Campaign season in Ohio is in full swing. With a gubernatorial election this year, there’s been ample media coverage related to who’s entering the race, who’s withdrawing, who’s getting endorsed by whom, and who has the most cash. What’s less clear is where each candidate stands on education. To some extent, one can assume candidate views based on past priorities (if they hold or have held office) or on party affiliation. But partisanship does not always predict policy positions, and education is odd that way—you can find pro-school choice Democrats in some communities and anti-school choice Republicans in others, for example.

It’s not unusual for candidates at this stage in the game (pre-primary) to keep their talking points broad and their websites vague. Even so, it’s a bit disappointing that so many of Ohio’s current gubernatorial candidates are so light on education details. Only three candidates (of eight total) noted specific education positions on their websites in a way that was easy for voters to find (see the table below). And while many have provided quotes on education to the media, much of it is overtly partisan (see “quotes” below). Voters shouldn’t have to comb all corners of the web to ascertain where a candidate stands on key education areas or read piecemeal quotes that don’t really cover the fundamentals of education policy.

Ideally, all candidates should be able to sketch out their views on key education areas in a way that voters can easily see. Here’s a breakdown of applicable questions that any prospective governor should answer; perhaps the Columbus Dispatch or another major newspaper could ask them to do so.

Accountability

1.) Would you keep Ohio’s school and district report cards? Make any changes to them?

2.) Given that one in three college freshmen in Ohio need remedial coursework, how do you propose to strengthen readiness for college in the K-12 system? For young people entering the workforce directly after high school, what steps can we take to prepare them for their careers?

School funding

3.) Is the funding of Ohio’s schools constitutional? If not, how would you change the system?

4.) Should the state play a greater role in school funding, or do you see local property taxes as an appropriate source of education revenue?

5.) What education programs would you prioritize to fund through your budget? How would you ensure that funds are well spent?

6.) How should charter schools and choice programs be funded?

Choice

7.) Do you hope to see more or fewer charter schools in Ohio by the end of your tenure? How would you promote quality in the charter sector?

8.) What should determine eligibility for private school scholarships—the quality of a student’s zoned school, income, disability, something else?

9.) What can state policymakers do to support families as they search for quality school options? Would you push urban districts and charter schools to set up common enrollment systems?

Governance and regulation

10.) If a school or district is underperforming, what should be done to help it improve? Are there instances where drastic measures outside of the governance norms of a district are necessary? What do you think of Ohio’s academic distress commission model?

11.) Who do you think should be in charge of education decision making at a state level—the Governor, State Board of Education, the legislature?

12.) How do you view state regulations on schools? Specifically, how do you view Ohio’s teacher evaluation, compensation, and licensure regulations?

Personally, I’d also throw these in for good measure:

13.) What qualifications would you seek for appointees to the State Board of Education?

14.) What types of schools did you go to? What about your children?

This is more useful to know, in my opinion, than whether the candidate has an aunt or sister-in-law who’s a teacher. For example, a candidate who says she supports public education but sends her children to private school might raise a red flag for me if she also opposes providing that same choice to less fortunate families.

15.) What do you think are the biggest problems Ohio faces in K-12 education?

Watch out for common scapegoats, be they “for-profit” charter schools or teachers’ unions. Does the candidate cite specific data grounded in fact? Do they speak with aspiration, with the belief that these problems can be solved, and provide concrete policy solutions?

16.) What ideas are missing in Ohio’s current education policy environment? Can you discuss which states or localities are doing that thing well?

* * *

While everyone will likely have their own set of education questions for gubernatorial candidates, answers to these queries would give voters incredibly valuable information as they decide who will be Ohio’s next chief executive. Education is simply too important to leave answers to chance.

1. I think this story is probably just as cute and benign as it comes across, but just for kicks I’m going to try to be needlessly provocative in clipping it. In the wake of the ECOT debacle/dumpster fire/implosion/horror show/disaster (circle one), a charitable foundation in rural Crawford County has announced a new college scholarship program that is—for the first time that anyone in this pastureland seemingly can recall—open to students who have attended an online school. OMG!/*Gasp!*/I am outraged!/WTF?! (circle one) Why this reckless encouragement of online charter school attendance by well-intentioned philanthropists who should clearly know better? The trustees of the foundation felt it important to offer their scholarship to online students as that option “becomes more popular” among families. Sorry to be the one to break the news to you, Rockefeller, but that option just got several-thousand-kids less popular virtually overnight. (Bucyrus Telegraph Forum, 2/6/18)
    
2. Despite the actual provocative headline, there are very few clues in this preview of Lorain CEO David Hardy’s upcoming town hall meeting, in which he is to reveal some more nitty-gritty details of his plan to improve academic achievement in the district. But you can probably forgive the people of Lorain worrying when someone starts talking about “re-envisioning” the Colossus of Lorain (a.k.a. the schmancy “newest building of almost any kind in Lorain” high school). I would tread lightly over this particular hallowed ground if I were you, Hardy. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 2/6/18) Speaking of school buildings, it took a few weeks, but Columbus City Schools has decided that possible building closures should be on the list of budget cutting options under consideration as the board faces down that big ol’ deficit. (Columbus Dispatch, 2/6/18) Just a single new building is all the folks at tiny Northridge Local Schools are asking for. I can’t imagine why it’s so hard to convince the public—what with an ever-shrinking student population and an equal number of kids using open enrollment to go both out of and in to the district. Spending millions to build a new school should probably be just the ticket, right? (Newark Advocate, 2/2/18)
    
3. We have two stories of school improvement efforts that don’t involve big money or levy votes or bulldozers. First up, the “I AM” Wall proposed for one Akron elementary school. Glover CLC is soliciting donations of framed mirrors to line an entire wall in the building. Each will feature a positive or aspirational statement beneath it to inspire students. (Akron Beacon Journal, 2/5/18) Secondly, I give you “Culture Shook”, an exchange program in which students from urban, suburban, and rural school districts visit one another to learn how the other third live. No, I don’t know who named it. Why do you ask? (ThisWeek News, 2/5/18)
    
4. To end today on the most pragmatic note possible, the sponsor of Senate Bill 216 says that his legislation will likely undergo some more changes before moving forward. You will recall that this is the so-called “education deregulation” bill proposing to clear away a lot of red tape around areas such as testing, teacher licensure, and dual enrollment. I dunno, Yer Honor, if ODE is opposed and “more than 150 boards of education” are in support of the bill as is, maybe you’ve already hit the legislative gold mine. (Gongwer Ohio, 2/5/18)

The single best thing that could happen to American education in the next few years would be for the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) to begin regularly reporting state-by-state results at the twelfth grade level.

That this isn’t happening today is a lamentable omission, albeit one with multiple causes. But it’s fixable. All it requires is determination by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to make this change, some more contracting and sampling by the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), and either a smallish additional appropriation or some repurposing of present NAEP budgets.

Way back in the late Middle Ages (i.e., 1988), Congress authorized NAEP to begin gathering and reporting state-level data to states that wanted it. This was a direct response to frustration on the part of governors in the aftermath of A Nation at Risk that they could not validly compare their own states’ academic performance to that of the nation or other states. Secretary Bell had responded with the famous “Wall Chart” of the mid-80’s, but its comparisons were based on SAT scores and other measures that were neither representative nor helpful for gauging achievement in the elementary and middle grades.

The Council of Chief State School Officers finally withdrew its ancient hostility to interstate comparisons, the Southern Regional Education Board piloted some comparisons among its member states, and the Alexander-James commission (chaired by then-Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander) recommended that NAEP take this on. In short order, an old-fashioned bipartisan agreement emerged, this time between the Reagan Administration and Senator Ted Kennedy.

Initially dubbed the “Trial State Assessment,” it was voluntary, it was limited to grades four and eight, and states that wanted in had to share the cost. But participation grew swiftly. By 1996, for example, forty-seven states and territories took part in the fourth grade math assessment and forty-four opted into eighth grade math. Already, more than thirty jurisdictions could see how their 1996 results compared with their 1992 results in math—and much the same thing happened in reading.

Then came NCLB in 2001 and suddenly all states were required to take part in fourth and eighth grade math and reading. The assessment cycle was accelerated to every two years, and Uncle Sam paid the full tab. (The Trial Urban District Assessment also launched in 2002 with six participating cities. By 2017, there were twenty-seven.)

Yet twelfth grade NAEP remained almost entirely confined to the national level, although NAGB and NCES piloted some state participation in 2009 and 2013, with thirteen states volunteering in the latter year. That it was tried shows that it can be done. But there’s been no follow-up. State-level twelfth grade data wasn’t even an option in the 2015 or 2017 assessment cycles.

Why the neglect? Budget has surely been a factor, but only one. Keep in mind that federal policy—at least the test-related elements of it—has concentrated on the elementary and middle grades and the only statutory NAEP mandates are for grades four and eight. Moreover, high-school curricula are more varied and a lot of kids are no longer in school by twelfth grade, meaning that a sample represents students but not all young people in that age group. There’s also been widespread mistrust of the twelfth grade assessment itself, particularly as to whether students take it seriously and produce reliable data.

To examine the latter point, NCES and NAGB undertook many studies, convened expert panels, and more. The upshot is pretty convincing evidence that kids do complete the twelfth grade test faithfully enough to yield solid results. What’s more, another set of studies undertaken by NAGB showed that a “proficient” score on the twelfth grade reading assessment—and a somewhat lower cut-point on the math test—are good proxies for “college readiness.” (Career readiness is less clear. Jobs are so varied and proficiency in reading and math is just part of what’s needed. NAEP isn’t an optimal gauge.)

Now consider where things stand in American education in 2018. Several developments seem to me compelling.

First, as is well known, ESSA has restored greater authority over education—and school accountability—to the states. States therefore have greater need for trustworthy data on education outcomes.

Second, the country is all but obsessed with whether kids are “college and career ready” at the end of high school—and also obsessed (with increasingly worrisome side effects) with graduation rates.

Yet, third, it’s really hard for educators and policy makers to know what college-ready means, how many of the students in one’s school, district, or state are attaining that level, and how that compares with other states and the nation as a whole. The Common Core State Standards did a good job of cumulating to college and (they said) career readiness by the end of high school, but that’s only helpful if states use those or equally rigorous academic standards and if the assessments based on such standards are truly aligned with them, have rigorous scoring standards, and set their “cut scores” at levels that denote readiness for college-level work.

For political reasons, however, dozens of states have bailed from—or at least repackaged—the Common Core (at Fordham, we plan to evaluate the standards that were substituted) and the multi-state testing consortia that were supposed to deliver comparable state data are both shrinking and refusing to make interstate comparisons.

The upshot: Even as they write “college and career readiness” rates into their ESSA plans, many states have no reliable way to determine how many of their high school seniors are reaching that point and, regardless of what they use for standards and tests, practically none will be able to make valid comparisons with other states. Which is apt to put even more ill-considered pressure on graduation rates or else throw states back to SAT and ACT results even when those are useless for students who don’t take the tests. (Some states therefore now mandate—and pay for—SAT or ACT results for all their high school students. But those scores can’t be compared with anything from earlier grades.)

Back to NAEP: Now is the perfect time to resume reporting results for twelfth graders on a state-by-state basis and to do so on a regular cycle. As happened with grades four and eight, this could restart on a voluntary basis for jurisdictions that want it and—if federal budgets are tight—they could be asked to cover some of the cost. Reading, writing, and math are the obvious subjects to do this with, but how great it would be also to report twelfth grade state results in other core subjects, particularly science and history!

How often? NAEP scores don’t change much in two years. Four-year intervals would likely suffice for twelfth grade. (Indeed, much money could be recaptured for the budget if fourth and eighth grade reading and math testing were switched back to a four-year cycle, although that change needs Congressional assent.)

What would this do for the country? It would—obviously—give participating states a valid and reliable metric for how many of their students are truly college-ready at the end of high school. Because NAEP is based on a sample, it would discourage the kinds of test prep, credit recovery, grade changing and rate faking that afflict graduation data—and that often afflict state assessments. (Because NAEP employs just a sample of students and schools, it also means less curricular distortion and pressure on teachers.) And it would enable state leaders to see precisely how their twelfth graders are doing when compared with other states and with the country as a whole.

Yes, this really feels like the single best thing that could happen to American education in the next few years. If NAGB, NCES, the Education Department and Congressional appropriators get moving, it could surely happen by the 2021 NAEP cycle—and I’ll bet it could be revived and re-piloted in at least a few states in 2019.

Might such an initiative be announced when the 2017 NAEP results are (finally) unveiled in April?

Louisiana gets a ton of education-related attention, most of it focused on the Recovery School District and the proliferation of charter schools in New Orleans. While these reforms are certainly worth a close look, it’s the state’s quieter efforts on curriculum that may be truly changing the game for students and teachers.

My colleague Robert Pondiscio wrote an in-depth analysis of these initiatives that’s definitely worth a read. The upshot is that education leaders in Louisiana recognized the transformative power of high-quality curriculum and took action. They started by reviewing the curricula that schools used in order to determine rigor, coherency, and alignment to state standards. After identifying the best curricula, Louisiana created incentives for districts to select those materials rather than others. The state also evaluated professional development providers and recommended to schools only the providers who offered trainings specific to the best curricula rather than broad and general strategies. 

So far, these efforts seem to be paying off: Louisiana students have shown improvements on state tests, the ACT, and  AP exams. In addition, the state saw upticks on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in fourth-grade math and reading. By most measures, Louisiana’s strategy appears to be working—and Ohio should consider following a similar path.

Right now, Ohio’s districts and schools are on their own when it comes to evaluating curriculua and materials. This isn’t just a waste of time and effort; it’s also a missed opportunity for collaboration. That’s why Ohio legislators should task the Ohio Department of Education (ODE), or another respected independent organization, to start conducting reviews of textbook and curricular materials. They might also want to consider allocating funds to help support these efforts.

The process could begin by asking districts to report what curricula they’re currently using or have used in the past. This list could serve as the basis for which textbooks and curricular programs the department evaluates first—that way, the materials that impact the highest number of Ohio students will be first under the microscope.

It is of the utmost importance that these reviews are rigorous and easy to understand. Ohio should ensure that its rubrics are evidence-based and similar to the frameworks used by independent evaluators across the country. The Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) evaluates curricular materials with various rubrics for certain grade levels and subjects, and evaluations result in one of three ratings: Tier 1 materials are labeled as exemplifying quality, Tier 2 materials are labeled as approaching quality, and Tier 3 materials are labeled as not representing quality. Although Ohio could craft its own rating labels and rubrics, the system must effectively differentiate curricula based on alignment to state standards, coherency, rigor, and overall quality. 

It’s also important that the bulk of these reviews be conducted by the same people who are responsible for teaching curriculum—the state’s teachers. Again, LDOE offers an important example: Officials in Louisiana’s department selected teacher leaders from various geographical areas and grade levels based on demonstrated teaching and leadership ability. Not only would this leverage the expertise of teachers and ensure educator buy-in, it would also offer districts a way to empower their most effective teachers with leadership roles that don’t require them to leave the classroom.

Most importantly, though, the General Assembly must clearly assert from the start that the results of these reviews have no bearing on which curricula districts choose—local control remains paramount. ODE’s role is to support local districts in curricular decisions by providing independent evaluations of various textbooks and materials. It’s not to make those decisions for schools. Curriculum shouldn’t be a mandate, and local schools must maintain their right to select whichever instructional materials they believe will best serve their students.

That being said, the state has a clear role to play in encouraging adoption of first-rate curricula. Louisiana, for example, gave statewide contracts to the small number of curriculum vendors that achieved a top rating. This was not a mandate—districts were still free to choose whatever curricula they wanted. Those curricula that earned the highest marks from LDOE, however, were typically offered at discounted prices due to their contracts with the state. If Ohio pursued such an approach, this would offer high-quality resources to districts at a discount—without infringing on local control. The state could also follow Louisiana’s lead on teacher PD and recommend only the providers who can offer trainings geared toward the best-reviewed curricula.

Research shows that content-rich, high-quality curricula can improve student outcomes in a cost-effective way. By taking the steps outlined here, Ohio could impact thousands of students in a positive way—all for a fraction of the cost of other school improvement strategies. Sounds like a no-brainer to me. 

Ohio Representative Andrew Brenner has introduced legislation described on the General Assembly’s website as an effort to “revise school funding.” If there were an award for understatement of the year, that might win the prize. The bill (House Bill 102) wouldn’t just “revise” school funding policies; it would revolutionize them—so much so that enacting it requires not only passage through the General Assembly but also approval via statewide referendum.

Given the sweeping changes he is proposing, Representative Brenner has prudently stated that his bill is intended as “a way to open up the discussion about how we traditionally fund schools in Ohio.” This discussion is sorely needed, but let’s also see what is in his bill. What ideas are promising and which deserve greater scrutiny?

The central ideas

The heart of HB 102 is to shift responsibility for school funding to the state level, a significant departure from the hybrid state-local funding system of today. To this end, Brenner would eliminate all district-level taxes and make up the difference with a 2 percent statewide property tax and a hike in the state sales tax. With funding centralized, HB 102 then sets across-the-board per-pupil amounts for all school districts and schools of choice. By scrapping local education funding, HB 102 is able to eliminate the complex formula adjustments that presently try to account for districts’ varying wealth.

The other important idea is that dollars would flow, on a per-student basis, to the institution that is actually educating the child. Two provisions in HB 102 make that clear: First, the state directly finances all districts and schools of choice based on their enrollment. This is an important change as more students choose to attend non-district schools. Under HB 102, no longer would Ohio use circuitous methods whereby choice students are first deemed district pupils and then money is deducted from that district. Instead, schools of attendance would begin to emerge as the targets of the funding system.[1] Second, the bill would scrap funding caps and guarantees. Because caps suppress state revenue when districts enroll more students and guarantees shield them from losses tied to enrollment declines, eliminating both would move Ohio further toward true per-pupil funding based on where students attend school.

An illustration of HB 102 in action

The table below illustrates, at a high level, how HB 102’s funding approach compares to current policy. It doesn’t show exactly how funding amounts would change, just the key differences in the policy frameworks. It displays data from Urbana City Schools, a small-town district west of Columbus, and Sycamore Community Schools, a property-rich suburb near Cincinnati. These districts were selected in part because they’re not currently subject to caps or guarantees, and hence receive state funds determined just by the formula; neither district has many students in choice programs either (less than 1 percent). These features help to simplify the illustration.

Table 1: Comparison of per-pupil funding under current policy and HB 102

[[{"fid":"119944","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"link_text":null,"type":"media","field_deltas":{"1":{"format":"default"}},"attributes":{"class":"media-element file-default","data-delta":"1"}}]]

Notes: This does not include state or local transportation and facilities funds, and it excludes federal and non-tax revenue. Urbana levies a 3.608 percent effective property tax; Sycamore 4.255 percent. For simplicity, this table bases calculations on the assumption that all resident students (in FY 18) attend district schools. Sources: Ohio Department of Education, Foundation Funding Reports (January #1, FY 18) and Ohio Department of Taxation, Tax Data Series (TY 16).

A few observations:

• Base Amount: Under current policy, districts must assess at least a 2 percent property tax in order to receive state foundation funding. Due to wealth differences, districts generate varying amounts on this tax rate: Urbana, for example, raises an estimated $2,387 per student versus $6,124 in Sycamore. To equalize the base amounts, the state contributes more to Urbana than to Sycamore: $3,269 per student through its core Opportunity Grant versus just $291 for Sycamore. Another $595 per student is allocated to Urbana via Targeted Assistance and Capacity Aid, funds that are also based on local wealth. In a roundabout way, current policy creates a more or less equal funding base for all districts. However, as this table shows, HB 102 is more straightforward: It simply sets an equal funding base of $8,720 per student for all districts; this clear and explicit base amount is an admirable feature of the proposal.
• Supplemental Funding: Current policy drives additional funding to districts in a couple of ways. First, the state provides extra dollars atop the base amount when districts enroll students with special needs (e.g., disabilities or economically disadvantaged). These categorical funds are adjusted for wealth so that higher-poverty districts receive more aid. Under HB 102, all districts receive full categorical amounts, resulting in higher state funding across both districts. Second, many districts generate revenue through locally approved property taxes above the 2 percent floor; in fact, the average tax rate in Ohio in 2016 was 3.8 percent. But HB 102 prohibits such local supplementation. In Sycamore, this leads to a large reduction, while Urbana is less affected due to its lower tax rate and property values. Property-rich districts with high tax rates, such as Sycamore, will likely face significant funding declines if HB 102 were enacted; this reality, plus several other issues discussed below, could make the Brenner plan a tough sell.

Issues to consider

The beauty of the funding system proposed in HB 102 is its simplicity, transparency, and predictability, as a well as a fundamental sort of statewide equity. Practically any elected leader could explain this type of system to their constituents. With fewer variables in the formula, schools should be able to better predict their revenues. Moreover, HB 102 better centers funding on where students actually attend school, regardless of whether that is a district, public charter, STEM, or chartered nonpublic school. The legislation also places all districts and schools on equal footing in terms of funding amounts, while also providing additional resources for students with greater needs. It would also put an end to the bewildering array of local levies—such as operating, incremental, emergency, and bond—that citizens are currently asked to vote on, and the campaigns in which districts and their supporters seem to spend an inordinate amount of time trying to win.

Still, for all of its elegance and simplicity, the plan would face an uphill battle to garner support—or to sustain it should the legislation pass.

Local autonomy: The present system preserves citizens’ right to voluntarily tax themselves at higher rates. This form of local autonomy ensures that citizens wanting to spend more money on education have a legal means to do so; and in the view of many, districts pay closer attention to constituents as they must win voter approval for taxes. If HB 102 is enacted, will Ohioans just petition the legislature for local taxing authority all over again? Will districts feel less pressure to meet local needs? Both are plausible. It’s also possible that residents—especially those living in high-tax districts—will simply resort to private contributions in the absence of local school taxes, something that occurred in Vermont when it shifted to a centralized funding system. Public school purists may cringe at this, though others who view education as a public-private good may not have the same concerns. Lastly, with the state government picking up the full funding tab, legislators may use power of the purse to impose their priorities and preferences, for better or worse, on all Ohio schools, perhaps leading to concerns about regulatory overreach.

Property inflation: A longstanding policy in Ohio is known as “tax reduction factors” whereby increases in property values are usually exempt from school taxes. In its proposal for a statewide property tax, HB 102 retains these reduction factors. As a result, the state won’t collect additional revenue when home values rise, though it will generate new revenue on construction. As the Legislative Service Commission writes, “A 5.0% increase in real property value will generally lead to a smaller increase (1.0%, for example) in real property tax revenue for the state.” With the property tax base more or less stuck at current real-estate values, revenues on this statewide tax could stagnate over the long run, and education funding may not keep pace with economic growth. If there is a move to a statewide property tax, legislators would need to find ways to ensure sufficient revenue growth for Ohio schools well into the future.

Property versus consumption taxes: HB 102 would increase the state sales tax from 5.75 to 7.35 percent to generate the revenue needed to fund this model. While many property owners would enjoy a substantial tax break—especially those in the highest-tax districts—they would also face higher sales taxes. Modelling tax effects is notoriously difficult, but policymakers would need to consider the potential economic consequences of shifting from property to consumption taxes.

Chartered nonpublic schools: Perhaps the most provocative aspect of HB 102 is the incorporation of chartered nonpublic (i.e., private) schools into the state’s funding system. They would receive the same per-pupil base and categorical amounts as their public-school counterparts. With full state funding for all private-school pupils, HB 102 would scrap the state’s voucher programs as well as today’s modest appropriations for auxiliary services and administrative costs for private schools. It also calls for state testing of all nonpublic school students. Although many developed nations fund their private schools (but don’t operate them), the wide-ranging proposal here would be remarkable for the United States where public support for private schools has generally been limited to targeted voucher programs. HB 102 sets forth a different, more pluralistic vision for Ohio’s school system: Taxpayer funds would support schools with varying missions, governance structures, and religious convictions. Strong objections, some on ideological grounds, would undoubtedly be registered, while critics would also likely argue that this amounts to a windfall for upper-middle-class families already paying tuition. And there’s no guarantee that all chartered nonpublic schools would participate, given the new exam requirements; some might move to “non-chartered” status, refusing state funds in return for autonomy. Nevertheless, this framework would better allow all families (who all pay taxes) the freedom to choose schools that meet their educational needs and correspond to their most deeply held beliefs.

* * *

Hats off to Representative Brenner for putting this proposal on the table. Many of the ideas behind HB 102 have merit, especially its emphasis on a simple, transparent funding system. Clear, equal base per-student funding for all districts and schools of choice would be another major advance. However, the proposal would face headwinds, especially from those residing in more prosperous districts where funding might decline. And perhaps there’s not enough discontent with the current funding system to storm the Bastille and upend the status quo in the way imagined in this bill. These realities likely favor incremental approaches—and Buckeye policymakers should certainly consider several workable provisions from HB 102 that would move the funding system in the right direction. They include dumping caps and guarantees, simplifying the funding formula, and financing choice programs directly from the state. Nonetheless, for the school-funding revolutionaries out there, vive la révolution! 

1. Northeast Ohio’s own version of the Loch Ness Monster has reared his head again, and it looks like he might want to stick around a while this time. Denessie Kucinich says he’s running for governor, you see, using lots of the same rhetoric and ideas that he’s floated before. To wit: giving control of the state’s charter schools over to the elected school boards in the districts in which they operate. Fordham’s Chad Aldis is on hand to offer a simpler solution which would accomplish Denessie’s ultimate aim a little more easily. If only he’ll listen to sage advice. (Toledo Blade, 2/2/18)
    
2. Speaking of charter schools, a page A1, top-of-the-fold news item in yesterday’s Dispatch noted that “GOP-dominated areas of Ohio have few charter schools in them.” Why do you suppose the D would bring up a weird factoid like that so prominently just now? (Columbus Dispatch, 2/4/18) Probably because there was, further down in the article mix yesterday, a piece that asked the question “will ECOT be the next scandal that brings Democrats to power in Ohio”? Allow me to consult my Magic 8 Ball. (Columbus Dispatch, 2/4/18)
    
3. Back in the real world, Hudson schools admit to having some trouble adjusting to Ohio’s new method of reporting student absences and truancy. Remember, Hudsonians, that bean counting stuff is important here in Ohio. See above if you don’t believe me. (My Town NEO, 2/5/18)
    
4. Also in the real world: editors in Sandusky posted a pretty scathing editorial today regarding recent changes to a beloved afterschool program in the Campbell school district. (Sandusky Register, 2/5/18)
    
5. In news that’s perhaps a bit too real: students in the auto repair program at Max Hayes High School in Cleveland have completed rebuilding a city police cruiser destroyed during the celebration of the Cleveland Cavaliers’ NBA championship in 2016. I have so many questions. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 2/3/18)
    
6. Finally today, a former synagogue in Zanesville has been purchased by the city school district and is to become the site for its JROTC program. Mazel tov and semper fi, y’all! (Zanesville Times Recorder, 2/4/18)

Malcolm X once said, “Education is our passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to the people who prepare for it today.” 

Wise words. Education has long been the source of opportunity, a passport if you will, for Americans to pursue a better life. But education isn’t a passive activity; it’s earned through hard work, preparation, attainment.

Starting in 2009, Ohio began to move away from a relatively low benchmark of competency—the Ohio Graduation Tests[1] (OGT)—and toward the more rigorous expectations of high school end-of-course exams as a precondition for obtaining a diploma.[2] The impetus was that too few students in Ohio were leaving high school with the skills necessary either to enroll in postsecondary education without costly remediation or to enter the workforce. The new system, deemed the “College and Work Ready Assessment System,” was designed to require more work on the part of students to be successful and to act as an effective replacement of the OGTs and their low expectations.

Just as the requirements were finally set to be enforced, however, concerns that too few students would meet the higher bar resulted in development of a new and much less demanding graduation option for the class of 2018. Students would be able to receive a diploma for completing two of nine alternative measures, some of which had nothing to do with academic attainment. We’ve roundly criticized this smorgasbord option as a route to leaving Ohio again hungry for graduates who possess fundamental skills in core subjects like math, English, history, and science.

At first, the easy path applied only to the class of 2018. Recently, however, the State Board of Education voted to recommend to the legislature that the “temporary” framework be extended to the classes of 2019 and 2020. That is seriously and tragically unwise. Making it easy to graduate was a bad idea last year, and it’s even worse as it moves from a one year exception to a pattern and practice.

Here are five better approaches that deserve serious consideration if Ohio hopes to deliver on the promise of preparing young people for the world they’ll face tomorrow. Underlying all five are these key precepts: all students can learn and reach Ohio’s graduation requirements; receiving a great education remains the surest path toward a better life; work and college ask more of students than ever before; and incentives inform behavior, such that policy solutions should be structured in a manner to encourage all students to reach their potential.

1. Hold the line

Ohio’s fundamental graduation problem hasn’t changed. Too few students are leaving high school ready for either college or work. If higher expectations were important before, it’s imperative that we maintain them going forward. It’s true that those seeking an easier path to graduation are worried that the demanding version will create a graduation crisis. Yet early data from the Ohio Department of Education offer little support for their concern. The data suggest that 77 percent of the class of 2018 are highly likely to meet the graduation requirements based upon either EOC exams or remediation-free ACT/SAT scores. This doesn’t include students who will complete the industry-credential pathway or those with disabilities who will receive a diploma without passing state testing requirements. While not an apples-to-apples comparison, these numbers suggest that even with higher expectations, Ohio is fairly close to matching its current 83 percent high school graduation rate.

2. Encourage students who need it to take a fifth year

Even though all students can learn, some undoubtedly need more time to master certain concepts. In an era when we talk about the merits of academic mastery, making it clear to young people that it’s okay to take an additional year to acquire the skills they’ll need after high school could pay off for them as well as for the state in the long run. While traditional high schools are likely to be the first choice, Ohio could also explore creating educational centers to focus on shoring up academic deficiencies or assisting students interested in acquiring industry credentials. This approach complements option 1 and reinforces the principle that all students—given time and the proper support—can reach Ohio’s graduation requirements. The drawback is that widespread use of an extra year, if it came to that, would carry a price tag. Yet that cost doesn’t begin to match the long term cost of students dropping out of college and struggling in the workplace.

3. Phase in the end-of-course exam requirements

Speaking of time, another option would be to give schools and students more time to adjust to higher expectations. The state board of education has specified that students must achieve eighteen cumulative points on the seven required EOC exams.[3] There’s nothing magical about the number eighteen, though. The state board could phase it in, maybe starting with fourteen or fifteen and adding a point every year or two. This would offer quick relief and would also deal with the issue transparently. Transparency is critical—and so is framing. Discussions around easing the path for the class of 2018 purported to suggest that easier was also better, fairer, and more holistic. Scarcely mentioned by policy makers was the fact that any student receiving a diploma under the alternative measure couldn’t objectively demonstrate competency in core academic skills. If Ohio decides to lower its academic demands, then those in power need to own that decision and speak the truth about it. 

4. Dual diploma

A less conventional option is to create a dual diploma arrangement. While we’d always prefer to keep one rigorous diploma with universally high expectations, the exception for the class of 2018 and the proposal to expand it to future years suggests that the political will of the governor, legislature, and state board may not make that possible. In that case, a dual diploma presents a creative option. The standard version would require students to complete state-mandated courses[4] and any other requirements adopted by a local school board. Each district might tailor this diploma to meet the needs of its community. A second diploma option, a “college- and career-ready” diploma, would be structured along the lines of Ohio’s graduation requirements before they were eased for the class of ‘18. Keeping this higher bar in place would preserve an incentive for both schools and students to achieve at the higher level needed for success in college and career.[5] But it would also ensure that young people who meet basic standards, as determined by their local schools, receive a credential when they exit high school. Schools and districts would need to report on the number of students reaching the state’s higher-level diploma. Students should also be encouraged to strive for the enhanced credential with a series of potential incentives that could range from official recognition, a remediation-free certificate for future post-secondary coursework, loan forgiveness opportunities, or even a dedicated scholarship fund.

5. Combination of academic and non-academic indicators

Finally, Ohio could consider something akin to the graduation pathway that Indiana is implementing for its class of 2023. While deserving of a more detailed analysis (coming soon in a future Ohio Gadfly), the Hoosier State will require all students to 1) meet curricular requirements; 2) learn and demonstrate employability skills; AND 3) complete some type of postsecondary competency like achieving certain test scores or earning recognized credentials. This approach differs from Ohio’s alternative pathway for the class of 2018 in its requirement for employability skills to be demonstrated in addition to, rather than in place of, academic competency. In addition, Indiana did a fine job in identifying achievements under its competency requirement that could translate quickly into successful entry into the workforce (CTE Concentrator, recognized apprenticeship), the military (ASVAB passage), or postsecondary education (ACT/SAT scores). The upside of this proposal is that it doesn’t eliminate the requirement of students to demonstrate competencies that lead to success after high school but instead requires a blend of academic and non-academic options.

* * *

Whatever option Ohio pursues, we need to be true to our principles. All students can learn, incentives matter, life demands more than ever, and education remains the surest path to prosperity. Most importantly, we must remember that the passport an education provides needs to be more than a piece of paper. It’s a mark of preparation, not a rite of passage. If we forget that, any value we place on education—and by extension a diploma—will disappear.

1. Not much to report on today that isn’t shameless politicking or overt criminality. So what does that leave us with? John Kasich, that’s what. Mr. Kasich, who is, I am given to understand, not running for anything at the moment, told some reporters yesterday that he is in favor of doing away with an elected state board of education. That guy. Didn’t he used to be the governor or something? (Gongwer Ohio, 2/1/18)
    
2. Folks in North central Ohio are celebrating 30 years since the merger of Firelands Local Schools with South Amherst Schools. My how time flies. Sounds like a positive outcome for both communities at this remove, but I do wonder how much doom and gloom was predicted by opponents back in 1988. I would go try and look it up, but I am afraid of what fiery rhetoric I might uncover, not to mention the photographs of all those people in shoulder pads and giant hair. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 2/1/18)

Fordham’s recent report, Is There a Gifted Gap?, examines income- and race-based differences in gifted programming in American schools and unearths plenty of bad news. Students in low-poverty schools are more than twice as likely to participate in gifted programs than their peers at high-poverty schools, for example, and even when black and Hispanic K–8 students attend schools that offer such programs, they participate at much lower rates than white and Asian children.

The report also offers some welcome-sounding information: Gifted programs exist in 68 percent of U.S. primary and middle schools, and overall they’re equally likely to be offered in low-and high-poverty schools. Yet even this seemingly sunnier news masks the deeply disappointing state of gifted education in America in 2018.

Authors Christopher Yaluma and Adam Tyner used school-reported data from the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. This is the best source for their purposes, but it also has serious flaws. As Yaluma and Tyner aptly note:

Because of the nature of the data, we use binary classifications of gifted enrollment for students. We do not have data on the quality or characteristics of gifted programming, although this is known to vary considerably across schools. Whether gifted programming is targeted to specific subjects, what types of professional development that teachers of gifted students experience, and the extent to which students can engage curriculum outside of their grade level are questions beyond the scope of the report. Further, we have no information about what constitutes “gifted programming,” as OCR provides no guidance to states about what to include or exclude.

In other words, there is no standard—or even a worthwhile definition—for what constitutes a “gifted program.” If the school employee filling out the OCR form believes that his or her building has one, then it does, according to these data.

The primary problem with this approach is that, even among practitioners and advocates, “gifted programming” is a massive umbrella under which fall myriad different sorts of services of widely varying degrees of intensity and quality. Here, for example, is a non-exhaustive list from the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC):

Gifted programming can be provided in a combination of ways, including pull-out programs; special classes in a subject or interest area; special state schools (e.g., Indiana Academy for Science, Mathematics, and Humanities) or local magnet schools; afterschool, Saturday, or summer programs; Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, or other dual-enrollment courses; distance learning; and other similar services.

Yes, a “special state school” and an “afterschool activity” are both designed to benefit gifted kids. But they have virtually nothing else in common. In the former, bright students enjoy programming that essentially comprises 100 percent of their scholastic time. But what percent does an afterschool activity comprise? Five percent? One percent?

There’s also variance within each item on NAGC’s list. As children, my wife and I were both in pull-out programs, for example, which are generally considered among the more robust gifted offerings. In my program, some sixty students identified as gifted in each grade, 4–8, were split into two classes and educated in all of our core subjects via specially designed curricula. Only elective classes combined both identified and other students. By contrast, my wife’s elementary school program consisted of just one hour each week, during which time she and other identified children would sit in a separate classroom and superficially cover academic topics in nonacademic ways—such as exploring medieval history by practicing calligraphy.

So it’s hard to feel super positive about this report’s more positive finding—that more than two-thirds of schools offer gifted programs. Lurking therein may be as many as four bits of bad news:

1. Thirty-two percent of schools evidently don’t devote any time or effort, during school, after school, or on the weekend, to their gifted students.
2. Among the 68 percent of schools that report doing something in this realm, many “programs” may be nothing more than a meager supplements that are unlikely to make much of a difference in their students’ achievement.
3. For those that manage to offer more robust gifted programming, many will staff it with teachers (or non-teachers) who have not been trained to educate bright students.
4. For the probably-small fraction of schools that avoid the preceding pitfalls, many will under-identify and therefore under-serve low-income, black, Hispanic, and Native American children.

Disgracefully, nobody has national data by which to determine the size of the groups that comprise items two through four on this list—which means, of course, that nobody really knows how many American schools truly do gifted education well. I submit that the number is very small. 

We need to change this, and doing so means better standards, better data collection, better reporting—and, above all, better gifted programs that benefit boys and girls from all backgrounds. The lack thereof is a massive, nationwide problem that hurts children of every color and creed but does the greatest harm to the most vulnerable. So let’s view the findings in Fordham’s recent report for what they are: yet another clarion call to better support our brightest students.

The new Fordham Institute report, Is There a Gifted Gap?, gave me a lot of food for thought this week.

Let’s start with some important positives: Although gifted education research is in many ways thriving, attention to policy research has been woefully underdeveloped, and this study is a major contribution to filling that void. I’ve also been encouraging colleagues to dig into the U.S. Department of Education’s Office For Civil Rights data for a couple years, and it’s nice to see someone do so, and with a substantial payoff. The results also line up with other recent research, providing valid evidence for the findings. For example, the six states with more than 90 percent of high-poverty schools offering gifted programs are similar to those that score highest on an upcoming Jack Kent Cooke Foundation report on state-level policies to close excellence gaps (the first edition is available here). The recommended solutions in this report are also right on the money, which I’ll return to in a bit.

There are, however, some important caveats that readers should consider:

1. As you work down to the local level, I suspect the results will look different. For example, only two years ago there was not a single elementary school gifted program in four of New York City’s twenty-eight districts. That situation has changed (a little), thanks in large part to the use of strategies recommended in this report. But still, how did no one in the district office not think this was a problem? Districts around the country should use this report as a starting point and investigate subgroup participation rates within each school, not just at the district level.
2. I wonder if the data would look different if the sample were divided into states that mandate programming for advanced students (twenty-eight at last count) and those that do not. My quick, back-of-the-envelope analysis of the report data suggests there is a difference, but I’d like to see Fordham—or anybody—look at this distinction.
3. Breadth and quality of services matters, and those data were not available to the researchers. But, for example, consider the states noted in the report for enrolling more than 10 percent of their black and Hispanic students in gifted programs: Kentucky, Maryland, and New Hampshire. I’ve spent time on the ground in all three states, and I can assure you that program breadth and quality is much, much higher in two of them, and those states are also making serious efforts to close excellence gaps. Advocates in the third state would give up their firstborns to have almost any attention paid to advanced learners in their state. And there are massive differences in the sizes of those populations within each state. So state demographics matter when interpreting these data.

Regardless of these caveats, the results tell us something important, and they lead to additional, more complex questions (which is the point of research after all).

My main criticism is that I don’t like the title. I would have preferred “Is There a Gifted Programming Gap?” We already have a rich literature on excellence gaps and identification gaps, so the title doesn’t tell the reader what the report is really about—and implies it could be about a range of topics that it doesn’t directly address.

With respect to future directions, I strongly endorse the authors’ recommendations. Indeed, my colleagues and I have made the same suggestions (see here and here). Universal screening is a no-brainer, and recent research suggests it helps narrow participation gaps significantly. Although some of my colleagues disagree with me, I believe this screening can largely be done using existing data at low cost.

But such screening identifies advanced performers, not all students with advanced potential. That second number is much higher than the first, and probably a heck of a lot higher than people realize. Using local norms helps in this regard—and I’m about the fullest-throated proponent of local norms you’ll find—but it still doesn’t close opportunity gaps. The opportunity gap I’m most worried about is access to high-quality advanced learning with frontloading to ensure students are ready to capitalize on those opportunities. That’s the gap that vexes us, and that’s also where the authors’ third recommendation comes into play.

“Counter bias in identifying and serving minority gifted students” feels like a 30,000-foot recommendation, especially after the first two boots-on-the-ground recommendations regarding universal screening and local norms. But correcting this bias is the key to solving the problem once and for all.

The belief that black, Hispanic, Native American, and poor students are simply “not gifted” is pervasive. A few years ago, when I shared stories of principals telling me they didn’t have gifted students because “We’re a mostly black/Hispanic/poor school,” people often didn’t believe me (“We’re postracial!,” etc.). They tend to believe me now. Fighting this systemic bias is the only way to really solve this problem.

My recommendation is to focus our intervention efforts on our most struggling schools. I’m growing tired of demonstration projects in schools that are among the best performing in otherwise low-performing district. This isn’t uncommon, and it allows educational leaders and policymakers to say, “Well, it may work there, but our school is 100 percent black, 100 percent free lunch, and 50 percent homeless, so it would never work here.” However, if we focus on truly low-performing schools, we take that excuse off the table and start to chip away at the racial and class biases that allow excellence gaps to flourish.

And closing excellence gaps by focusing on the lowest-performing schools is do-able. Alberto Carvalho in Miami-Dade has seen impressive AP gains in schools that had never previously offered AP, and Pedro Martinez in San Antonio is essentially overhauling the entire, very poor district using gifted education and advanced learning principles. I’m working with the Sports and Arts in Schools Foundation at an elementary school in the Bronx to use gifted education principles (including universal screening, local norms, frontloading, and personalization) to shrink excellence gaps.

Excellence gaps are among our country’s most serious problems. They widen inequality, rob students of their intellectual dignity, and cause serious cultural and economic damage due to lost talent. We need to build on this helpful report to conduct additional policy research on advanced education, use universal screening with local norms to close identification gaps, and attack the widespread bias that restricts access to high quality programming. We have talented students in every single school in this country. As this report reminds us, it’s time to start acting like we believe that.

Jonathan Plucker is the Julian C. Stanley Endowed Professor of Talent Development at Johns Hopkins University.

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