It may seem counterintuitive, but conservative organizations from the Heritage Foundation, to FreedomWorks, to the Club for Growth are pushing an education bill this year that would significantly enlarge the bureaucracy at the U.S. Department of Education. That’s right, the same organizations that have decried the “bloated education bureaucracy” and that give awards to members of Congress who are “fighting daily to shrink government and the federal bureaucracy” are urging Congress to significantly increase secretarial authority over K–12 and higher education.

Why are they doing this? To create a new federal education voucher program that would allow dollars to flow out of public schools and into private schools and businesses. As Congress draws to a close without a signature school voucher victory, these organizations are pounding the pavement to try and garner a big win while both chambers still remain under Republican control. The piggybank for this voucher bill is the Impact Aid program, which is the oldest K–12 federal education program and was created to support school districts impacted by a federal presence, such as military installations, Indian treaty or trust land, and other federal facilities.

The specific voucher legislation, the Military Education Savings Account Act, targets the children of active duty military personnel. However, not all active duty servicemembers’ children are eligible. Only children with a parent on active military duty and residing within a “heavily impacted” local education agency (LEA), as defined in the Impact Aid program, or children with parents on active military duty who reside on a military installation would be eligible for vouchers. These vouchers can be used for a variety of education related expenses, including private schools, online schools and curriculum, afterschool programs, summer camps, computers, and therapists. The families are responsible for reporting how they use the money, and the U.S. Department of Education has to be able to monitor the use of funds, allocate resources on a rolling basis, and monitor for fraud and noncompliance by both families and educational providers.

Currently, close to sixty Republicans in the House of Representatives support this proposal. What’s not clear is whether these Republicans and the aforementioned conservative organizations have considered the many ways in which this legislation would require the beastly bureaucracy of the U.S. Department of Education to further ensnarl its big federal paws into the hands of individual families’ bank accounts, private K–12 educational businesses, and private schools.

In addition to drafting a new set of regulations (which clearly will go against the Trump Administration’s bold regulatory rollback process and provisions), at a bare minimum this will require the education department to draft, seek public input on, and finalize new regulations on how the new federal school choice program would operate.

It would also require the agency to create and set up a completely new data system to collect, review, and monitor the following: a written contract signifying parents will abide by the terms of the statute vis-à-vis use of federal dollars; verification of parents’ active duty status; and verification that the family’s home address is located on a military installation or within the boundaries of a heavily impacted school district. For example, if a family moves off base and is no longer eligible for funding, then the U.S. Department of Education would need to track their change of address and make sure they no longer receive federal dollars. Keeping the agency informed of this changing information would be challenging for military families, who are incredibly mobile.

In addition, the education department would have unprecedented oversight into the finances of military families. It would need to develop a process to deposit sums into parents’ bank accounts, and parents would have to submit a quarterly expense report to the agency detailing how they will use the money in accordance with federal law. And the department would need a system to recoup the money from parents who later violate those usage restrictions.

The bill also outlines specific criteria for how federal dollars used for educational expenses are spent down and how unspent federal funds could be rolled over for additional years. Imagine a family that moves twice in three years from a base in Alabama where they receive a voucher that they use for homeschooling to a residence off base in Virginia, where they are ineligible for a voucher and opt to enroll in the public-school system. Under this bill, the education department would have to be able to monitor a family’s voucher accounts to ensure they have completely used all federal funds while they were eligible, have drawn down all federal resources during their allotted time, and are no longer receiving or using federal funds for educational expenses. 

The education department would also be entangled with private businesses, private schools, individual therapists (like an ABA therapist or occupational therapist), and educational providers with which they may have no current relationship. Because federal dollars would now flow to a variety of new entities, the agency would be required to monitor how these dollars are spent. Any business, school, or entity that receives over $100,000 in federal dollars from families in this program would have to post a surety bond, which is an instrument that guarantees that the education department will receive at least some of their tuition money back in the event of a school closure. But even a speech pathologist in private practice who works with a few active-duty families on base and receives $2,000 in federal dollars would be subject to increased oversight and monitoring by the department. This therapist, because she is being paid in federal dollars, would have to comply with Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA)—a complicated law with a set regulations governing student privacy. In addition, the agency would have to establish a way of monitoring this speech therapist’s practices (and all other educational providers) that ensures families could be issued refunds in the event of fraud or nonperformance by the provider. 

And the most complicated new task for the education department would be tracking the total cost of the Impact Aid program. The total cost will change on a quarterly basis based on enrollment in the voucher program, and the agency will have redistribute resources in real-time to districts based on these changes. The education department would also have to reduce funding for “Basic Support Payments” (the primary funding stream for Impact Aid) on a rolling basis over the course of the year, all the while recalculating school district allocations under the program. This, among other things, prevents the 1,100 participating LEAs from operating with any certainty on how much program funding they will receive—or even when they will receive the funds. Impact Aid dollars would cease being a stable source of funding, complicating districts’ limited ability to fund their schools—all due to the heightened presence of the GOP-led federal government.

The conservative mantra “less is more” regarding federal bureaucracy is being blatantly ignored by conservatives who support this bill. Nothing in federal law precludes military families from taking advantage of dozens of state voucher programs as long as the state is paying for it. Support for this new federal education program flies in the face of most recent federal education policy trends, like the Every Student Succeeds Act, which reduced federal overreach and gave much power back to states and local districts.

Conservatives who are being bullied into supporting this bill need to reconsider whether the U.S. Department of Education and its compliance and monitoring machine belong in families’ bank accounts, businesses, and educational entities, especially when the goals is providing additional educational options to servicemembers and military families who clearly do not want them.

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

In case you missed the memo, early voting for the May 8 Ohio gubernatorial primary started this week. Building off our national Eduwatch coverage of the 2016 presidential election, Fordham Ohio presents a look at the primary candidates for governor.

Below you will find—in their own words as much as possible—the positions of candidates in the Democratic primary on various education issues in the Buckeye State. (We list them in alphabetical order.) It is worth noting that two of the candidates’ running mates currently hold positions relating to K–12 education.

The corresponding collection of quotes from the Republican primary candidates can be found here.

***

Richard Cordray (former Director of the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and former Ohio Attorney General). Running mate: Betty Sutton (former U.S. Representative)

1. ECOT: ECOT will be a key issue this year because it “represents the culture of corruption” under Republican rule. February 2018.

2. Charter schools: “The for-profit charter schools have been a scandal… We've got $70 million missing in Columbus that we're never going to see again. And $1 billion poured into charter schools that have been so scandal plagued.” March 2018.

3. Education governance: “It would be a good thing for the governor of the state of Ohio to have more direct control over education policy in this state. It has been badly fragmented for years.” February 2018.

4. Career and Technical Education (at the community college level): “There is a lot of very sophisticated job training that we are doing around Ohio. Some of these jobs are more complicated today than they have ever been before. Generally computers are part of just about every job.” February 2018.

5. Pre-K: “This is exactly the problem in the state of Ohio…You have a state legislature that has this mania for giving more tax cuts to the rich. And all of that money comes out of local services and programs. First responders, in this case [pre]schools—the local communities are being hurt to fund an ideological agenda in Columbus and it’s not good for the state of Ohio.” February 2018.

6. School funding: The state needs to examine school funding… The primary property tax model still produces inequality among communities. February 2018.

7. College affordability: Free community college for all Ohioans is “a win-win for Ohio businesses and workers… It is affordable. The cost is modest.” April 2018.

***

Dennis Kucinich (former U.S. Representative, former Mayor of Cleveland). Running mate: Tara Samples (Akron City Councilwoman)

1. School funding: “Ohio public educational funding has been subverted by special interest groups and for-profit charter school management companies, who through campaign contributions have, in the past decade, normalized the privatization of public education funding, creating an often substandard, for-profit system ‘education’ system, using and misusing billions of dollars in public funds.” February 2018.

2. Charter schools: “The normalization of what is essentially a wholly corrupt system constitutes one of the greatest scandals in the history of the state of Ohio because billions of public funds have been diverted away from public education and have enriched private, for-profit enterprises.” February 2018.

“I’m not saying shut [charter schools] down…I’m saying local control. Give people a voice... This then becomes a public discussion instead of a situation where acts of the legislature are rigging a system in favor of for-profit management companies whose principals then turn around and give money to legislators and other state officials...to continue the process.” February 2018.

3. HB 70/Youngstown Academic Distress Commission: “There are people inside the process not happy about recent turn of events where the privatization of the Youngstown City School District is being seriously considered…I was contacted by someone inside [with this information] and I am quite satisfied the information I have is accurate and needs to be made public. We are talking about lives of thousands of Youngstown city schoolchildren being set at odds to profit motives.” February 2018.

4. HB 70/Lorain ADC: “I recommend two things. One, you can proceed with court action challenging the provisions of HB 70 that effectively removes power of the board. Two, this board and people in Lorain have the ability and the right to file charges against the CEO, put them in the form of a petition, get the requisite amount of signatures, and then submit to the Common Pleas Court of Lorain County for a decision.” March 2018.

“House Bill 70 was an anti-democratic bill.” March 2018.

5. College affordability: “The idea [of free tuition for the first two years of education at public universities or colleges] is that no one should be denied an opportunity to start or continue going to college.” March 2018.

***

Bill O'Neill (former justice of the Ohio Supreme Court, former nurse, Vietnam War veteran). Running mate: Chantelle Lewis (Lorain City Schools elementary principal and former East Cleveland City Councilwoman).

1. School funding: Ohio’s education funding process is “a tragedy of epic proportions.” January 2018.

O’Neill blasted Ohio’s “illegal funding system” for producing a “failing education system.” January 2018.

2. Education governance: “When elected, there will be a seat created in my cabinet for the czar of education with the full authority of the governor's office to fix this problem once and for all.” He said that his running mate, Chantelle Lewis, would be that czar. January 2018.

***

Joe Schiavoni (state senator and former Minority Leader of the Ohio Senate). Running mate: Stephanie Dodd (elected member, State Board of Education).

1. Accountability: “I think we need to have accountability and transparency for all schools. We are making progress with that in the Senate. I do believe we need accountability and transparency for charter schools too.” May 2017.

2. College affordability: If Ohioans purchase a home within five years after graduating from college in Ohio, the state may help forgive part of their student loan debt. January 2018.

3. ECOT: “ECOT failed many, including the state’s tax-paying public…Those millions of dollars of unearned revenue could have gone to much more effective use had they been channeled toward the state’s financially struggling but much more closely monitored public school districts.” January 2018.

4. HB 70/Academic Distress Commissions: “I believe a state ‘takeover’ is a lazy solution to Ohio’s longstanding and worsening problem of poverty and its effect on student success.” January 2018.

5. Wraparound services: “Every legislator and candidate for governor should take a trip to Cincinnati to see how that city is addressing poverty. They use a wraparound service model, which includes teachers, city officials, nonprofits, business owners and the community in education.” January 2018.

6. Education governance: “There is no honorable excuse for removing the elected voice of parents and students from education. On top of that, combining agencies doesn't remove inefficiencies. It creates them. We need collaboration between real leaders to improve Ohio's education system…The GOP could easily work to address these issues without a government restructure that will have lasting consequences for future generations of Ohioans.” February 2018.

In case you missed the memo, early voting for the May 8 Ohio gubernatorial primary started last week. Building off our national Eduwatch coverage of the 2016 presidential election, Fordham Ohio presents a look at the primary candidates for governor.

Below you will find—in their own words and via direct quotes as much as possible—the positions of candidates in the Republican primary on various education issues in the Buckeye State. (We list them in alphabetical order.)

The corresponding collection of quotes from the Democratic primary candidates can be found here.

***

Mike DeWine (Ohio Attorney General and former U.S. Senator). Running mate: Jon A. Husted (Ohio Secretary of State)

1. School quality: Wants to place “a real emphasis on education”…encouraging and replicating schools that are propelling underprivileged children toward “their version of the American dream.” If they’re not serving that goal…they should be closed down. October 2017.

2. Schools serving at-risk youth: The good news is that today there are models for what yields good schools—models of schools that can make a difference in children’s lives. November 2017.

3. Career and Technical Education: Ohio should encourage some students to pursue vocational education as an alternative to college to help boost the state's workforce. March 2018.

4. Statewide education governance: “If you look at any kind of education reform, it needs to focus on kids and how we do a better job for kids…I don’t see that this proposal [HB 512] really does that or accomplishes very much at all.” April 2018.

5. School funding: “We should do everything we can to bring about equity in school funding, but that’s not the only thing. For example, Cleveland has very high performing charter schools that are reaching kids who are at risk, and their costs are about $13,000 a head. For city schools, it’s about double that. It’s not all about the money.” January 2018.

***

Mary Taylor (Lieutenant Governor of Ohio). Running mate: Nathan Estruth (businessman).

1. Education and jobs: Creating and continuing jobs in the state requires a fix to the education system. That could include giving high school students the necessary tools for after they graduate and either go to college or immediately enter the workforce. If students decide they want to start a career right after high school, schools need to offer their students during their four-year tenures skills and training for jobs. “I don't think we should wait until these kids get out of high school.” July 2017.

2. Statewide education governance: “This proposal is exactly the opposite of what my approach is, and I’m absolutely opposed to House Bill 512.” April 2018.

3. Education funding: “We will roll out an education proposal that will really focus on what matters in education, not a discussion on money but rather how to improve schools for kids, a solid proposal that looks at where the dollars are spent.” January 2018.

4. Standards and testing: “We would eliminate Common Core standards and return control to local districts, revamp graduation standards that focus on the results we need. We have lost our minds on testing, doing way too many. Parents need to know how their kids are performing, and the testing system doesn’t do that.” January 2018.

5. Relevant high school coursework: “Our kids aren’t learning the stuff in high school the way that they should.” Students should get more immediately into their coursework and have access to more internships. January 2018.

1. We start today with more discussion of Ohio’s NAEP results, including perspective from Chad Aldis. (Dayton Daily News, 4/12/18)
    
2. It was announced earlier this week that there are no more data scrubbing cases from Columbus to be probed by the state board of education. Awesome. To quote one of my favorite musicals: “Everything’s all right.” (Columbus Dispatch, 4/10/18)
    
3. Shall we take a look at school facilities stories from around the state? After declaring the prospect of a deal dead a couple of weeks ago, Cincinnati City Schools’ board of education this week unanimously approved a land swap promise to help a putative professional soccer team build their own stadium on currently district-owned land which currently houses a perfectly-good (I imagine) athletic field. In exchange, the district would get a new athletic complex nearby paid for (at least partially) by the team. If the team goes on to actually exist I think. Nope, I don’t get it either. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 4/10/18) Up on the north coast, there’s no maybe about it: Toledo Central Catholic will definitely get a major sports facility upgrade – this time thanks to a partnership with Mercy Health System. The school will also get a new elevator, which is probably not just for athletes. (Toledo Blade, 4/10/18) Looks like the building boom is a go in Elyria! The five building construction plan in the district should be back on track again soon, providing the state approves the revised version which includes neither bells nor whistles in order to stay on budget. (Elyria Chronicle, 4/12/18) But it looks like a building bust is on the cards in Columbus as a community panel has been assembled to research and discuss the possibility of closure and consolidation across the district. (Columbus Dispatch, 4/12/18)
    
4. Entrepreneurship education, experiential learning, and international investment to support families in Africa? All these boxes and more are checked by the seniors at Cuyahoga Valley Christian Academy. This is a really great story; worth a read. Why yes, CVCA does take students with EdChoice Scholarships. Why do you ask? (Akron Beacon Journal, 4/12/18)
    
5. Healthcare is a growth industry all across Ohio. yay. As noted above, one local hospital system in Toledo is kitting out a Catholic high school as part of their ongoing partnership. Now Toledo City Schools is seeking to get deeper into the woods with an expanded STEMM program in two more elementary schools. That extra “M” there stands for “medical”, as in the focus of all the science, technology, engineering, and math (and the group learning and grit and other soft skills) will be to introduce kids to medical jobs from the earliest possible moment. yay. I think the teachers union president’s comments are pretty telling here, but I could be misreading. With friends like these… (Toledo Blade, 4/12/18)
    
6. My favorite Britney Spears song is “Toxic”. What’s yours? Apropos of nothing, that song is stuck in my head today. What a bop. This preamble almost definitely has nothing to do with today’s final clip, which focuses on the high cost of information in Lorain even while it purports to focus on the names of the new turnaround principles. Lawyers fees, and stacks of paper, and staff time. Luckily for everyone involved, the soul-sucking is gratis. (Elyria Chronicle, 4/12/18)

“Fortnite” has taken over my house and there’s a good chance it has taken over yours, too.

It is the newest and coolest video game, particularly popular with boys. And when I say I’ve never seen my kids love anything more than this game, I’m really not kidding. They’ll hop out of bed at 6 a.m. on a weekend to play. They’ll race to get their homework done so they can play. They’ll even try to feign being sick so they can stay home to play. (Mom doesn’t fall for that one.)

They will even spend hours watching videos of other people playing. Good use of time, right? They argue that it is.

And don’t get me wrong. This isn’t a rant because I hate the game. I don’t.

Unlike many video games that isolate boys into what can be a very unsocial and even antisocial space, “Fortnite” is interactive. In the spirit of the old school employees at Banana Republic, most kids wear headsets that allow them to communicate, hands free, with one another while they play.

I have to confess that, because kids rarely talk on the phone anymore (and talking on the phone was life when I was a tween), it is sort of fun to hear them chatting with their buddies and yelling, “I’m down I’m down,” or, “Look out, they’re right behind you.”

I also get a bit of evil satisfaction when I hear them say, “Guys, my mom says I gotta go.”

That’s right. The woman who carried you in her body for forty weeks and threw up for twenty of them wants you to put down your little answering-service-lady headset and get the hell upstairs.

“Okay, okay, it’s my last game.”

This is the most common rebuttal to the “time to get off that game” refrain echoing through practically every house in America.

Taking turns

But here’s the thing: Unlike when it’s my last Dorito and—sadly—over in a flash, a last game in “Fortnight” can last for what feels like forever because it doesn’t end until their player dies.

If I’m in a decent mood and the whole “Fortnite” thing hasn’t already shortened my fuse, I’m cool with the whole “this is my last game” deal. But God help my kids when I’ve just tripped over their backpack and found their cup (the baseball kind) on the kitchen counter and they default to their “it’s my last game” strategy. Because then there is no last game.

Now, if you are a mom of multiple boys—three in my case—and only allow one Xbox in the house as we do, you will likely agree that the whole issue of sharing and taking turns with “Fortnite” is the root of most video-game-related family discord.

The arguing and the headache-inducing medley of “He played longer than me” and “When’s it going to be my turn?” and “I’ve only been playing for, like, five minutes,” is enough to send you straight over that edge with Thelma and Louise.

One of the game’s greatest assets—other than that it’s free—is ironically also the cause of the most strife on the family front: Anyone of any age and any skill level can play.

So, yes, that means that my nine-year-old and my thirteen-year-old are fighting over whose turn it is to play the same game. And if Chance the Rapper or Gordon Hayward lived here, they’d be whining too because even adult celebrity types are loving—and playing—this game. (Though my guess is that neither of those famous millionaire men would accept my “only one Xbox and you have to be off by 8:30 p.m.” rules. But the point still stands that this game is all the rage whether you’re six or thirty-six.)

Everyone telling me to try #Fortnite...Jumped on @fbach stream and I'm already making plays like this. #quickscope #pc #imamonster @hyperx pic.twitter.com/dWsah3vNKO

— Gordon Hayward (@gordonhayward) March 19, 2018

Putting out “Fortnite” fires

Parental reaction to “Fortnite,” at least in our house, seems to vary in direct proportion to the parental moods and/or stress level of the given moment.

There are times when the game actually has a blissful quality because my boys are happy and entertained for hours and I can work, read, or even watch a couple shows without interruption. If that heavenly trend continues, I just may have to splurge and sign up for HBO.

And who doesn’t love an hour to fritter away scrolling through Groupon and Zulilly uninterrupted so you can buy some dumb monogrammed item you’ll have forgotten you bought until it arrives weeks later and you’re waving the package around asking, “Who bought this?”

But there are other times—lots of them—when I kind of want to throw a YouTube-worthy nutty every hour on the hour because it seems like from the second my boys awake until the time they go to bed, I am putting out “Fortnite” fires. And when mama’s patience wire has been tripped repeatedly in a short period of time, the kids know to expect my firehose to be on full blast.

Why do I let them play?

I can already hear your questions that we all know are really just judgments with a question mark at the end: Why do you let them play the game? Why not get rid of the Xbox altogether? Why aren’t they spending their time eating organic carrots and playing outside?

To all of that, my responses are simple.

“Fortnite” is what my boys currently most enjoy when they are inside and not busy playing sports and going to school. But much more importantly, their love for this game has provided that most perfect lever, or carrot, if you will, when it comes to kids and chores. They will do whatever they need to do if it means they can play “Fortnite,” and that means that healthy bribery—ahem, I mean accountability—is alive and well and quickly ratcheting up in this blessed home.

Dishwashers get emptied, clothes get put away, homework gets done. I can even get my feet rubbed, if they know that “Fortnite” is waiting at the end of mom’s to-do list. Unfortunately, I’m the farthest thing from a domestic goddess, and my cleaning ideas are limited, but something tells me that if I really wanted them to scrub the bathroom grout with a toothbrush, they would.

Can you get me a seltzer with ice? Can you go out to my car and get my bag? Can you feed the dogs? Miracle of all miracles, they will even take a shower without any argument or stalling if they know they can squeeze in a few rounds of “Fortnite” afterward. Can we say “jackpot”?!

This is a win-win. It certainly doesn’t feel like a win all the time—like when I feel like a lunatic who does nothing but curse the day that “Fortnite” came into being.

But, on balance, the kids are having a blast with their game—including with kids they may not hang out with much but know from school and sports—during their downtime at home. They are so motivated to play that they are also becoming my long-overdue personal assistants.

Sure, they fight or talk back and sometimes lose the privilege of playing—and instead win a front seat to a short but intense mom rant about gratitude and how not to be a total a**hole. But for the most part, I put “Fortnite” in the plus column.

God knows I am getting far more out of it than I ever did from bottle flipping and fidget spinners.

Editor’s note: A version of this essay was original published in a slightly different form by the Education Post.

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

New York City’s high school choice program can be, depending on your perspective, refreshing or daunting. When it comes time to choose where they want to spend (hopefully) the next four years, every eighth grader in the nation’s largest school system gets a 600-page school directory enumerating over 700 high schools and program options, before submitting an application ranking up to twelve choices. In theory, this kind of education agora should create all manner of opportunities for students to ferret out just the right high school. But low-income, black, and Hispanic residents and those who do not speak English at home have proven more likely to choose and/or be assigned to high schools with lower graduation rates. Could a targeted intervention in the form of simplified information about school options bring order to chaos and enhance “match”? The short answer appears to be “yes” based on an experiment conducted by New York University economics and education policy professor Sean P. Corcoran and his co-authors, Jennifer Jennings of Princeton, Sarah Cohodes of Columbia, and Seton Hall’s Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj.

The four conducted a randomized field experiment in 165 high-poverty New York City middle schools during the 2015–16 school year, in which students in some schools received custom lists of thirty high schools with graduation rates north of 70 percent within a forty-five minute ride on the city’s buses or subways. Students who received the custom lists were more likely to apply to specific high school recommended on the lists than students who did not receive them; and those who received the custom lists were also more likely to receive their first choice high school and less likely to match to a high school with a graduation rate below 70 percent (they had higher odds of admission, and they avoided lower-performing schools on their application).

It’s not a huge surprise that better information leads to more informed and targeted choice. But the authors sound a cautionary note about whether their intervention can reduce inequality. If the assumption is that advantaged students are already near a ceiling of information, so disadvantaged groups have more to gain, then that appears not to be supported by the experiment. “Both disadvantaged and advantaged students used the custom lists to make choices,” the authors note, but in some instances advantaged students “saw greater benefits” by applying and matching to more schools on the researchers’ custom lists.

“Taken together, our findings demonstrate that proving simplified and customized information to middle school students can increase the quality of the schools to which they match. Beyond simply inducing students to apply to higher-performing schools, these supports should help students identify schools where their odds of admission are higher,” the authors conclude. They note several important limitations to their experiment. The “custom lists” of schools were customized at the school level, not the student level. “More personalized information could potentially elicit greater usage and impact,” they say.

SOURCE: Sean P. Corcoran et al., “Leveling the Playing Field for High School Choice: Results from a Field Experiment of Informational Interventions,” National Bureau of Economic Research (March 2018).

An increasing number of headline-grabbing graduation scandals have renewed the public’s interest in how students earn a high school diploma. A recent paper from the Center for American Progress adds to the discussion by examining high school graduation requirements in all fifty states, as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, to determine whether they are aligned with college admissions requirements and a variety of quality indicators.

To complete their state-by-state comparisons, the authors reviewed the state-level high school coursework needed to earn a standard diploma, as well as the admissions requirements for each state’s public university system.[1] These requirements were divided into two categories: years of study within each subject area and the course type and sequence within each subject.

The authors used Carnegie units to measure the years of study required by both high school graduation and college admissions standards; one Carnegie unit is equivalent to 120 hours of class time. States were placed into one of three categories based on their coursework requirements for math, English, science, social studies, foreign language, fine arts, physical education/health, and electives.[2] In states where both the high school and public university systems required the same number of units in each subject, states were deemed meeting expectations. High school requirements that demanded more coursework units in a subject were labeled as exceeding, while high school requirements that demanded fewer units were labeled as not meeting college expectations.

Forty-four states met expectations in English, and three exceeded them. For math, twenty-nine states met expectations, and eleven exceeded them. California was the only state that failed to meet the expectation in both math and English; meanwhile forty states’ diploma requirements met or exceeded college admissions’ coursework standards in both math and English, including Ohio. The least amount of alignment between high school graduation and college requirements occurred in foreign languages, with twenty-three states failing to meet college expectations; twenty-three others met them.

As for the types of classes required, the authors acknowledge that many students are able to choose the courses they take to fulfill graduation requirements. Nevertheless, the authors were able to determine whether the course type and sequence required by high school graduation standards were aligned with college admissions requirements based on course names. States in which students are required to take the same or more rigorous courses than what is required for college admission are considered to be in alignment.[3]

They found that forty-four states met this standard in both social studies and English. Numbers were smaller in math and science—twenty-three and seventeen states, respectively—but in many additional states, students had the option of choosing high school class sequences that were aligned with college expectations in these subjects.

The authors conducted an additional state-by-state comparison of the quality of graduation requirements based on five criteria: requiring three courses in the same CTE field; addressing the need for a well-rounded education via a life-skills course, like financial literacy; complete coursework alignment between high school graduation and college admissions expectations; and requiring the completion of a fifteen-credit college-ready curriculum. No state satisfied all five, but some met a few. Louisiana and Tennessee, for example, require a fifteen-credit college ready curriculum and have completely aligned their diploma requirements with their state’s public university’s coursework admissions standards. Twenty-three states require some element of a well-rounded education. And one state, Delaware, requires its students to complete three credits in the same career and technical education field.

Overall, the authors find a “significant misalignment” between states’ high school and college systems. They also note that, although their analysis attempted to review the quality of graduation requirements, it did not take into account the content taught in each course. Given the mismatch between rising graduation rates and low proficiency rates on assessments like NAEP, the authors acknowledge that “it is almost a guarantee that America’s schools are graduating students who have not learned as much as they should in high school.” 

The paper concludes with a series of recommendations for state policymakers. Unsurprisingly, the first recommendation is to ensure clear alignment between the requirements for high school graduation and college admission. The authors also recommend mandating the completion of the fifteen-credit college-ready coursework that’s required by most public university systems because research shows that students have better life outcomes if they take a rigorous high school course load, regardless of eventual college enrollment.

SOURCE: Laura Jimenez and Scott Sargrad, “Are High School Diplomas Really a Ticket to College and Work? An Audit of State High School Graduation Requirements,” Center for American Progress (April 2018).

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Education released data from the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Given every two years to fourth and eighth graders in math and reading (and other grades and subjects though sometimes on a less frequent basis), NAEP is an important check on how Ohio students achieve against rigorous national standards and compare to their peers in other states. The big takeaway is that student achievement is stuck in neutral across much of the nation. But there’s more to unpack, especially here in Ohio.

Note that the NAEP data are simply descriptive—they give us information about achievement at face value. They can’t tell us with any certainty what’s causing these patterns and trends, including how the shift to tablet-based assessments, economic or demographic trends, and other dynamics that may influence achievement are affecting results. Moreover, other excellent analyses of NAEP data are already out, including a demographically adjusted look at the 2017 results by state. In the days ahead, we’ll take closer looks at  “cohort gains” in Ohio compared to other states—i.e., examining fourth graders results in 2013 and comparing them to 2017 eighth grade results—as well as dig into performance by subgroup.

With all this in mind, let’s dive into a first look at the Ohio data.

1. Ohio outperforms the national average … but not by much

For years, roughly two in five Ohio students have reached NAEP’s proficiency standard. That story remains unchanged in 2017, as 39 to 41 percent of Ohio students reached proficiency, depending on the grade and subject. (Note: NAEP’s standard is considerably higher than Ohio’s proficiency bar on state exams.) When compared to the national averages, Ohio performs higher in all four subjects, though just two are statistically significant—fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. Ohio should continue to be proud of its national standing; we’re better than most. But given that the state is now outperforming the national averages by rather slim margins, we can’t afford to stand still lest the rest of the nation pass us by.

Figure 1: Proficiency rates on NAEP, Ohio versus national, 2017

2. Reading achievement has been stagnant for a decade

Ohio’s reading performance on NAEP has been flat for almost a decade and a half in both fourth and eighth grade. Consider Figures 2 and 3, which show the average reading scores in Ohio. Compared to 2003, the results today show little progress: In fourth grade, Ohio has improved by three points, and in eighth grade, just a single point—a touch slower than the national rate in both grade levels. Although the national average has not risen dramatically in reading either, Ohio’s lack of improvement should concern policymakers and educators. Appreciably moving the achievement needle may require a major break in the way schools approach literacy, shifting to a more content-rich and knowledge-based curriculum that starts in elementary school, as E.D. Hirsch and others have suggested. But first we need to acknowledge something is amiss in reading instruction.

Figure 2: Average scale scores in fourth grade reading, Ohio versus national, 2003–17

Figure 3: Average scale score in eighth grade reading, Ohio versus national, 2003–17

3. Math achievement has been a mixed bag in more recent years

Unlike reading, math performance has trended more consistently upwards over the past decade. That is, until 2015 when math scores dipped noticeably in Ohio and nationally. The 2017 results in Ohio went in different directions. In fourth grade math, NAEP scores continued to slide—mainly the result of declines among white students, as my colleague Mike Petrilli found. That’s worrisome and puzzling. Might the laser focus on early literacy be crowding out math instruction? Did the Great Recession depress achievement? It’s impossible to know, but policymakers should monitor whether this trend persists. On the other hand, in eighth grade math, Ohio’s average score rebounded. That’s good news, perhaps indicating that the 2015 decline was a one-year bump in the road. 

Figure 4: Average scale score in fourth grade math, Ohio versus national, 2003–17

Figure 5: Average scale score in eighth grade math, Ohio versus national, 2003–17

4. Ohio is competitive, but not at the top, in comparison to nearby states

Just as The Ohio State University aspires to win the Big Ten conference championship every year in athletics, the Buckeye State should aspire to be the cream-of-the-crop when it comes to student achievement among other Upper Midwest states. How does Ohio fare among its nearest neighbors? Figure 6 shows comparisons in fourth grade that indicate Ohio stacks up pretty well among its nearby states, but also has room to grow. Figure 7 repeats the results for eighth grade; it shows Ohio toward the middle in reading, but higher in math. Note, of course, that minor differences between states’ proficiency rates are likely to be statistically insignificant. The results from 2017 generally track those from the 2015 NAEP iteration.

Figure 6: Fourth grade proficiency in reading and math, Ohio versus nearby states, 2017

Figure 7: Eighth grade proficiency in reading and math, Ohio versus nearby states, 2017

5. Getting to the top spot in the nation will be a long road

The best careers of the future will likely fall to states and cities with the strongest knowledge and skills base. Hence, our future prosperity hinges in no small part on how well Ohio schools educate today’s students. Although Ohio has performed modestly well against national averages and in relation to nearby states, the Buckeye State should aim for the top of the mountain so that it can continue to compete economically on a national—and global—stage. Figures 8 and 9 indicate that Ohio has its work cut out to make it to the top. In both fourth and eighth grade, the state trails national leaders—Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New Jersey—by about 10 percentage points. These are, of course, “raw” achievement data, but demographically adjusted NAEP data also indicate that Ohio’s in the top half of states but doesn’t quite crack the highest echelons.

Figure 8: Fourth grade proficiency rates of top two states versus Ohio, 2017

Figure 9: Eighth grade proficiency rates of top two states versus Ohio, 2017

​

* * *

NAEP regularly forces us to pause and reflect on Ohio’s academic progress over time and how it fares in comparison to other jurisdictions. Sometimes the news is worth celebrating; other times it exposes troubling patterns. So is Ohio a state “at risk”? The answer depends, I suppose, on where you sit. If you’re mostly satisfied with above average rankings, then the answer might be no. But if you—like me—want Ohio to lead the nation in academic achievement because we believe that Buckeye students absolutely can be the best, then today’s results should stir us to pursue something better. Ohio has a proud history of committing to education, and it has many of the ingredients for a top-of-the-class school system. Excellence is within reach, but we’ll need to continue taking the long, challenging journey towards reaching our state’s fullest potential in education. 

1. The Plain Dealer was quick out of the gate with coverage of Ohio’s NAEP data, including a quote or two from Fordham’s Chad Aldis putting the new numbers into perspective. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 4/10/18)
    
2. Public broadcaster KCPT-TV in Kansas City is interested in the topic of charter schools. It seems that they either know (or simply suspect) that either Kansas or Missouri (or both) will go the way of increasing charters in the state(s). And they want to know (or fear they already know) what this means. They have chosen Ohio as the target of their research and specifically they have Columbus as an analog to KC. The methodology by which they made this choice is explained here, and includes a link to a 2015 Fordham report. (KCPT-TV, Kansas City, 4/9/18) The findings are surprisingly in-depth, insightful, and lacking the usual preconceived notions. Worth a look to see how Ohio’s charter school world to which we are wholly accustomed—and accustomed to defending—is viewed by outsiders at ground level. (KCPT-TV, Kansas City, 4/9/18)
    
3. Speaking of charter schools, the Dispatch today ran a guest commentary opining in favor of online charter schools. Nice. (Columbus Dispatch, 4/11/18)
    
4. As has been mentioned previously, testing time is in the AIR in Ohio (see what I did there?). For some reason, Youngstown City Schools brought in U.S. Representative Tim Ryan to talk to kids ahead of the test. With friends like these…. But, just so this piece isn’t a total loss, do take a moment to compare Hizzoner’s comments with those of district CEO Krish Mohip. See if you can spot a tonal variation. (Youngstown Vindicator, 4/10/18) Speaking of Youngstown, seems like Sheriff Mohip is losing his trusted deputy. Chief Academic Officer Tyrone Olverson has accepted the interim superintendent position in Trotwood Schools and will be leaving Youngstown effective Friday. (Dayton Daily News, 4/10/18) Olverson is clearly not heading off for a cushy gig—the DDN is quick to remind us that Trotwood is currently the lowest-performing district in the state and is next on the list for an Academic Distress Commission should this year’s AIR test administration turn out badly.
    
5. Speaking of school districts operating under the aegis of an Academic Distress Commission, Lorain City Schools board member Yvonne Johnson—you’ll remember her, surely—is quoted in this piece speaking eminently sensibly to her fellow board members. See today’s headline quote for one example. I, personally, am not sure they heard her. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 4/9/18)
    
6. This weeks’ state board of education meeting must have been pretty tame as there was very little reporting on it from the usual suspects. The most important thing, it seems, was a discussion of the report card components for career tech schools and whether they report fairly the value of the school to student achievement. If there’s a problem, I’m sure someone will take it into the shop, tinker under the hood, and get it humming along properly (see what I did there?). (Gongwer Ohio, 4/9/18) Perhaps. Or it could be just as likely that all current aspects of school report cards will be swept out the door instead. (Gongwer Ohio, 4/10/18)

Sad, disappointed, but not yet despairing. These are my emotional reactions to the release today of the 2017 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results of fourth and eighth grade reading and mathematics.

Perhaps I should add “relieved.” Given the hostility that replaced comity in the education world and the widespread assault on accountability in the last decade, I suppose it could have been worse.

Yet how are we to handle the simple fact that we made no progress whatsoever in the last eight years? Achievement results on all measures are absolutely flat. The scale score numbers are virtually the same as they were in 2009. Given the progress we had made before and the progress we still need to make, this stagnancy—being stuck in the mud—is inexcusable and unacceptable.

What happened to bring us to this sorry place? There will be as many hypotheses as there are hypothesizers. Here is my take.

Student achievement was flat in the decade that preceded the flowering of accountability. Then we had meaningful achievement growth in the decade in which accountability peaked. And now we see absolute flatness in the eight years during which accountability has been weakened.

The lesson was and still is: Accountability works!

This is not to say that changes weren’t needed to keep accountability fresh, fair, sharp, and effective. Changes were very much in order. But accountability wasn’t fixed; it was largely eviscerated. My point is that, instead of weakening it, we should have repaired it, sustained it, and improved it. I’ll say more about that in a moment.

First, let’s review some relevant history.

The movement to bring accountability to education in America began in earnest in 1993, grew in force through the 1990s, and became so substantial that researcher Eric Hanushek noted that a majority of states had implemented consequential accountability as fundamental policy by 1999. In a major study in the early 2000s, Hanushek and Margaret Raymond showed that consequential accountability had largely worked in the states to improve achievement.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) became federal law in 2002, expanding and extending accountability throughout the states. Research has shown the positive effects of such accountability. In a major study of studies in 2011, David Figlio and Susanna Loeb concluded that “the preponderance of evidence suggests positive effects of the accountability movement in the United States during the 1990s and early 2000s on student achievement, especially in math.”

In a report that Bill McKenzie and I wrote for the Bush Institute, we showed, among other things, charts of NAEP scores in both math and reading for nine-year-olds. In these charts, one can clearly see flatness before 2000, growth during the 2000s, and flatness toward the beginning of the 2010s. This is true in both subjects. These charts reflect results on the Long Term Trend Assessments before it was suspended, as well as the main NAEP test, in the periods before, during, and after the peak of consequential accountability.

So, where did we go wrong, and what can we do to get right?

Instead of weakening accountability, we should have kept it, fixed it, and made it work better. I’ve warned about mistakes in policy that had the effect of weakening accountability. And I’ve written about how we could have made smarter and better use of accountability.

Whatever the past, it’s not too late to do what should be done. As difficult as it may be, we must at least try to bring back a sense of the comity and mutuality that characterized the early days of standards-based reform.

We can and should be for more spending that is effective and grounded in accountability.

We can and should be for policies that are pro-teacher and grounded in practices that encourage efficiency and effectiveness.

We can be for effective practice that honors standards and testing and promotes better learning results without being foolish or slavish to testing abuse or other educational malpractice.

We can and should entrust significant authority to those closest to the children and insist upon the use of effective, research-based practice.

We can support public education with accountability for results and maximize choice for parents.

I know change will be hard for all parties who are wedded to the status quo and/or would rather fight and die defending their own position. But the problem for them and all of us is that staying stuck is fatal.

We’ve seen, and are paying the price of, stagnation. Our students are not moving forward, which is dangerous for them and for all of us in the complex and challenging world in which we live. And the public is getting wary. Funding is stuck, too, and probably will remain so until we build back broad-based public support for a system that shows the promise of success.

Okay, the choice is there. What will it be?

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