here, here, and here). Relative to reading, there are fewer assessments and interventions that have been highly tested and scaled in math. It is harder to find math teachers, and many teachers have steep learning curves in both content knowledge and understanding of how to teach the subject. It feels tougher to pull together a package of reforms in math than in reading.

I worry that interest in “doing something that feels similar to what we did in reading” will lead policymakers to require schools to do things that don’t make sense. I worry generally about the burden that every requirement adds to schools. And I worry especially about additional required assessments.

But more significantly, I worry that the policy debates I am watching seem to have forgotten that we know a lot about what to do to improve math outcomes. Between 1992 and 2019, eight-grade math results grew 20 scale score points (compared to 3 points in reading) with outsized progress for Black students, AAPI students, and multilingual learners. It is far from enough progress, but there are things we can learn from this growth at scale. Furthermore, at the unit of a school, every state can find schools that have seen dramatic improvements in math across student groups. There are local examples to lift up and learn from. 

At Instruction Partners, especially during the last few years, our partners have seen higher growth than the state in math overall and for students experiencing poverty, multilingual learners, students with disabilities, and almost every group of students of color. Both partners that work with us directly and partners that work with regional service centers that we have coached have seen these outsized impacts.

Many factors may be shaping these outcomes, but here are some things that seem to be driving stronger instruction:

1. The school team (teachers and leaders together) benefits from a shared vision of what good math instruction looks like in action that moves beyond either-or thinking about procedural fluency and concepts and embraces the need for both.
2. Teachers can learn a lot about the content and how to teach it by studying good curriculum in well-supported collaborative planning structures. It is easier to chunk and build this math content knowledge throughout the year while preparing for the next unit than to overview it all in one big dose over the summer.
3. Coaches and leaders (even those who don’t feel like they are math people) can also learn to give math teachers useful feedback when they use the curriculum as a guide. Leaders modeling a learning stance about math gives teachers, and students, permission to do the same.
4. School and district leadership teams benefit from short cycles of improvement focused on the question: “Are the moves we are making working?” Short cycles support focus, follow-through, and problem-solving. Improvement happens over time.

These are the kind of practical and disciplined leadership moves that I sense will be a big part of any reform at scale—and that I fear current policy debates are missing.

The theoretical probability that kids can learn math is a 6/6. I sense we will help them reach that potential faster if policy debates stay very close to instruction and build on what we already know can power growth.

Editor’s note: This was first published in an email newsletter from Emily Freitag in her role as CEO of Instruction Partners.

Cheers

• San Francisco residents voted by a large margin to return Algebra to middle school, after the district had staved it off until high school for a decade. —The 74
• More universities are re-adopting the ACT and SAT for admissions, which will improve educational equity. —David Deming, The Atlantic
• Don Shalvey helped to open the second charter school in the nation and to pioneer the concept of charter school systems. —Louis Freedberg, The 74

Jeers

• Helicopter parents, not students, pose the largest potential impediment to restrictive cellphone policies in schools. —Liz Shulman, Slate
• “Only pennies of new public-school dollars make it to teacher salaries.” —Christian Barnard, Education Next
• Complications with a streamlined FAFSA portal are making college admissions a confusing, chaotic mess this year. —Wall Street Journal

• Outdated research created a false promise that tutoring could achieve two-standard deviations of academic gains in students. —Paul T. von Hippel, Education Next
• Joe Biden could court more votes for his struggling campaign by endorsing charter schooling. —Tressa Pankovits, Wall Street Journal
• The culture war distracts both parties from the practical, even mundane policies that could truly improve American education. —Nicholas Kristof, New York Times
• The classical education movement has taken a conservative political turn. —Emma Green, The New Yorker
• Seven school districts in Texas face lawsuits after principals and superintendents urged employees to vote for anti-school choice politicians. —Education Week

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

1. On Monday, we featured the first news coverage of survey results from DEW regarding the reading curricula currently used in all of Ohio’s public schools. It was couched prettily, but the minimal data provided did not support that sunny reading in my humble estimation. Here is the second news coverage of the survey results. It is couched definitively—“the majority of school districts are already implementing” science of reading—and the data provided seem to back that up. Leaves me wondering what the story actually is. (Cleveland.com, 3/11/24)
   
   

2. Here’s an interesting story about an assistant principal at Steubenville High School who recently took part in a multi-day immersion into Navy service as a career. He came back from NAS Jacksonville with a lot of details he plans to share with curious students about the benefits of serving and how high schoolers who are interested can best prepare themselves for a successful enlistment. Nice! (Fox 9 News, Steubenville, 3/10/24) Not only is that a nice story, it’s also timely because yesterday was Ohio Military Signing Day 2024. This is a big celebration, held at the Ohio Veterans Memorial and Museum in Columbus, which celebrates high school juniors and seniors from across the state who have committed to military service via enlisting in active duty (or Reserves or National Guard), accepting a ROTC scholarship, or attending a service academy in the fall. Awesome! (Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, 3/12/24)
   
   

3. And speaking of celebrations, the Greater Dayton School held the grand opening for its fancy (and enormous) new campus yesterday. Everything looks and sounds great, which we knew it would. Yay for the discussion of expanded EdChoice vouchers and private philanthropy covering the tuition for every child and the big money being committed to help GDS’ students experience the boldest and the best educational environment possible. I personally would still like to know how the kids are doing academically thus far, but this is good coverage for now. (Dayton Daily News, 3/13/24)

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

NOTE: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute occasionally publishes guest commentaries on its blogs. The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect those of Fordham.

In a new analysis released today, ExcelinEd examined the combined impact of Ohio’s various policies to support charter school facilities and compared it to what the schools are currently spending for those facilities. The analysis looked just at the basic buildings that most charter schools occupy—not the vastly more expensive facilities in the state’s traditional school districts.

When ExcelinEd first conducted this analysis in 2021, we found that Ohio was meeting only 18 percent of the facility needs of its charter school students. This meant that a significant portion of each charter school’s resources were being used for facilities rather than classroom needs.

Thanks to recent increases in state per-pupil facility aid for charter schools, Ohio has made progress. However, the state still has significant room to improve.

Using ExcelinEd’s Charter School Facility Index methodology to measure the actual impact of state policies, the updated study found that Ohio is currently meeting 52 percent of the facility needs of its brick-and-mortar charter schools. The analysis also determined that if policymakers don’t make any changes, that number will drop to 42 percent in five years.

This large facility gap means charter schools must still dip into operational revenues to pay the remaining cost of their facilities (48 percent), which equals $971 per student. Again, this means less money in the classroom. 

With those dollars, an average-sized charter school could, for example, pay for an additional five teachers or give its current classroom teachers a 25 percent salary increase.

Over the next five years—if policy improvements aren’t made—those lost opportunities will grow to seven teachers per school or a 38 percent raise for every teacher.

The facility gap also means charter schools will have difficulty expanding to provide educational opportunity to more Ohio students. 

State policymakers have several options to close the facility funding gap for charter schools

State policymakers have a variety of options to better meet the facility needs of Ohio charter schools. As discussed in our report, these options include additional direct aid for facilities, strategies to provide easier access to unused district school buildings and policies that reduce the costs of financing capital projects. 

Through the report’s companion, ExcelinEd’s Charter School Facility Index Tool, Ohio policymakers can evaluate these options and determine the likely impacts of potential changes in state policies.

Just to maintain current level of support, the state can regularly review its direct funding for charter school facilities to ensure that it is keeping pace with enrollment increases and facility-cost inflation.

To reduce the facility gap, the state can let charter schools share in the $300 million in state facilities grants each year, proportional to their public school enrollment.

Ohio can also follow the lead of states like Colorado that are requiring districts to share local funds raised for facilities. 

Access to existing school buildings can make a difference, too. There are significant numbers of under-utilized district buildings in Ohio. The state can provide access to these buildings at no or low cost and strengthen the requirement that districts list surplus buildings.

Lastly, it is difficult for charter schools in Ohio to secure affordable financing to purchase or build facilities. Credit enhancement improves charter schools’ ability to secure financing to acquire, construct or renovate buildings through guarantees or other forms of financial support. This improves the schools’ credit ratings, which can help them secure loans and bonds at lower interest rates. 

Ohio also can provide low-interest loans to charter schools through a Revolving Loan Fund, like Idaho recently did. This would be a particular help for new schools that may need extra dollars to cover startup costs or an existing school that’s facing a facilities-related expense, such as replacing a roof or boiler. 

Bridging the facility funding gap for Ohio’s charter schools will lead to a stronger, more robust education landscape

Fully meeting charter schools’ facility needs is critical to the success of students and the long-term growth and sustainability of these schools. Achieving this goal will allow charters to use more funds in the classroom, including paying teachers more competitive wages. It will also ensure that charters have the physical space and amenities to continue to meet the growing demand from Ohio’s families for quality school options. 

In recent years, Ohio has made commendable progress on charter facilities—but it’s only halfway there. If state policymakers can fill the other half of the facility-funding bucket, more Ohio students will have opportunities to attend excellent public charter schools.

Matthew Joseph is Senior Policy Advisor for ExcelinEd.

Students experienced significant learning loss during the pandemic, accelerating pre-existing trends and widening achievement gaps. The World Bank estimates that seven in ten students in low- and middle-income countries are living in “learning poverty” today, unable to read a simple sentence by the time they finish elementary school. Furthermore, if existing trends continue, it will take until 2040 just to get back to where we were in 2019 in terms of global student learning outcomes and more than 725 million children worldwide would still be in “learning poverty” status by 2050. Looking for some signs of hope, analysts from McKinsey and Company’s Global Education Practice scoured the globe for education systems bucking the trends. Their new report suggests that there is a roadmap available to speed up improvement for those willing to follow it.

The enormous research effort was multi-faceted and involved data from hundreds of educational systems—national, regional, state/province, and even city-level systems—across the world. It included a literature review of over 400 publications covering twenty years, encompassing a broad range of international testing data (PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS, and more); over 10,000 education policy changes in 190 countries via Stanford University’s World Education Reform Database; and conversations with more than 200 system leaders, experts, donors, philanthropists, and researchers. The final step was a global education survey conducted between September and December of 2023, gathering 422 responses from twenty-seven countries across Africa, Asia and the Pacific, Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, and North America. Survey respondents included senior leaders (from national education ministers to school superintendents) and senior members of executive teams (like chief academic officers and chief operating officers of education systems). Analysts then built detailed case studies of fourteen systems that had made and sustained educational improvements over the course of a decade or more prior to the pandemic, documenting their reform efforts in an effort to find replicable commonalities.

The topline finding is that, based on student performance on those various international tests, many systems were “beating the odds” and showing strong improvement between 2005 and 2019. The biggest improvers ran the gamut of national and subnational (state/province/local) structures and experienced both high- and low-poverty. Interestingly, educational spending was only impactful up to a point—somewhere around $6,000 to $8,000 U.S. dollars per student—above which additional spending was not clearly correlated with continued academic improvement.

Looking to see what worked in various contexts (size, structure, socioeconomic status, education spending), analysts dug deeply into those systems chosen for case studies. Nationally, they are Kenya, Poland, Singapore, Morocco, Norway, South Africa, Peru, Estonia, and Malawi. The regions of Ceará in Brazil and Punjab in India were also studied. So was the state of Mississippi, which has been lauded elsewhere for its success in scaling reforms statewide. London, England, and Washington, D.C., represented city-wide efforts. The latter was specifically cited for coalition-building across various levels of stakeholders under Michelle Rhee and Kaya Henderson. The report covers all of the particulars, but the bottom line is that if—starting today—all education systems could improve at the same rate these exemplars exhibited in 2019, anticipated global pandemic recovery time would be drastically shortened and improvement would restart at such a pace that an additional 350 million children could be lifted from learning poverty by 2050.

That’s great news, but is it realistic to expect improvement on that kind of scale? The answer to that question takes up the majority of the report, and is perhaps even more relevant to the authors than documenting the existence of improvement.

On the upside, it seems that the high level “to do” list is fairly short. Successful school systems, analysts say, emphasize changes in the classroom, focusing first and foremost on teachers and the content they deliver. These systems choose evidence-backed strategies relevant to their starting place, require a solid baseline of data, acknowledge that student outcomes can only improve incrementally (from poor to fair to good to great), prioritize outcomes at the instructional core, and use available technology as a tool to enhance learning. Timelines for improvement must be realistic and include short-, medium-, and long-term benchmarks. Measuring student outcomes—and making those data transparent to all stakeholders—is key to knowing when to stay the course and when to make changes. There is a wealth of detail from exemplar systems about lower-level “to dos” that could help kickstart this kind of success in other locales.

If this sounds like an all-hands-on-deck approach to you, then you’re reading it right. Everyone from government oversight agencies and school bureaucracies to teachers and families must be brought on board for meaningful change to occur and, most importantly, sustain. The exemplar systems examined in this report accomplished this by setting fewer priorities so they could reach higher goals, cultivating multiple likeminded leaders at each stakeholder level, and engaging educators and families “authentically,” with transparent two-way communication.

The McKinsey authors are not Pollyanna-ish. To wit: “One should never underestimate stakeholders’ perception that a reform is a threat to them and their values, even if all they want is to retain what is familiar, stable, and predictable in their work and life.” The status quo, they add, “has many protectors.” But their conclusion—in response to all of the data, good and bad—is two-fold. First, a number of education systems of various sizes and resource levels have clearly shown that reform and improvement are possible, scalable, and sustainable. Second, their successes occurred in spite of the many “protectors” that were surely present at the start of their journeys. The distillation of these systems’ success into basic guidelines for other leaders to replicate—including how to address inevitable opposition—is meant to spark the belief that if another system can do it, so can we.   

SOURCE: McKinsey and Company, “Spark & Sustain: How all of the world’s school systems can improve learning at scale” (February 2024).

Today, ExcelinEd, a leading national education organization, released an analysis that finds continuing shortfalls in meeting the facility needs of Ohio charter schools. According to their analysis, Ohio currently meets just 52 percent of charter school facility needs. Charters must cover the other half of those expenses—for example, paying for rent, maintenance, and utilities—by dipping into operational funds that are meant for classroom instruction.

“Securing adequate facilities remains one of the biggest challenges facing Ohio charter schools,” said Chad Aldis, vice president for Ohio policy at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “Unlike traditional districts, public charter schools have never had access to the state’s generous school construction grant program, and they receive no local tax support for capital improvements. The lack of sufficient facility resources disadvantages charters seeking to expand their capacity and create exceptional learning environments.”

Matthew Joseph, ExcelinEd’s senior policy advisor for education funding, said, “Our Ohio analysis reflects what we find in many states across the country: Public charter schools are forced to use instructional funding to pay for basic facilities, unlike their traditional counterparts. This creates an un-level playing field for students, teachers, and families. We are proud to partner with state-based advocates like Fordham to shine the light on these continued disparities and push for fair funding for all students.”

In 2021, an ExcelinEd analysis found that Ohio met only 18 percent of charters’ facility needs at that time. To their credit, Ohio lawmakers have since increased the per-pupil facility allowance for charter schools, helping to explain the improvement in the latest study. To make further progress, the paper offers several policy recommendations for Ohio lawmakers, including:

• Provide charters with easier access to unused district buildings;

• Create a credit-enhancement program that reduces charters’ financing costs;

• Make charters eligible for state construction grants;

• Maintain a strong per-pupil facility allotment that covers inflation and enrollment growth.

“Ohio has cut the charter facilities gap thanks to the increased per-pupil facilities aid passed in last year’s state budget,” Aldis added. “But more work is still needed to ensure that charter schools receive support sufficient to cover the costs of purchasing and operating a suitable facility. With additional policy measures, charters will be able to better serve students, while also meeting the growing demand for quality school options.”

The full report, Building for Success in Ohio 2024: Measuring How Well Ohio is Meeting Charter School Facility Needs, is available here.

Career-technical education (CTE) has become a significant priority for Ohio leaders and lawmakers over the last several years. For those who aren’t familiar with CTE, or who may have outdated views about what it offers students, this increasing emphasis may be surprising. To fully grasp why leaders and lawmakers are right to invest so much time and effort, Ohioans need to understand the bigger picture. Specifically, they need to understand career pathways.

A detailed definition of career pathways can be found in the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA), a federal law that requires states to “strategically align their core workforce development programs” to increase opportunities and improve outcomes. This law, which was passed in 2014 with significant bipartisan support, defines a career pathway as a combination of rigorous and high-quality education, training, and other services. It also includes some more specific characteristics, such as alignment to workforce needs and work-based learning.

Aside from being instructive about what career pathways are, the WIOA definition offers a solid jumping off point to examine some of what Ohio has accomplished in the career pathways space over the last few years. Let’s take a closer look at Ohio’s progress in a few key areas.

Career pathways enable students to attain a secondary school diploma and at least one recognized post-secondary credential.

In 2019, Ohio lawmakers passed a revised set of graduation requirements that made room for career pathways. Under these standards, students must not only complete course requirements to earn a diploma, but also demonstrate both competency and readiness. For the competency portion, they are permitted to meet standards based on career experience and technical skill. For the readiness portion, they must earn at least two diploma seals. Of the twelve seals available, two incorporate components of career pathways—the OhioMeansJobs-Readiness Seal and the Industry-Recognized Credential Seal.

Speaking of industry-recognized credentials, Ohio has developed a comprehensive infrastructure that assigns each credential a point value between one and twelve. Values are determined by employer demand and/or state regulations; the more points a credential is worth, the more value it has in a career field. The number of students earning credentials has dramatically increased over the last few years, with over 10 percent of the Class of 2022 earning one. This increase is due in part to state-funded initiatives like the Innovative Workforce Incentive Program, which was designed to increase the number of students who earn qualifying credentials in “priority” industry sectors.

Career pathways align with industry skill needs in state and regional economies.

Alignment between career pathways and workforce needs ensures that students are effectively prepared to work in fields with plenty of opportunities and well-paying jobs. Here again, Ohio’s efforts with industry-recognized credentials come into play. To be included on the state’s approved list, a credential must be recognized by multiple Ohio employers within an industry sector, and must also be connected to a job on Ohio's Top Jobs List. But that’s not all. The Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation has established a development and alignment strategy for Ohio’s broadband and 5G workforce, as well as the auto and advanced mobility workforce, as these areas are expected to create thousands of jobs over the next decade. The state also oversees the Industry Sector Partnership Grant, which aims to drive collaboration between local businesses, education and training providers, and community stakeholders. To date, thirty-seven partnerships from around the state have been awarded funds.

Career pathways offer work-based learning.

WIOA asserts that a career pathway should offer education “concurrently with and in the same context as workforce preparation activities and training for a specific occupation.” One example of such training is work-based learning. To this end, Ohio has established guidelines for work-based learning opportunities and offers a tax credit certificate program for employers that offer experiences to students. The High School Tech internship program provides high school students with work experience in technology-related roles, and placed over 500 students in internships during 2023. Students also have access to pre-apprenticeships; there are currently 152 pre-apprenticeship programs that work with Ohio high schools and career centers.

Career pathways include counseling to support students in achieving their education and career goals.

Beginning with the 2015–16 school year, every district in Ohio has been required to adopt a policy on career advising. These policies must specify how districts will provide career advising to all students in grades 6–12, train staff to advise students on career pathways, and identify and publicize courses that award students CTE credit. The Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) has provided a career-advising toolkit to help accomplish these goals. More recently, DEW launched a communications campaign aimed at students and families. The Governor’s Office of Workforce Transformation also offers resources designed to inform students of their options. And the most recent state budget allocated dollars for every public school—$7.50 per student for the 2023–24 school year and $10 for the 2024–25 school year—to fund career awareness and exploration.

***

Clearly, Ohio has taken seriously its charge to implement career pathways. But although the programs and initiatives mentioned above are positive steps forward, it’s important to recognize that Ohio hasn’t yet crossed the finish line.

Each of the aforementioned areas has weaknesses that must be addressed. For example, it’s important for the state to ensure that every credential an Ohio student can earn is meaningful and fully aligned with workforce needs. Otherwise, students could end up struggling to find employment or being stuck in a job that pays too little. In the realm of graduation requirements, it’s crucial to ensure that schools aren’t gaming the system for their own benefit by encouraging students to earn meaningless credentials just so they can graduate. Work-based learning opportunities aren’t nearly as widespread or as easily accessible as they should be. And although Ohio has a decent foundation regarding career counseling, there are still far too many students and families who are unaware of their options.

Over the next decade, Ohio leaders and lawmakers will need to work on addressing these issues. The good news is that they’re clearly taking that duty seriously, as evidenced by just how much work has been done over the last few years. Here’s hoping that the next few continue this positive trend.

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

1. Two former science teachers, including a past president of the National Science Teaching Association, give us a nice primer here on how valuable a “free laboratory” the upcoming total solar eclipse will be. They even take time to debunk the myths that led many schools to keep students indoors during the 2017 eclipse due to “insurance concerns”. It’s great stuff, of course, but way too late to salvage the educational value of this celestial event for Ohio kids. (EdWeek, 3/8/24)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? And that sometimes it's even worth it? Subscribe by clicking here.

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

Mayoral visit

Mayor Jack Bradley visited Lorain Preparatory Academy this week, to read to young students at the K-8 charter school and to kick their celebration of Right to Read Month into high gear. Awesome!

Secretarial visit

Similarly, U.S. Education Secretary Miguel Cardona visited E.L. Haynes High School and Elementary School this week. He was there to visit with staff and students and to kick off Women’s History Month. The school is named for educator Dr. Euphemia Lofton Haynes, and honors her as the first African-American woman to receive a doctorate in mathematics in the United States.

Yes in My Backyard

Kudos to Liberty High School, a longstanding dropout recovery charter school in Dayton, on receiving two planning and zoning committee wins recently to move forward with building a brand new facility. They were aided in their effort by several future neighbors who were excited to see a new use—and this use particularly—for a long-desolate corner of town. “For 23 years, [the neighborhood] has waited for a project such as this,” said one of the YIMBY (yes in my backyard) speakers. How lovely.

Competitive effects

We talk a lot here about the research on competitive effects. That is, how traditional districts respond to the increase of competition for students from charters and vouchers. It’s rare that we get to look at response to competition in real life, but here it is before us: The new superintendent of Dayton City Schools wants to entice local charter school families to switch to his district and he’s already implementing changes that he thinks will make the district more attractive. So far, these include increased experiential learning opportunities, doubling the number of field trips, and emphasizing customer service. Hold the doors!

The research is clear

Speaking of research, the Fordham Institute’s Daniel Buck dug into a new meta-analysis from MIT and NBER researchers on lottery-based charter studies. It’s interesting stuff with a lot of nuance, but Buck says the bottom line is clear: “Even if they don’t vindicate the charter sector as a whole—[the studies] do demonstrate that quality schools can alter a child’s trajectory, improving their odds of escaping poverty, staying out of prison, going to college, and leading a successful life.” He concludes that “such institutions are perhaps the single most promising, scalable policy to shrink the achievement gap between low-income and affluent students.”  

*****

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