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.

It seems likely that the Trump administration will soon revise or rescind an Obama-era directive intended to address racial disparities in school disciplinary actions. The "Dear Colleague" letter in question, issued by the U.S. Departments of Education and Justice in 2014, has been the subject of much debate. It stated that school districts could be investigated and found guilty of violating students' civil rights when doling out punishments, even if the discipline policies were race-neutral and implemented in even-handed ways (in other words, even if there was no evidence of discriminatory treatment of students).

Yet the latest federal discipline data, released earlier this month, show that African American students continue to be disciplined at higher rates than white students. While U.S. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos held roundtable meetings with lawmakers in April to hear debates about the guidance from both sides, there is no timeline for the administration's final decision.

But school discipline reform did not begin with President Obama, and it won't end with President Trump. Momentum for change has been gaining steam for years, which legislatures and school boards have increasingly codified into laws and practices at state and local levels.

If the Trump administration makes its move to revise or rescind, local education leaders will regain discretion over how to balance discipline with safety and order in the classroom. Regardless of what happens at the federal level, school discipline brings into play a number of important but often competing goals for school districts: eliminating discrimination, protecting the learning time of both disruptive students and their well-behaved peers, upholding high expectations for students, empathizing with traumatized students, and defending the authority of teachers.

With those competing values in mind, here are seven suggestions for superintendents and district-level administrators to consider for their discipline policies:

DO worry about racial discrimination and implicit bias when determining punishments for students who misbehave. Advocates for fair school discipline are right to be alarmed by the dramatic racial disparities. Schools nationwide suspended 2.7 million students in 2015–16—100,000 fewer students than 2013–14. But African American male students represented a quarter of all students who received an out-of-school suspension in 2015–16, despite making up only 8 percent of enrollment. Multiple studies have found that educator bias explains some of these disparities.

Furthermore, it is clearly against the law—and has been for half a century—for districts to treat students differently based on their race. Any differential treatment will remain illegal, even if the Trump administration does rescind federal guidance.

DON'T assume that racial bias alone explains disparities in discipline rates. The same studies that find evidence of racial bias in disciplinary actions also find that such bias only explains some of the disparities. Differences in student behavior are also a major factor. That's not because of the race of the students, but because, tragically, different racial groups face different kinds and degrees of trauma, abuse, and deprivation, many of them associated with poverty.

Students themselves even report such differences. On federal surveys, twice as many African American students report getting into fights at school as white students. It would be miraculous if children's vastly different life experiences didn't result in behavioral differences in school.

DO show empathy for kids whose misbehavior is due to difficult life circumstances. Educators need to understand the truly tough circumstances that some children face outside of school and do their best to help them cope. Identifying appropriate mental-health supports is particularly important. Addressing the underlying causes of student misbehavior can go a long way toward nipping it in the bud.

DON'T engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations. It's just as important for empathy not to turn into excuses for behavior that is out of line or compromises students' academic potential. All students need to learn how to control their impulses and behave in acceptable ways, as well as cultivate an attitude that reflects motivation and engagement.

DO find ways to address misbehavior that lead to positive changes and protect opportunities to learn. Long suspensions reduce learning time for those being punished and may not improve their behavior. It's worth trying in-school suspension for nonviolent offenses, with supports for students so they can behave better and continue learning the valuable skills and knowledge that schools exist to teach them.

DON'T just send disruptive kids back to their classrooms. Those who break rules can't be our exclusive concern; their classmates also have the right to learn. We must protect their learning environment to stay on track and close achievement gaps. Research also shows what common sense indicates: One or two disruptive students can erode the learning of an entire classroom. It should alarm us that in 2015–16, 43 percent of educators reported classroom misbehavior that affects their ability to teach students, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

DO address "suspension factories." A 2013 report by researchers at The Civil Rights Project at UCLA found that thousands of public schools suspend more than a quarter of their students every year. And that is still the case for too many schools today—a sign that they are careening out of control on disciplinary measures. While it's bad to ignore schools with such high rates of suspensions, it's arguably worse to respond by simply commanding that they get their numbers down without providing massive amounts of support.

School discipline presents enormous challenges for education leaders. Getting it right takes balance, judgment, and wisdom. There's not much of that in Washington these days, but thankfully it still exists in abundance across our nation's schools. Let's make our decisions wisely.

As first appeared in Education Week as “7 Suggestions for Better School Discipline”on May 29, 2018. 

1. Lots of superintendent turnover in Butler County school districts in the last few years it seems. The longest-serving supe is just finishing his third year on the job. Those are the only facts I could pull out of this piece, which is, sadly, not very well written. (Dayton Daily News, 6/5/18)
    
2. In suburban Austintown City Schools, "job ready" for students apparently means "dressing for success". If that is the case, how on earth did it require $100K to get 41 students to that point of “readiness” and why is everyone so happy about it? By contrast, in nearby Youngstown, "job ready" means being able to read and do math at a proper level. And folks there continue to oppose efforts to get all kids to that point of “readiness”. (Youngstown Vindicator, 6/5/18) Speaking of readiness, here’s another positive story about a dropout recovery charter school. 275 students graduated from Townsend Community School in far northern Ohio this week. 69 percent are going on to college, 24 percent are entering the workforce, and 7 percent enlisting into the military. That latter figure includes Montana Shears, currently on standby for the Marine Corps after what sounds like a harrowing time in his mid teens as he describes it. Congratulations and best wishes to him and to all of the Townsend grads. (Sandusky Register, 6/5/18) I cannot understand the outpouring of positivity for these schools in the local press around Ohio given all the negative rhetoric surrounding them at the state government level. Perhaps someone is mistaken?
    
3. Lorain CEO David Hardy this week named the district’s new communications staffers, a formidable-sounding two person tag team that includes an experienced journalist and a former teacher (and NASA contractor!) who has also created a Cleveland-based nonprofit which gives competitive grants to help boost student access to extracurricular enrichment. Kinda wow. (Elyria Chronicle, 6/6/18)
    
4. In tax abatement news: Lorain City Council this week approved a tax break for the construction of a gym to be used by a provider of services for students with autism. Regular Gadfly Bites subscribers (if you’re not one, why not?) will recall that this project generated some heated opposition which bubbled over at a previous council committee meeting. Hopefully the ridiculous amount of caveats put on the approval indicate that the council heard and heeded those objections; and hopefully it will be enough to silence the NIMBYs for a while. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 6/5/18) Things are not so rosy on the tax abatement front in Cincinnati, where the teachers union president has written a letter suggesting that city council knock it off. Supposedly, the schools are losing out on $8.4 million in tax revenue due to the city’s generosity to residential developers. (Thank goodness they specified residential, otherwise the euphoria over a certain recent football club announcement might look a little suspect.) Anywho, all this is really a preamble to renegotiation of a 10 year old agreement between city and district in which the city pays $5 million annually to help keep the district “in the fold” so to speak in regard to such abatements. So, really, that letter says “knock it off or pony up”. I’m sure either will be acceptable. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 6/5/18). Finally in tax break news for today, Columbus City Schools’ board of education is being pitched a crappy deal, and I think they know it. In exchange for a “guaranteed” boost in annual payments to the district (over the existing low-level use on the site), a developer is asking for a 30-year, 100 percent tax abatement for a huge new multiuse project. At a minimum, these locked-in payments are projected to give the district 43 cents on the dollar that it should get from a successful development of its type. If the property grows in value—also guaranteed given its scope and its proximity to Ohio State and to tony Upper Arlington—that difference will grow significantly. Of course, developer dude says without the abatement he won’t build it, so naturally board members seem willing to gamble. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/5/18)
    
5. Culinary students at Jane Addams High School in Cleveland Metropolitan School District are today unveiling their “food bus”—a food truck operating out of a converted school bus and serving souped up versions of traditional cafeteria offerings. This is an outgrowth of the school’s restaurant, which also operates during the summer for students taking summer classes, and further opportunity for students to hone their skills for future careers. Nice. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/6/18)

Last month, Dan Porterfield presided over his final commencement as President of Franklin & Marshall College before leaving the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, school he had led since 2011 to become the president and CEO of the Aspen Institute. Under Porterfield, F&M partnered with several high-profile charter and Catholic school networks and programs, including KIPP, Cristo Rey, Uncommon Schools, Achievement First, and the Posse Scholars program, to attract low-income students of color to F&M and other selective colleges, and to keep them persisting. Those efforts were the centerpiece of “No Excuses Kids Go to College,” a cover story Robert Pondiscio wrote for Education Next in 2013. Pondiscio conducted an “exit interview” with Porterfield last month on the lessons learned from F&M’s work, as well as Porterfield’s plan to continue those efforts at Aspen. 

Robert Pondiscio: The issue of improving college access and graduation rates for “first generation” college-goers from disadvantaged subgroups is strongly associated with you and the work you've done at F&M. What motivated you to make this your issue? And what have you learned from your experience?

Dan Porterfield: What motivated me was the recognition that there are great, well prepared, and highly motivated students across the whole American mosaic, and a growing number of schools, scholarship programs, access programs, and community organizations that are cultivating that talent for success at rigorous colleges. I came to feel that the top colleges could compete together rather than against each other to develop promising practices for recruiting more top students from low-income backgrounds. That's the big thing, that colleges can and should work together to provide greater service to our country rather then competing against each other for what is, I think, the fool’s gold of rankings and metrics of prestige that really don't widen the circle of opportunity in our country.

Pondiscio: It was an unpleasant surprise and humbling to many of us in K–12 and so-called “no excuses” charter schools to learn how challenging it is to keep “first-gen” college students persisting through college and to graduation. Were you as surprised as the rest of us in K–12?

Porterfield: No. Years of working at Georgetown as a professor and senior vice president, living on campus and working with students, gave me a great feeling for the range of experiences that first-generation college-goers have. I anticipated when I started at Franklin & Marshall that, by partnering with top performing public schools and programs, we would be able to build pipelines of strong students. It was incumbent upon us to work with those students, both individually and as a group, to ensure that we could unlock the resources of the college and help those students develop their own pathways to their own success. I also had a lot of confidence that schools that have the resources to meet both financial aid for students and help students develop “college knowledge” early could enable them to thrive.

Pondiscio:  So as you leave higher education, what are your takeaway lessons for ed reform, college-prep charter schools, and K–12 education at large?

Porterfield: Society needs to adapt in making sure that more students have access to a high quality college-prep curriculum. But our high school and pre-college partners have seen that just giving most of their students a strong college-prep curriculum isn't enough. They need colleges to meet their full financial need. They need the colleges to see them and hear them and treat them as assets to the school. And they need their colleges to be able to grease the gears and be flexible enough to respond to different needs of some first-generation college-goers. The reality is lower-income students often end up in schools that don't have enough resources to meet some of their needs. Or they end up in schools where there's not a critical mass of such students, and first-generation students don't necessarily know how to advocate for themselves in such settings. Colleges have to invest in the needs of all students and make sure they have strategies for responding to the particular needs of lower-income students who need all three things: strong pre-college education, a great bridge, and then commitment at the college level.

Pondiscio: Let me put you on the spot a little bit. In K–12 ed reform, the idea that everyone seemed to agree with twenty years ago was that college is for everyone. Where do you stand on that?

Porterfield: Our young people will grow up to live and work in a science- and tech-driven global knowledge economy, where one’s ability to work with concepts and to change the way one works as technology changes will be critical. That’s point one. Point two is that our country is in the midst of demographic change that is extremely important, including the graying of the country as the boomers retire. In the context of all that change and the nature of an interdependent global economy, we need to invest in the talent of younger Americans to be able to live and work and provide for their families and a growing percentage of the population that’s retiring. So I think it's important to invest in talent. That may not be defined by going to a residential liberal arts college, but everybody’s going to have to learn continuously in their adult lives in the world we're entering. Everybody's going to have to have the intellectual agility to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of good or bad knowledge. In order to be an active citizen in a democracy, everyone’s going to need to be willing to learn the issues and to think about what's in the best interest of communities large and small and the nation as a whole. If we're not investing in the education of the young from pre-K through the end of high school, then we're essentially limiting their capacity to be lifelong learners, lifelong innovators, lifelong contributors to political discourse, and lifelong providers for the older generation.

Pondiscio: You are now going to the Aspen Institute, and I'm sure you are not done with these issues. What will that perch allow you to do to advance this agenda that was either beyond the scope of your work or your resources at Franklin & Marshall?

Porterfield: Aspen has two excellent programs that I've worked with. The Education and Society Program led by Ross Weiner, and the College Excellence program led by Josh Wyner. Both Josh and Ross are superb at gathering collaborators from a variety of sectors to work together, frame a problem well, and then try to have collective impact. The Aspen method, embodied by Josh and Ross and many others working at Aspen, is I think very promising for a nonprofit organization to be developing for this era. How do we frame problems and then solve problems and reach defined goals to collective action? And that's what I hope Aspen continues to do and becomes known for doing very well in education and in many other areas.