The movement to expand career readiness is growing across the country. After reviewing all fifty-one state Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) plans for our new joint brief, “Mapping Career Readiness in State ESSA Plans,” we found that almost all include at least one strategy to advance this work. Much more so than in the past, states are simultaneously creating more of these opportunities and holding schools accountable for their number of career-ready students. This is a significant shift in state policymaking that, if implemented in equitable and high quality ways, has the potential to benefit millions of learners.

Unfortunately, it is too soon to declare victory because most states failed to fully leverage ESSA’s flexibility to advance career readiness. For example, few states aligned their long-term goals to their vision for success, leaving many states’ overall strategy for supporting learners’ college-and-career readiness little more than rhetoric. And very few states leveraged ESSA to promote the integration of academic and technical instruction into their professional development or standards.

Seven findings—some good, some bad—are particularly noteworthy:

• Forty-nine states’ ESSA plans included at least one strategy to expand career readiness.
• Thirty-five plans included a career-focused metric in their high school accountability rating systems. The most common measures were dual enrollment, industry-recognized credentials, and work-based learning opportunities.
• More than half of states included a statewide vision for college and career readiness in their ESSA plans. Yet only thirteen addressed career readiness in their long-term goals.
• Thirty-six states used Title IV funding to encourage districts to support career and technical education (CTE) and career readiness. But only fifteen described specific state-level activities that will accomplish this.
• Eleven plans included efforts to attract qualified professionals, train current teachers to better understand career readiness, and develop “grow your own” teacher pathways in high school. However, only seven states committed Title II funding to those activities.
• Zero states connected career readiness to their academic standards and assessments.
• Five states will use CTE or career pathways to support critically low-performing schools.

While the news is mixed, some progress is especially heartening—such as the lattermost finding. This is an area where states have a lot of room to support career-readiness activities for some of the students who need them most. Ohio, for example, plans to encourage low-performing high schools to implement CTE as part of their school improvement plans. And, in Idaho, a member of the state agency that oversees CTE is also a member of the state team that coordinates supports for schools identified for improvement.

It is also important to remember that ESSA plans are still just, well, plans. States still need to translate their words into actual policies, programs, and supports, which affect the day-to-day operations of schools and classrooms. Through this implementation, states and districts can take numerous steps to strengthen and expand career readiness:

• Review gaps in access to and participation in high-quality career pathways and offer resources and assistance to close those gaps.
• Ensure that career pathways are equitably provided.
• Provide professional development to better integrate academic and technical content.
• Establish business rules to ensure career-readiness data are effectively collected and measured.
• Publicly report the results of college-and-career-readiness measures.
• Integrate career readiness into school improvement strategies.

State leaders must harness this opportunity to truly provide all students with meaningful pathways to success beyond high school. We look forward to furthering this goal by spotlighting promising practices and working across states as they implement their ESSA plans.

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

I don’t know about you, but for the most part, I shut down my social media and news apps over the winter holiday this year. As it turns out, tending to your neighbor’s chickens, building gingerbread houses, and riding sleds are all good strategies for recovering from the dumpster fire that was 2017. Meanwhile, some major education policy news in Ohio unfolded. Take a look at what you might have missed.

1) New Ohio right-to-work proposals were unveiled. Just before Christmas, Republican representatives John Becker and Craig Riedel introduced six Joint House Resolutions meant to scale back the power of public and private sector unions. Most notably, the proposals (HJR 7-12) would prohibit the automatic deduction of union dues from employee pay, forbid union fees from being spent for political purposes without permission from employees, and ban requirements imposed on contractors to pay workers the prevailing wage. Restrictions on dues would have enormous implications for teachers unions in Ohio. Agency fees are also a topic at the core of the U.S. Supreme Court case, Janus v. AFSCME (though the proposed resolutions go beyond union dues).

Right-to-work legislation in Ohio is certainly nothing new: Rep. Becker has proposed (less-reaching) iterations of it in the past, and few can forget the statewide referendum that repealed the historic overhaul of collective bargaining rights, Senate Bill 5, in 2012. The current goal is to get these proposals to the 2020 ballot and let voters decide for themselves (again)—a move that Akron Beacon Journal’s Doug Livingston says is unlikely given the somewhat onerous steps required (House leadership would need to move it to a floor vote, even after previous iterations died in the finance committee; then it would need a supermajority passage in the House; then follow the same process through the Senate). And lest we forget, Governor Kasich—who’d have to sign the resolutions—simply may not want to, given the overwhelming defeat of SB 5 and his own centrist political aspirations. Regardless of how far these particular proposals may get, expect right-to-work conversations to continue—whether through the Janus case or local initiatives.

2) ECOT’s final reckoning drew near(er). The nation’s largest e-school, now infamous to almost all Ohioans and many national observers as well, showed up in our 2017 ranking of top stories and is on the docket for education issues likely to continue to seize the spotlight in the new year. The Ohio Supreme Court has just announced February 13 as the date for hearing oral arguments in the case between ECOT and the Ohio Department of Education. If the court rules against ECOT, enabling the state to continue collecting $60 million in repayment, it could represent the final blow for the school.

Those of us who’ve watched this saga know that an ECOT closure would bring with it some major fallout. For starters, thousands of students would need to transfer to a brick-and-mortar school or to other statewide virtual charters. (Though only a small portion of ECOT students could do the latter; Ohio’s enrollment caps for e-schools limit the number of students who can enroll each year). If ECOT’s students are anywhere near as disadvantaged as the school claims they are—in ways that go beyond even demographic factors like socioeconomic status, disability, or race—receiving schools may have a tough job ahead to serve them well. Students who are severely credit deficient and off track to graduate in four years will take a toll on the Big 8 districts and others who enroll them. It also may send shock waves to Ohio’s other e-schools, many of which face similar repayments to the department and almost all of which are wondering how this case will ultimately shake out. Even so, it behooves the state to get it right on how it tracks student learning in virtual environments—not only to safeguard taxpayer money, but to protect students from shoddy instruction and falling behind. Either way, expect greater clarity when it comes to the logistics of attendance tracking and an ongoing debate about seat time, competency-based learning, school payments, and more.

3) Reducing the reliance on student test scores in teacher evaluations. In mid December, Sen. Lehner introduced SB 240, a bill that would move the state away from using student growth scores for up to half of a teacher’s rating and instead toward recommendations proposed by the Ohio Educator Standards Board last year. No longer would districts be required to use student data derived from the state-approved assessments as a portion of a teacher’s rating; instead, districts would be able to use other “high-quality student data” and to embed this into a revised Ohio Teacher Evaluation System rubric. Given that OTES failed to differentiate teachers—and that the student growth inclusion was a reason for serious backlash—SB 240 could be a sensible step in the right direction. Meanwhile, pay attention to which districts, if any, opt to continue using growth data in the current manner. Cleveland Schools CEO Eric Gordon has come out opposing the bill and vows to continue using student test scores to rate teachers regardless; his teachers union begs to disagree.

4) Newly signed computer science bill quietly modifies Ohio’s coursework requirements for graduation. In late December, Kasich signed HB 170, which requires academic content standards and a model curriculum for computer science for the first time. The legislation was passed in a largely bipartisan fashion and even earned support from Google during the hearing process. Interestingly, it enables high schoolers to take a computer science course in lieu of Algebra 2—a staple of Ohio’s core curriculum requirements for all students except those opting into a career-technical pathway. The new law does require districts to inform parents that “some institutions of higher education may require Algebra 2 for the purpose of college admission” and sign a document acknowledging this.

A quick glance at admission requirements for Ohio’s public universities (and several phone calls we conducted with college admissions counselors) indicates that nearly all of them would accept the “equivalent” of Algebra 2 in the form of computer science. That’s reassuring. But HB 170 seems to walk back Ohio’s Algebra 2 requirement without undergoing a serious debate about whether students need it in order to be college and career ready. To me, that seems like far bigger news than the creation of model curriculum or a push toward computer science careers—both of which are good moves in and of themselves.

Discussions on graduation requirements will no doubt continue this year, though I’m also hoping for more debates on the actual meat of what we’re requiring and why—e.g., Should we allow advanced computer science in place of Algebra 2 (and aren’t the concepts of Algebra 2 necessary to succeed in advanced computer science anyway)? What careers in computer science are available to folks who haven’t taken Algebra 2? Will schools be able to find qualified teachers to teach the subject well?

***

Here’s to hoping that this busy start to 2018 portends good things for education policy and the lives of the students it ultimately affects. 

1. Ahead of this week’s state board of education meeting, the Dispatch took a look at the issue of graduation requirements, sure to be a highlight of the agenda. If the one board member quoted here is anything to go by, extending the no-competency diploma pathways to the Classes of 2019 and 2020—two new fronts in the state’s War on Knowing Stuff—is a slam dunk. Fordham’s Chad Aldis tries to be the voice of reason here, but is buried at the bottom of the story as apparently befits someone who is one of the “select few” trying to turn back the tepid tide of this wretched war. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/6/18) At the same time as the board has been waging its War on Knowing Stuff (a.k.a. – tweaking graduation requirements in order to deemphasize mastery of academic things), members have been engaging in a larger conversation to define “the characteristics and attributes that a graduating senior should have in order to make a successful transition to adulthood.” You guessed it: knowing actual stuff is a minor part of what has been discussed thus far. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/7/18)
    
2. I have been enjoying some classic game show episodes from my youth in recent weeks, thanks to GSN being on a retro kick. That is probably why I pictured representatives of local school districts with their hands poised over big red prize buttons shouting, “Big bucks! C’mon… Biiiig bucks!!” as I read this ECOT piece. That is, of course, followed by the talismanic, “No Supreme Court Whammies… Stop!!!” The part of Peter Tomarken was played by Aaron Rausch in my imagination. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/7/18) I jest, of course. Should the Ohio Supreme Court rule against ECOT and give Big Bucks to school districts like Columbus and South-Western, obviously all those districts’ problems would go away and all kids in them would live happily and educatedly ever after. (That’s more barb than jest, for all you sticklers out there.) However, the question of how we got in this predicament in the first place would still need to be solved. “The fact is,” says House Education Committee Chair Andy Brenner, “we need better definitions of what a full-time equivalent student is for traditional hours, blended learning and e-schools going forward so everyone understands what it is and there’s no ambiguity.” To that laudable end, he hopes to introduce legislation later this year to ensconce such definitions in state law. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/7/18)
    
3. According to this piece, the board and administration of Dayton City Schools are “aiming at student learning” as a goal for the remainder of the school year. That of course begs the question of what on earth they were aiming at before. (Dayton Daily News, 1/5/18)
    
4. Unfortunate mindset or poor wording? Read and decide for yourself. SPOILER ALERT: I have already done so. This is a story about a new “parent training program” getting underway in Summit County. Its stated goal is to teach parents how to “control” their “difficult” kids and how to “bring love back into the parent-child relationship”. The organization in charge of this effort is looking for a critical mass of money and parents so they can get on the road to solving school discipline problems and the opioid crisis too. Lotsa luck. (Akron Beacon Journal, 1/7/18)

One of the perils of working at a think tank, especially one like Fordham, which encourages provocative ideas and never shies away from a debate, is that it can be easy to anger or frustrate even your closest allies. That’s especially true in this polarized, fraught time we’re living in. I’m mindful of this dynamic and actively work to make the necessary policy arguments without being unnecessarily inflammatory. Alas, I’m not always successful.

In December, I received a thoughtful email from a friend and (often) ally regarding Fordham’s continued insistence that the alternative graduation requirements adopted last year amounted to a diploma giveaway and would hurt Ohio students in the long term. The person argued that our position was wrong and simply hadn’t kept up with conventional wisdom or the latest research. A productive email exchange filled with research citations, a litany of real-world examples, and a few logical inferences followed. At the end of the day, we still didn’t agree, but I was better as a result of the dialogue.

The holiday break gave me some time to think more about the interaction and one particular frustration expressed in this exchange. Namely, it’s one thing to oppose a policy proposal, but in situations where a resolution is needed, you also need to bring solutions to the table.[1]

That’s a great reminder of how easy it is to be a critic, an armchair quarterback that simply looks at others’ ideas and points out flaws or questions motives. Many of us are addicted to this particular sport, given the countless hours we spend watching talking heads on CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC spouting sound bites designed for maximum political impact. Then there’s Twitter and Facebook, which allow each of us to be pundits and to receive praise from our like-minded friends and family, making us all feel both smart and insightful. Unfortunately, it often makes matters worse.

Don’t misunderstand me. I work at a think tank. There’s nothing wrong with having an opinion that puts you in disagreement with another person’s approach to resolving a problem. And yes, we at Fordham often express our viewpoints in a passionate way. However, we can’t just say “you’re wrong,” “that won’t work,” or (worse yet) resort to hyperbole and ad hominem attacks: “you’re trying to destroy America/Ohio/etc.” This approach, while it may generate press clippings, rarely solves problems.

As the New Year begins, I resolve to be more than a critic and will make every effort to be solution-oriented. Here are some principles that I’ll keep at the forefront of my work in the coming year:

• Progress is made when we engage in a battle of ideas, so offer solutions whenever possible. In most cases, “no” isn’t a policy solution. Those of us that want to shape policy need to do the intellectual heavy lifting required to offer our own proposals.
• Way too often, the arguments of the other side are discounted without even considering their merits. It’s critical to listen to both our critics and our friends. Learning comes from considering ideas that might reside outside of our own echo chamber.
• Perhaps the greatest license to ignore the other side comes from the growing tendency to assume bad intentions on their part. A prime example: The school choice debate often devolves into suggestions that one side wants to privatize education in order to make big profits, and the other wants to protect a state-run monopoly in order to enhance union coffers. Neither caricature fairly captures the motivation of either position. In education, let’s start with an acknowledgement that everyone wants to improve outcomes for students. We may disagree on how to get there, but we largely want to go to the same place.
• Finally, as a respected Fordham colleague often reminds folks, we need a much stronger dose of humility in our work. Improving outcomes for students is hard. This isn’t going to be achieved overnight, and there are no silver bullets. What works today could be contradicted by new data next week. We should always have an open mind and routinely question our assumptions.

If successful, the return on this resolution is likely to be more productive conversations, better relationships, an increased chance to learn something in the process, and most importantly, being far better positioned to actually make a difference.

As Theodore Roosevelt eloquently stated, “It is not the critic who counts. ... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena; whose face is marred by the dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly ... who, at worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly; so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory or defeat.”

In the coming year, let’s take our ideas and enter the arena. See you there.

1. A task force was created this week to lead discussion and recommend a course of action to deal with the—frankly pretty enormous—problem of Dayton City Schools’ numerous underutilized buildings. A sticky wicket, to be sure, that will resist easy resolution. (Dayton Daily News, 1/4/18) And just how did this humungous underutilization problem come to be? The redoubtable Jeremy Kelley lays it out in depressing detail. From the echoey halls of the administration building(s), to the unmaintained eyesores spread across the city, to the one-third empty new builds, evidence of blinkeredness and unanchored hope for revival on the part of long-gone district leaders shows up at every turn. A sad and stunning fall. (Dayton Daily News, 1/4/18)
    
2. On to some sunnier news: here is a look at some of the fun and crazy extracurricular clubs to be had at suburban and private schools around central Ohio. I can’t decide if my favorite is Pancake Club in Grandview or the early-morning Conspiracy Theory Club at Watterson. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/5/18) Speaking of which, here’s a quick look at the “cursive breakfast club”, an effort by the Springfield area Family, Career and Community Leaders of America group (FCCLA) to bring cursive writing back to schools where it is no longer being taught. Fun fact: the FCCLA is the modern-day name for the old-timey FHA—the Future Homemakers of America. Ah, the glorious past. Seems to be our theme for today, doesn’t it? (Springfield News Sun, 1/4/18)

In an important and mostly depressing New Year’s Day column in The Washington Post, veteran education journalist Jay Mathews describes the on-again, off-again “carnival ride” to “raise school standards” that he’s observed over the past half century. “We love making schools more accountable,” Mathews writes. “Then, we hate the idea.”

He cites a pair of recent setbacks. First, the striking decline in states that require high school students to pass a statewide exit test before receiving their high school diplomas. Five years ago, that was the practice in half the states. Today, as documented by the anti-testing group called FairTest, it’s a graduation requirement in just thirteen jurisdictions.

Second, Mathews notes the gloomy appraisal of State ESSA plans that was issued last month by Bellwether and the Collaborative for Student Success, which declares that “States largely have squandered the opportunity…to create stronger, more innovative education plans” and that many “proposed graduation rate goals that far exceeded proficiency rates by 20 percentage points or more, creating the potential for states to graduate students that are not adequately prepared for their futures.”

Although my Fordham colleagues, focusing on just a few key elements of states’ ESSA accountability plans, reached a cheerier conclusion, Mathews is struck by the country’s deep ambivalence toward the steps that would actually have to be taken to transform our education outcomes—outcomes that, as is widely known, have been essentially flat for decades for the U.S. student population as a whole, even as gains can be found on some metrics (e.g., NAEP results, SAT scores) for subpopulations.

It’s a big, diverse country, to be sure, and Mathews acknowledges some progress, albeit spotty and decentralized: “In every chapter of our long national education story, innovative teachers, often with parental help, have instituted deeper, livelier, more demanding lessons….Fortunately, our schools are still attracting many energetic and creative teachers who want to make a difference.”

Well said, and true, as far as it goes. Mathews is also bullish about Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate-type assessments that operate mainly in the private sector, are steadily growing, and aren’t much buffeted by politics. But the policy-driven reforms that typically derive from state or federal governments and are thus more vulnerable to shifting winds of public opinion and political game-playing, haven’t amounted to much when it comes to boosting achievement or holding schools accountable. “The rash of standardized testing after the No Child Left Behind Act became law in the early 2000s did not raise achievement averages very much,” he observes, but the backlash that has led states to ease back on testing isn’t being replaced by anything that’s apt to work better.

Whereupon, Mathews predicts, we’ll change course yet again, part of our pendulum-like approach to education reform: “This new decline of exit tests will almost certainly be followed by another burst of outrage and a renewed campaign to raise achievement.”

I’m often accused (especially by my friend Mike Petrilli) of Gloomy Gus–ness—and there’s some truth to that—but today I’m seeing a quintet of other worrisome trends that Jay Mathews didn’t mention.

• Because states are loath to institute multi-level diploma systems, fearing that they’ll be accused of having lower standards for some kids than for others, it’s impossible for even the most ambitious jurisdictions (e.g., Massachusetts) to set their high-school exit expectations at the level of true college-and-career readiness.
• The push to raise high-school graduation rates to all-time highs is—like most high-stakes structures—leading to all manner of dubious practices, including grade inflation, ersatz credit recovery “courses,” and outright finagling with student transcripts and records.
• Even places that have clung to statewide exit exams as a condition of high school graduation tend to get cold feet when reality hits—and then waive, defer, or offer workarounds such that not too many kids are actually denied diplomas just because they fail the test. In Ohio, for example, state leaders devised alternative graduation pathways for the class of ’18 based on such feeble criteria as attendance rates and course grades, in effect allowing allow students to leave high school without demonstrating actual readiness for anything that follows. Now those same leaders are weighing an extension of those workarounds for subsequent high school classes.
• Blurring the boundaries between secondary and postsecondary education has its pluses—such as acceleration opportunities for smart students—but some of what passes for “dual credit” in high school lacks any real collegiate quality control and some of what passes for corequisite courses on campus really is high school stuff and doesn’t deserve college credit. Along the way, programs with bona fide solid external standards, such as AP and IB, may get eclipsed by easier classes that guarantee such credit, and the term “college ready” holds ever less meaning.
• I’m no fan of NCLB and was a strong proponent of the ESSA approach to re-empowering states—and in principle I still am—but I also now find myself in a policy role (state board) in a deep-blue state (Maryland) where almost all the K–12 education shots are ultimately called by what Bill Bennett used to call “the blob,” i.e., adult interests that crave more for themselves but don’t otherwise want to disturb the education status quo. The Bellwether analysis of state ESSA plans suggests that something similar is happening in plenty of red and purple jurisdictions, too.

Happy New Year, anyone?

Advertisements for investment funds always say that past performance is no guarantee of future results; in the case of my forecasting skills, that’s probably a good thing. After all, in 2016 I claimed that Donald Trump would never become president, and a year ago I thought that 2017 might be the year of coming back together again. So in the spirit of third time’s a charm, not three strikes and you’re out, here’s what I see coming down the pike in 2018.

1. NAEP. The release of the National Assessment of Educational Progress results is always big news, but I have a hunch that this one will be bigger than usual. That’s because it’s been a long time since we’ve seen significant progress on the Nation’s Report Card and analysts will consider this round a legitimate indicator of the success or failure of Obama-era reforms. I’ll admit to being worried that gains will be minimal. The headwinds of the 2008 recession and the changing demographic mix of the student population are significant. Still, if states’ higher standards and tougher tests are leading to real changes in the classroom—especially as schools adopt high quality curriculum like Eureka Math—we ought to start seeing a bump soon, at least at the fourth grade level. If not, color me worried. Meanwhile, state-by-state results will give us lots to chew on as well. Will Arizona continue to defy the doubters? Will Tennessee and D.C. continue their climb out of the cellar? And will curriculum-based reform prove its mettle in Louisiana? Stay tuned.
2. The Janus Supreme Court case. I thought the Friedrichs decision was going to be the big ed reform news a few years ago—until Justice Scalia went and passed away. But its sequel is back, and barring another unforeseen event the forthcoming decision will likely place a significant curb on the fundraising abilities of the teachers unions. A majority of the justices are likely to rule that unions can’t charge “agency fees” to non-members—making it financially advantageous for more teachers to drop out of their union, and allowing non-members to cease paying into it. That’s especially likely for politically conservative teachers, who may be tired of supporting causes with which they disagree. Given that three in ten teachers nationwide voted for President Trump, it’s not hard to imagine the NEA especially losing a significant amount of revenue and clout. That in turn could weaken the relationship between the teachers unions and the Democratic Party, with big pro-reform implications, especially in blue states.
3. Gubernatorial elections. I’ve given up on the notion that America’s political polarization will come to an end anytime soon. Both parties have too many incentives to play to their bases as the mid-term elections approach. But while the makeup of Congress will only have a marginal impact on education reform going forward, given ESSA’s devolution of power to the states, who wins the races for the governors’ mansions in the thirty-six states with elections this November could have major implications for the years ahead. California is the big prize; can reformers keep the union-endorsed Gavin Newsom from winning? In Colorado, can at least one of the reform candidates—Mike Johnston or Jared Polis—make it through the Democratic primary? Will a Democratic wave election spell doom even for popular, reform-seeking Republicans in deep blue states, namely Charlie Baker (Massachusetts), Larry Hogan (Maryland), and Bruce Rauner (Illinois)? And will reform ideas like accountability and school choice be more or less popular once all the electioneering is done?
4. School discipline. 2017 ended with a flurry of activity and opining on the issue of school discipline, especially as it relates to Washington’s role in the matter. But while the Trump Administration has started to hear from both sides, it has yet to tip its hand about its intentions. As someone who wants the Obama-era policy on school discipline revised or rescinded, I very much hope we’ll see action on this front in 2018. Not that it’s easy, given the real conundrum involved in addressing racial discrimination without making our schools less safe or jumping to dubious conclusions from raw data on student suspensions. The fact that our president has a proclivity toward making racially divisive statements doesn’t help either.
5. The first release of school ratings under ESSA. After years of debate and design, this summer will bring the debut of school report cards that reflect the new requirements and flexibility of the Every Student Succeeds Act. The greater focus on student growth versus mere proficiency in most states should make it somewhat likelier for high-poverty schools to get decent grades, but it could also result in many schools in affluent suburbs getting mediocre marks. It’s conceivable that this could spark an ed reform movement among soccer moms. Regrettably, yet another testing backlash is likelier. 

So there you have it. Yes, it’s a mixed bag, with only glimmers of good news to look forward to. Then again, the dumpster fire that was 2017 turned out to be surprisingly kind to education reform; here’s hoping that 2018 will do the same. 

A November report from Georgetown’s Center on Education and the Workforce examines the changes in the job market from 1991 to 2015, specifically the number of good jobs without a bachelor’s degree nationally and by state. Defining “good jobs” is subjective, of course, but here they are defined as those that pay at least $35,000 annually for workers under the age of forty-five (or $17 per hour for a full-time job) and $45,000 for older employees (or $22 per hour full time). In 2015, these jobs had median earnings of $55,000 annually.

The report uses annual survey data administered by the U.S. Census Bureau called the Current Population Survey Annual Social and Economic Supplement for years 1992 to 2016. Data for workers between the ages of twenty-five and sixty-four are used to estimate employment by state, as well as the level of educational attainment, industry, and occupation.

In looking at the national breakdown of good jobs, 55 percent of those workers hold at least a bachelor’s degree. And of the 61 percent of employed adults who don’t have a bachelor’s degree, 40 percent have a good job. But this differs between states. In Wyoming, for example, 62 percent without the credential have good jobs.

Overall, the share of good jobs for workers without a bachelor’s degree declined from about 60 percent of workers in 1991 to 45 percent in 2015. But variation among states is wide. Thirty-four states (mostly in the South and West) added good jobs for these workers over the nearly twenty-five years covered by the study; sixteen states and the District of Columbia had fewer, and they are mostly located in the Northeast and Midwest—areas hit hard by manufacturing declines.

The loss of jobs in traditionally blue-collar industries, including manufacturing, transportation, utilities, construction, and natural resources, is largely to blame for this decline. Nationally, blue-collar employment has fell 30 percent since 1991, driven primarily by drops in the manufacturing sector. But that trend doesn’t hold in all industries in all states. In thirty-eight states, for example, blue-collar jobs in non-manufacturing industries like construction and transportation are on the rise. And many blue-collar jobs have increasingly been replaced by skilled-service jobs, such as those in the healthcare and financial services fields.

Moreover, prospects differ based on whether workers without a bachelor’s degree have earned an associate’s degree or attended at least some college. Good jobs held by high school graduates who have no higher education have declined by 8 percentage points over the last quarter century. But the share of good jobs held by those with an associate’s degree has increased in every state, and has gone up 9 percentage points nationally. In Minnesota, for instance, associate degree holders increased their share of good jobs by 31 percentage points in nearly twenty-five years.

The bottom line is that the best economic outlook for those without bachelor’s degrees are now found more often in skilled-services industries, such as healthcare and financial services, but even in those areas, workers increasingly need at least some college education.

SOURCE: Anthony Carnevale et al., “Good Jobs that Pay without a BA,” Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce (November 2017).

1. Fordham is namechecked in this brief New Year’s Day story on possible report card changes for schools and districts coming via legislation in 2018. (WOSU-FM, Columbus, 1/1/18) The findings of Fordham’s recent report on suggested improvements to state report cards feature more heavily in this editorial encouraging the above-mentioned legislative changes. (Toledo Blade, 1/2/18)
    
2. Speaking of editorializing for the New Year, editors in Columbus asked central Ohio leaders to “share their resolutions” for 2018. Columbus school board president Gary Baker shares…something. It raised several questions in my mind, but that’s probably just me. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/1/18)
    
3. In actual Columbus City Schools news, it appears that the district will be allowed by the state to expand its roster of “selective admission” school buildings in 2018. Columbus is a pioneer in this regard, prioritizing up to 20 percent of seats in as many as six of its alternative schools for students who meet academic and disciplinary requirements. Interesting. (Columbus Dispatch, 1/2/18) Meanwhile, the district is currently facing some budget shortfall projections for the next couple of years, but the interim supe seems pretty confident those will work themselves out. But I bet that probably depends on who the new permanent supe is. Right, Doc? (ThisWeek News, 1/2/18)
    
4. Another area ripe for change in 2018 is Ohio’s teacher evaluation system. A bill to do just that has already been introduced in the state Senate, but the marquis provision to reduce or eliminate student test scores in the teacher evaluation process is not sitting well with the leader of Cleveland Metropolitan School District. In fact, he says that the Cleveland Plan by which his district has been guided since 2012 is predicated on strict accountability and that changes to test-based teacher evaluations could undermine the entire plan. He is preparing to testify against the bill as soon as hearings begin. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/3/18)
    
5. I am starting to picture Ohio’s high school diplomas looking like those old suitcases with travel stickers plastered all over them – or perhaps a Girl Scout vest festooned with merit badges – as yet another “seal” is added to the roster of those that students can earn along with their sheepskins. This time it’s a dubious-sounding (IMHO) “work readiness” seal. You know what I think is a really good “work readiness” indicator? Being able to do math and to cogently analyze written texts. (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 1/2/18)
    
6. The transportation chief of Youngstown City Schools once told the Vindy that she “bleeds yellow,” so dedicated is she to her job. Well, the district's food service chief must bleed homogenized chocolate milk because she too clearly lives for her work. The headline talks about improvements to Youngstown’s food service, but the body seems to indicate racing to catch up. The return to neighborhood schools in the district this year, along with the need to serve three meals and a snack to thousands of kids each day, required a lot of adjustments for the food service team. Interesting piece here, and some of those numbers are pretty huge. (Youngstown Vindicator, 1/2/18)