Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Jeff Murray
3.13.2026
Gadfly Bites logo
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

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

  1. Fordham’s school funding guru Aaron Churchill is quoted all too briefly in this piece on the topic of districts across the state suddenly realizing they need to cut their budgets or risk falling into fiscal distress. He himself saw it coming, thanks to ESSER-fueled overspending that didn’t stop when the federal money dried up, and thinks that going back to pre-pandemic spending levels would be a good first step for any district that hasn’t yet done so. (Ohio Newsroom, 3/11/26)

  2. The other big contributor to district budget holes is leaders refusing to acknowledge ongoing student enrollment losses and failing to right-size themselves (buildings, staff, operations) as a result. And even when the light does finally dawn—as it seems to have done for the leaders of Claymont Local Schools after many years of decline—the response never seems to be the most straightforward fix. To wit: The preferred solution of Claymont’s supe is to close one underutilized elementary building and consolidate remaining students across two, also currently undersubscribed, other buildings. That would be a positive thing for the district if a) it happened immediately, b) it allowed for a reduction in staff, and c) that closed building was then sold off rather than demoed or maintained while empty. We get no clarity on any of those important points in this piece and districts across the state are renowned for not following the most productive pathways with no real explanation. Indeed a second proposal for Claymont noted in this piece is for them to close no buildings, accrue debt to build an addition onto the high school, and then—at some point after that is done—maybe two other buildings could close. I personally have no idea what it would take for these folks—or any others—to choose the right path. (Your Ohio News, 3/12/26) Speaking of which, here’s a great piece looking at a district on the edge of fiscal distress—Barberton City Schools, currently in “fiscal caution” status for all of the above reasons—and somewhat churlishly trying to meet the state’s requirement to come up with a deficit-elimination plan. Interestingly, this piece also includes some details from another district that has been in “fiscal watch” since 2020, with the state having even more oversight into their spending as a result. Has it worked so far? Yes. They are required to present a balanced budget every year (no deficit spending), and seem to have been able to do so. Will that continue if the state ever cuts them loose? Unclear. “If we were ever let out of fiscal oversight,” said Springfield Local Schools supe Shelley Monachino, “that [balanced budget] really is a great way of making sure that you are staying in within your budget.” But, she says what happens a lot with schools is that “when they do get that influx of money. Sometimes they think, ‘Oh, look at all this money that we have,’ and then they just keep spending.” So who can say what will happen in the future? (Ideastream Public Media, 3/12/26)

  3. Finally this week: In case you missed it somehow, Gov. DeWine gave his final state of the state speech on Tuesday. He talked about a lot of education-related topics including funding, science of reading, and chronic absenteeism. I’m sure we’ll hear more about all of his priorities for the last year of his administration, but here’s a look at one important development coming shortly: A statewide attendance dashboard, to be launched on the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce’s website on April 15 and updated weekly after that. “This new tool will provide parents, the public, people in the community with simple, fast, and transparent attendance data each week for every district, for every school,” DeWine said in his speech. It will “offer early information about the effectiveness of attendance strategies, so that schools, districts, and communities can take actionable steps to improve attendance.” Awesome news! (Cleveland.com, 3/10/26)

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

Topics:
Governance
Terry Ryan Duncan Robb
3.13.2026
Scantron
Getty Images/worldofstock
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

“We spend too much time on testing,” is a lament we hear often among Idaho educators. Surely it is a national sentiment as well. Fordham’s SCHOOLED recently observed, “It’s true that too much testing remains a big problem—nationally and undoubtedly in Idaho. A new study from Education First provides an updated look at how many tests kids are taking, and it’s huge: up to 88 assessments before they even enter high school.”

For the past decade, Bluum—a Boise-based education nonprofit responsible for investing in Idaho’s significant charter school growth—has been part of this over-testing dilemma. Our intentions have been good. We believe in the power of data, especially timely data that can inform classroom decisions and guide instruction.

With generous financial support from the J.A. and Kathryn Albertson Family Foundation Bluum has supported the use of NWEA’s MAP Growth assessment in reading and mathematics to track school and student performance across our partner schools. This is in addition to the state’s Idaho Standards Achievement Test (ISAT) assessments in English language arts and mathematics for grades 3–8 and 11, and the Idaho Reading Indicator (IRI) for kindergarten through third grade. Our school partners have also received significant professional development on how to use NWEA MAP data—issued three to four times per year—to improve classroom instruction. We’ve seen improvement across our schools because of their work with MAP data and the training brought to this.

Yet we have begun to question whether we have underutilized another assessment tool that has been right under our noses and is already paid for by the state of Idaho for all public schools: the ISAT.

We were first alerted to this possibility by ExcelinEd’s Christy Hovanetz. She shared that other states were doing a great deal of work with their state interim assessment data—work that sounded very similar to what we were doing with MAP data. When we began asking questions of our school leaders, many said they wondered the same thing: Why continue using MAP when the state already offers progress-monitoring assessments aligned with the ISAT?

Some of our schools already use ISAT interim tools and were rightly asking why they needed two assessments throughout the year when one might suffice.

“Because we always have!” is not a satisfactory answer for the people doing the critical work of educating Idaho’s next generation of citizens. At the same time, some of our leaders rely heavily on MAP—particularly for its streamlined reporting and instructional resources.

So we decided to investigate: Could the ISAT interim assessment tools provide a similar experience to MAP, and what resources would be required to make that possible? The prospect of reducing the time students spend taking tests—without sacrificing instructional value—seemed worth exploring.

We spoke with leaders of diverse charter school models—International Baccalaureate, college preparatory, classical education, etc. We spoke with charter and district teachers who had used MAP and ISAT interim tools. We consulted with officials from the Idaho Department of Education. We compared testing times and the reports available to teachers and building leaders. And we asked educators what they would change about both platforms.

We learned that the ISAT now offers a robust suite of progress-monitoring tools. In addition to the interim blocks—smaller, 30–40 minute testing segments that assess only the grade-level standards students have already been taught—teachers can administer two practice summative assessments. One is a full-length test, while the other removes the writing portion, which is the most time-consuming section. Each option helps educators understand how much grade-level content their students have mastered throughout the school year. These assessments also give students an opportunity to become familiar with the test format.

We learned that MAP’s strengths lie in its ability to quickly provide educators with a snapshot of how each student is performing relative to their peers, rather than solely against grade-level content, and how much progress they have made over time. The platform is easy to navigate and offers actionable next steps for teachers through integrations such as Khan Mappers and Read180. Educators also praised NWEA’s accompanying professional development, though we did see strong teacher support materials available for the ISAT, as well.

We also learned that many educators trust MAP and value the parent-facing Insights Reports. However, the ISAT platform has improved significantly in recent years. Common concerns about delayed results are now outdated. Item-level data are readily available and easy to access across all assessments in the suite. The platform also provides useful analyses, such as identifying the most-missed questions and the standards those questions assess, which makes grouping students for targeted remediation straightforward. To learn more see Feasibility Study: Assessment Analytics and Reporting.

Meanwhile, advancements in AI tools—when used responsibly—can provide additional analysis that further closes the gap between ISAT and MAP’s high-quality reporting and instructional alignment. We recently learned about a group in Illinois that has created a simple and inexpensive portal allowing districts to interact with reports generated from state data and download them as PDFs when needed.

Even if our network continues using MAP, the feedback we gathered has already proven valuable to our colleagues at the state level, who are currently asking vendors for further improvements to ISAT reporting and administration capabilities. Continued improvements to the ISAT could benefit every educator, parent, and student in Idaho.

Next, we will pressure-test how well we can use ISAT tools with volunteer schools during the 2026–27 school year. We will gather feedback on whether the ISAT—with some improvements based on what we’ve learned—can provide educators with the information they need. If successful, students will benefit from hours of reduced testing time. If not, we will know that, at least for now, MAP tools offer an irreplaceable benefit for our network.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
The Education Gadfly
3.13.2026
Gadfly Guy
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

WHAT WE’RE READING

“Indiana board finalizes new A–F school accountability system”—Casey Smith, Indiana Capital Chronicle (See SCHOOLED’s discussion of Indiana’s new system here.)

—

In the New York Times, the Hechinger Report’s Jackie Mader looks at the rise in iPad use and other in-school screen time for even the youngest elementary school students. Concerned parents are pushing back against 1:1 devices and “gamified” academic work.


Editor's note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli's Substack, SCHOOLED, a twice-weekly free Substack and email newsletter restarting the education-reform conversation.

Click here to subscribe for:

  • Sharp analysis of the week’s biggest K–12 debates

  • Curated commentary from across the ed-policy world

  • Lively discussion—including reader reactions and pushback

The Education Gadfly
3.13.2026
Gadfly Guy
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

CHEERS

Sarah Sparks explains why early reading intervention matters more than remediation. Rather than asking only what type of tutoring works, some districts are now rethinking when it works best—and researchers say the answer is well before third grade, during the critical window of early literacy development. —Education Week

—

Jessica Grose offers a cautiously optimistic take on teens and tech. Many Gen Z and Alpha kids aren’t as screen-obsessed as adults assume. Teens share why they are frustrated by teacher AI use, skeptical about surveillance software, and increasingly drawn to more analog lives. —The New York Times

JEERS

A San Diego principal apparently let a social media influencer into her high school during student drop-off after he ran from federal immigration agents, bypassing safety procedures and putting students at risk. —Dave Summers, NBC San Diego

—

“Texas has excluded about two dozen Islamic schools from its new $1 billion voucher program for allegedly being linked to terrorist groups, a decision that has led to a lawsuit and claims of discrimination from the Muslim community,” writes Lauren Lumpkin, who notes that a similar effort is underway in Florida. —The Washington Post

—

Naaz Modan reports on new NWEA data showing that pandemic learning loss extends even to children who were infants and toddlers during the disruption. The NWEA press release talks about system-level challenges, but especially given the pre-Covid declines in NWEA’s kindergarten scores, it seems highly likely that the rise in screen use for both young children and their parents plays a big role. —K–12 Dive


Editor's note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli's Substack, SCHOOLED, a twice-weekly free Substack and email newsletter restarting the education-reform conversation.

Click here to subscribe for:

  • Sharp analysis of the week’s biggest K–12 debates

  • Curated commentary from across the ed-policy world

  • Lively discussion—including reader reactions and pushback

Michael J. Petrilli
3.12.2026
Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland
G. Edward Johnson/Wikipedia Commons
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Recent events—some near, some far—have made me wonder whether traditional public schools should be seen as part of the government or as civil society institutions—Hobbesian Leviathans or Burkean “little platoons”?

As an education reformer, my impulse is to bemoan the impersonal, bureaucratic, sclerotic nature of the American education system, especially the traditional, district-operated K–12 version that remains dominant today. Nobody who has spent time around local, state, or federal education policy could deny the Kafkaesque nature of the myriad, overlapping, and often non-sensical rules—many of them embedded in teachers union contracts—that govern the daily lives of educators and thus the educational experience of their pupils.

As a supporter of school choice, I’m eager to see school district monopolies face competition from charter and private schools—non-profit entities that surely qualify as exemplars of civil society in action, sitting as they do between the public sector and the private sphere of home and family.

But I’m finding it harder these days to argue that traditional public schools aren’t also civil society institutions.

Let’s start with the school closest to me, Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland, and in particular with its principal, Greg Miller. (My two sons attend the school; Whitman is part of the Montgomery County Public Schools or MCPS.)

Mr. Miller is in his second year in this role, after serving as assistant principal for four years before that. And he has had quite a start to 2026.

First, someone spray-painted an Islamophobic statement on the side of the school.

Then a group of underclassmen were frog-marched out of a vacant house, in handcuffs, literally across the street from the school, with hundreds of students watching from inside the atrium, after the teens were busted for trespassing and doing drugs, all during lunchtime.

Next, a math teacher (and coach of the wrestling team) watched his house burn down due to a faulty battery in the garage, with the school community rallying to support him and his family.

Finally, a junior on the girls’ wrestling team died suddenly a few days later.

Through this string of challenges and tragedies, there was Mr. Miller—writing to parents, consoling students, coordinating responses, even speaking at the girl’s funeral.

Along the way, I’m sure he also did his “day job.” But after all this, it’s hard for me to see him as a “government bureaucrat.” No, he’s more like the mayor of a small town. He’s a community leader—like a minister or rabbi. And I’m sure he’s not the only public school principal worthy of the moniker.

This is further reason to reject the temptation to call public schools “government schools.” Walt Whitman doesn’t feel like part of the government to me, especially not now. It’s part of the community.

I’m hardly the first to notice this. Almost a decade ago, Andy Smarick wrote in National Affairs that:

…although some conservatives derisively refer to the district system of “government schools,” this veils the vast array of civil-society activity associated with these state bodies. Though their schools are publicly governed, regulated, and funded, districts are intertwined with countless voluntary associations, including PTAs, booster clubs, alumni associations, service organizations, sports teams, bands, tutoring groups, and much more. These district schools host community plays in their auditoriums, craft fairs in their cafeterias, junior sports leagues on their fields, and so on. The government is undeniably a part of this landscape, but the web of involved civil-society actors isn’t merely scenic; it’s indispensable to the health of the ecosystem.

Civil society in Minneapolis

I’m also thinking about public schools as civil society because of what has been happening in Minnesota. I’ve been moved by what I’ve learned, not so much about the protests and the so-called “resistance” (though much of that is inspiring, too), but about the acts of community action that have sprung up to assist affected families—neighbors helping neighbors in their time of need. And guess which institution was often in the middle of it? The public schools. Here’s how the Washington Post described it:

Over the weeks, Columbia Academy, like the district’s four other schools, had taken on an entirely new identity. It was still a place of learning, even if 210 of its 700 students were now studying at home. But now it was also a food bank, a counseling hotline, a missing persons task force, an immigration resource center and a refuge.

“We are the first call,” said Sherk, a first-year principal who has worked in the district for two decades. “They don’t call the police. They don’t even sometimes call their neighbors or different organizations. They call the school.”

Notably, it tended to be small school districts and charter schools that were the heart of the action. Friends tell me that the Minneapolis Public Schools—a large, lumbering bureaucracy—was much less responsive.

Maybe this can teach us something, too. Maybe public-school systems—especially the large ones in big cities, like Minneapolis, or the huge countywide ones like MCPS—can rightly be thought of as “the government.” But individual public schools themselves may be some of the strongest civil society institutions we’ve got left.

So, call them government school systems if you must. But please don’t call my local public school a “government school.” It is part of the community, and it and its peers are worth celebrating, conserving, and cherishing, now and for years to come.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Brandon L. Wright
3.12.2026
Teenagers on phones
Getty Images/Mariia Vitkovska
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

The simplest, most effective policy for improving U.S. schools and student outcomes might not be an “education policy” at all—but stronger government protections for young people from addictive products and services that now routinely reach adolescents.

Schools, as everyone knows, can only do so much. K–12 students are only in them for perhaps one-sixth of their waking lives. And data have long shown that socioeconomic factors are far more predictive of student and adult outcomes than what happens in kids’ classrooms. But softening the effects of wealth and privilege is enormously difficult. The protections I’m talking about are simpler and, I think, achievable. And they’re something that we education policy types should promote.

Recent coverage of how legalized gambling and marijuana are affecting young people is illustrative. Phone-based gambling on sports is now legal in 32 states, after a 2018 Supreme Court decision paved the way. Prediction markets, which let users speculate on a wide range of outcomes, including sports, have also expanded rapidly since 2025 and are now available almost everywhere. A recent essay in The Free Press by a high school sophomore argued that boys like himself need protection from this industry because his “generation is finding the lure of betting irresistible”—but they aren’t getting it. “The fact that these sites are technically restricted to those over 18, 19, or 21 years of age (depending on the state) is laughable,” he writes. “Enter the name and identifying info of a parent or sibling over the age requirement, and you’re in.”

A Common Sense Media report published in late January shows how right he is. It reports that 36 percent of boys ages 11–17 gambled in the past year. It rises to 49 percent among 17-year-olds. This connects to the wider digital world in which today’s young people live. Nearly half of boys who gamble see online advertisements promoting the activity, and most say the ads “just started showing up.” And peer culture compounds the problem, suggesting it’s poised to get worse, with 84 percent of boys reporting gambling if their friends do.

Marijuana shows a similar pattern. Colorado and Washington passed the first laws permitting adult recreational use in 2012. Now most Americans live in states where recreational marijuana is legal, and most live in a county with at least one dispensary. The Wall Street Journal reported last week that high schools are struggling with student use during school hours. The blame falls, at least in part, on the way that “legalization has made marijuana culturally acceptable and easy to get.” A California high school felt compelled to install vape sensors in the restrooms. A New York school implemented food restrictions because students were bringing in THC edibles. A principal in Vermont said “It’s just everywhere in the community. That’s really, really hard for schools.”

Like gambling, none of this is legal for high schoolers, but “students said it is relatively easy to get from older siblings, friends, and acquaintances,” reports the Journal. And like gambling, we’ve let profit-hungry firms shape public perception in a manner that is affecting young people. The same article continues:

Cannabis companies now market their wares as treatments for anxiety, pain and sleep problems. Edibles in cute packaging and THC vapes in flavors like “strawberry cough” and “Zkittles” (a play on the candy) can make marijuana seem safe, stylish and fun.

Weed is “seen as organic. It’s all-natural,” said Will Trimua, a 17-year-old Liberty High senior, about many of his peers’ views. And unlike nicotine, doctors sometimes recommend it, “so why should it be bad then?” added Trimua…

The problem is that these activities that our country has embraced, mostly in the name of freedom and money, are often very harmful, especially for teens. A 2024 poll found that 68 percent of those who say they bet on sports online report at least one harmful gambling behavior, such as borrowing money to bet or experiencing emotional distress from losses. And 17 percent met the criteria for problematic gambling. The rates are worst for young people and males. Meanwhile, research increasingly shows that THC is very dangerous for the teenage brain, linking it to attention and memory deficits, poor performance in schools, a 37 percent increase in the risk of depression, a 50 percent increase in the odds of suicidal ideation, and a three-fold increase in suicide attempts. Worth noting, too, is that the marijuana sold commercially today is significantly stronger than what was used illicitly in decades past.

Similar dynamics are present with social media, video games built around heavily incentivized microtransactions, pornography, nicotine vapes, AI assistants, short-form video, high-caffeine energy drinks, online shopping paired with easy consumer credit, and more. Every one of these domains, plus gambling and marijuana, has its own defenders, its own claims about harmless fun or individual choice. But the deeper problem is not any single vice, product, or service. It is the environment they collectively create for adolescents, one saturated with immediate gratification and organized around avoiding discomfort. Teenagers are still learning how to cope with boredom and manage indulgence, and still coming to understand the value of sustained effort and sacrifice. Those skills and habits, and their importance, are learned through repeated exposure and experience. As I argued in a recent piece on moral formation, character develops through daily habituation, modeled behavior, consistent consequences, and the peer cultures that form around them. A child’s formation is inseparable from the environments where that child spends the most time. And that environment is increasingly toxic and predatory.

* * *

In short, America’s young people are in serious trouble and at risk of significant harm at the hands of a system that is driven by greed and a worldview that confuses choice for freedom. Left unchecked, this will be calamitous for education.

Last month I outlined the difficult choice schools face: whether to give in and accommodate a student culture increasingly shaped by constant digital stimulation, or to resist it by insisting on traditional education—whole texts, sustained problem-solving, teacher-led discussion and writing, and the kind of work that requires students to push through boredom and confusion, with tech kept genuinely supplementary.

My preference is the more traditional path because it better builds the habits serious learning requires. But it is only worth pursuing if it’s viable—if it can possibly educate U.S. students well and at scale. My contention is that the environment described in this essay, which adults are allowing to develop around teens, will soon make that approach to education all but impossible. In other words, schooling as we have long known it, and as many still want it, may not survive intact.

The habits that serious, traditional learning requires are formed through repetition, and repetition is shaped by environment. When a teenager spends evenings in a cycle of short videos, algorithmic content feeds, monetized games, gambling parlays, AI shortcuts, and chemical escape, he is rehearsing a posture toward life that he then brings to school every morning. When more and more students do this, the combined effect changes what a classroom feels like, how teachers must approach instruction, and what students are capable of doing. All of it is antithetical to the traditional, effective classroom.

Hence one way, I think perhaps the best way, to facilitate this kind of learning is to press policymakers to create tools that genuinely protect young people from these forces. Age verification should be designed to actually work, particularly for gambling products and pornography. Advertising and promotion for addictive products should be treated as child-exposure problems when minors are plainly part of the audience. Platforms that push such content to minors through recommendation systems should face sharper accountability. Consumer protections in games that feature chance-based monetization and heavily promote microtransactions should take adolescent vulnerability as a central fact. Marijuana policy should reckon with products, such as edibles and vapes, that are easy to conceal and easy to normalize in teen culture. And if such a piecemeal approach cannot work, we should consider sweeping laws that effectively restrict young people’s access to broad categories of risky services.

Some will reject such government protections as paternalism and argue that parents need to do their jobs rather than asking Uncle Sam to do it for them. That is only true if moms and dads can do so reliably at scale. Sadly, that is not realistic. These forces are too powerful, too profitable, too widespread, and too optimized for attention and engagement, and too many parents are already stretched too thin in their time, energy, and finances. Parents have been unable to prevent adolescents from using the internet for harmful and illicit purposes for 30 years. Expecting them to succeed now, when the challenge is harder than ever, is fanciful.

Such protections are, instead, pragmatic and prudent. Governments are the only entities that can accomplish this at scale. Modern societies already restrict young people’s access to products and practices that predictably harm them—alcohol, tobacco, firearms, driving—and sometimes even strengthen those safeguards with universal bans, as with clove cigarettes and the Joe Camel cartoon character. We recognize that kids are developing and not equipped to navigate certain risky environments. The same logic should apply to markets and technologies built to monetize compulsion and weakness.

None of this says that schools are powerless. For one, they can implement tough phone policies and send an important message—one they can even state explicitly—that phones are dangerous for children. Moreover, strong education systems improve student outcomes far more than weak ones. They adopt strong curricula, train teachers better, hold schools accountable for learning, broaden choice, and foster cultures that build character and lasting habits. Effective education policies still matter enormously.

But if we want to create a world in which these policies have any shot at sustained success, we need to widen the frame and advocate for reforming environments that shape adolescents outside school. A society that tolerates—even encourages—markets that profit from obsession, addiction, and escapism should not be surprised when classrooms become harder to run and outcomes become harder to improve. Few actions would do more to improve education than protecting young people from this increasingly predatory world.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Julia Hayes
3.12.2026
Teacher teaching in a classroom
Getty Images/Caiaimage/Chris Ryan
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Like many other teachers, I took the traditional route into the profession, pursuing an undergraduate degree in education. But during my teacher training between 2019 and 2023—by which point the adoption of high-quality instructional materials (HQIM) had become a growing priority—I never had the chance to practice identifying or implementing HQIM or, for that matter, any curriculum at all. Instead, I spent most of my time writing lengthy lesson plans from scratch.

During my first week teaching second-grade special education in an elementary school, I was expected to start targeted small-group instruction to address my students’ learning needs. Without any curricular materials from my school or district, I found myself developing lessons that were not aligned with any differentiated curriculum, high-quality or otherwise. A few weeks into the school year, after asking for curricular materials, I received resources from the special education team—but I still lacked the experience to implement them effectively. This led me to feel frustrated, less confident, and in need of support that was not always accessible.

My experience as a beginning teacher is far from unique. As of 2024, only about 10 percent of U.S. teachers report that their preparation program emphasized helping them use curricular materials. When programs fail to prioritize HQIM, new teachers scramble to interpret pacing guidelines, adapt lessons, and reverse-engineer learning targets. Instead of refining their instructional delivery, they are simply trying to stay afloat.

So why aren’t educator prep programs (EPPs) ensuring that new teachers are prepared to use HQIM effectively? Let’s consider the central problem. Although states are increasingly encouraging the selection of HQIM, districts ultimately decide on curricula. EPPs typically send teachers to dozens of different districts—each of which is making its own choices around instructional materials. So it’s not realistic to expect EPPs to instruct future teachers on a particular HQIM.

What EPPs can do is intentionally build teachers’ capacity to recognize features of HQIM, while also practicing adapting and implementing HQIM across contexts. These are related but distinct skills. Recognizing the hallmarks of HQIM requires analytical preparation, while implementing them with fidelity requires structured practice. Most EPPs neglect both.

Teaching candidates to identify HQIM is not about training them to shop for curriculum. In districts with loose curriculum guidance, this skill helps teachers avoid patching together ineffective materials. In districts with strict guidance, it deepens their understanding of the curriculum’s design so that, when adaptations are necessary, they strengthen rather than diminish its core components.

On the other hand, implementation is a separate challenge. Even when HQIM are present in schools, new teachers have rarely been taught how to interpret pacing guides, differentiate without weakening coherence, or implement materials with fidelity. Without this preparation, teachers spend more time learning to decode the curriculum and less time responding effectively to students’ needs.

Currently, three states—Louisiana, Tennessee, and Texas—are going even further, taking concrete steps to integrate HQIM into EPPs.

1. Louisiana has prioritized selecting evidence-backed HQIM to improve teacher support and student achievement. Although the Pelican State’s educational progress can be attributed to several factors, its evidence-backed curricula and investment in teacher training aligned to those curricula serve as key principles. In 2024, the state began investing in high-quality preparation as a long-term strategy to retain teachers. To reinforce this approach, the HQIM requirement for school districts is aligned with efforts to support EPPs, encouraging them to shift from training aspiring teachers to design their own lessons toward preparing them to implement structured, research-based lessons. It surely helps that Eureka Math is used by approximately 90 percent of Louisiana public-school teachers and that the ELA curriculum Louisiana Guidebooks is used by over 80 percent, making it likely that teachers will see these programs in their own future schools.

2. Tennessee EPPs have partnered with three school districts through the Lead in Literacy network to support strong early literacy preparation for educators. Together, they work to construct a shared vision for literacy instruction, build candidate knowledge and skills grounded in research on reading and HQIM, and ensure best practices from these efforts translate into improved support for diverse learners. The goal is to ensure that new teachers enter classrooms prepared to deliver effective literacy instruction on day one.

3. In Texas, efforts to strengthen educator preparation include integrating HQIM into coursework. For example, Dallas College—one of Texas’s largest community college systems—has embedded HQIM directly into its educator preparation coursework. These instructional materials include Eureka Math and Amplify Reading, which are widely used across the country. Teacher candidates gain valuable insights into maximizing the use of these curricula through research-based instructional strategies, strategic partnerships, and faculty training facilitated by TNTP.

Other states and EPPs can learn from these efforts. In places like Louisiana and Dallas College, alignment is made easier by the widespread use of specific HQIM, which allows EPPs to ground coursework in materials candidates are likely to encounter in the field. But even in states without that level of consistency, EPPs can still ensure candidates enter the profession able to identify and implement HQIM with fidelity across contexts. That skillset is transferable, regardless of where a candidate teaches.

To ensure that this shift is successful, stronger partnerships between EPPs and school districts are needed. Student teaching placements already connect the two systems, but coursework and on-the-ground experiences are not always intentionally aligned. In practice, that means candidates may complete their training in schools that do not utilize HQIM. Without widespread adoption of HQIM across districts, efforts to better align EPPs with curriculum reform will have limited impact. Programs and districts should move beyond informal coordination and intentionally work to ensure that aspiring teachers have meaningful opportunities to practice identifying and implementing HQIM.

If states and districts are serious about improving instruction, teacher preparation cannot remain disconnected from curriculum reform. HQIM alone will not drive results. Teachers must be prepared to identify and use them effectively from day one. That preparation begins in EPPs, and it should be treated as a priority effort to prepare teachers to teach students effectively.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Curriculum & Instruction
Teachers & School Leaders
Daniel Buck
3.12.2026
Empty classrooms
Getty Images/maroke
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

I’ve worked at some rough schools. At one, as summer approached, my colleague and I reviewed the staff picture from September and counted that a third of the teachers who began in the fall had quit before the year’s end. We didn’t hold it against them.

The story was always the same. A student did something outlandish (picked a fight in class, threatened or cussed out the teacher, brought a weapon), administration returned the kid without a consequence, and the next morning everyone found a classroom with the lights off and keys on the desk.

We never heard from the teacher again.

In a new report, the Badger Institute’s Patrick McIlheran investigated this dynamic further by doing something rather simple: He asked teachers why they quit. He and his team used public data to find the districts in Wisconsin with the highest teacher turnover rate, collated email addresses, sent around a survey, and where possible, scheduled extended interviews to figure out precisely why teachers up and left.

The report makes for harrowing reading:

  • A student tipping bookcases and assaulting a teacher.
  • A school shifting from consistent consequences to teachers assuming a “buddy role.”
  • Principals afraid of students.
  • A student running down the hall, screaming “f---ing b---h” at the top of her lungs.
  • A young man pummeling a young woman on the playground.
  • Students throwing chairs.
  • Students with free rein in the halls during class.
  • A teacher asking for a student’s phone (they’re banned) and being told “f--- your mother” in response.
  • A teacher needing 66-stiches and foot surgery from breaking up a fight.
  • Refusals to follow the most basic directions like abiding by a seating chart.
  • A teacher bit and punched.
  • Teachers arriving early for meetings, giving up their preps to sub in classrooms, and then staying late into the afternoon to catch up.
  • A principal who spent staff meetings reading a 200-page book out loud, blaming teachers as the cause for education’s failures.
  • Districts messing up even the simplest of responsibilities like buying enough textbooks.
  • Parents who gave no support because “the idea of giving your time…because it’s the right thing to do for your kid” was just “unheard of.”

One teacher’s quote summarizes well the conclusion of the report: “I need to get the hell out of this.”

Why did he quit? It wasn’t behavior, workload, pay, or a single nasty email. It was all of “this.” To ask why teachers quit is to ask why anyone would run out of a burning building. Well, there’s the fire and the crumbling supports and the falling debris and what do you mean “why am I evacuating?!”

When I’ve written on this topic before, I’ve fallen into the same error of my more progressive counterparts, providing a monocausal explanation. Where they blame pay, I point to student misbehavior.

Picking through this report, however, the reader comes away with a broader sense of complete administrative and systemic breakdown. The schools with the most attrition ceased to operate as institutions that take learning seriously, and the dysfunction manifested in communication breakdowns, chaos, stress, and behavior.

I think back to the school where a third of my colleagues quit. The breakdown began even before students entered the building. On our staff onboarding day, no one could access their computers because the instructional coach running the meeting didn’t have the right generic password. No one knew who did, so we couldn’t access curriculum, email, or anything else that we needed to prep. We all went home and began the year unprepared.

The year proceeded likewise. Curriculum files were in the wrong place, school entry and exit routines were poorly thought through and thereby chaotic, the lunchroom ran out of food because someone ordered the wrong amount, we all got mixed messages on this, that, and the other thing—you get the point.

The dean of students spent his time scrambling to get food or fix the copier instead of dealing with behaviors. The first teacher quit. Now a grade-level lost its TA, who now assumed the role of a long-term substitute, and every other teacher had more work. The second quit. More simple tasks and procedures dropped. Emails grew curt and the administration started to micromanage what they could control—teacher dress or needless observables—in desperate hopes that it would fix everything else.

Every teacher who quit complained about behavior, but really it was all of “this.”

That’s not a totally satisfying conclusion. Behavior and pay are both clear problems with clear solutions. Complete administrative breakdown has countless problems and no one, obvious fix (other than shuttering the school, which is most feasible in the charter sector, but hard even there), but I’ll draw attention to one often overlooked fix: school leadership training.

At these districts, significant superintendent and principal turnover preceded the chaos. Replacements were either bureaucrats looking for higher positions or newbies who had no clue how to run a school. Leaders were scared of difficult conversations, had no idea how to manage behavior, implemented illogical policies and routines, and pushed fads for a quick fix instead of tried and true management.

But ultimately, the report suggests that teachers quit “when they’re prevented from doing the work they chose.” Teaching is an honorable profession and can be a wonderful career. When classrooms run well, they’re invigorating, energetic, lively places, and nothing beats teaching in such environments. If we want to stop having to ask “why did you quit?” policymakers and administrators need to create the conditions for teachers do to what they love to do: teach children well.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Alicia Anderson
3.12.2026
Watching football on phone
Getty Images/gorodenkoff
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

March brings my favorite family pastime. Soon, the fanatics and ambivalent among us will fill out NCAA basketball brackets and tape them to the kitchen wall. My teen son will carefully analyze rankings for each team and stats for key players. His sisters will pick teams based on mascots and vibes (we saw your 2022 run, Saint Peter’s Peacocks). Dad’s picks will be based on a combination of 90’s glory and a quick glance at late-season records. For me? It’s UVA all the way, always. My son might do everything right, but it’s March Madness, baby, and anything can happen. Thank goodness bragging rights are on the line, not cold hard cash. 

In July 2025, Common Sense Media surveyed 1017 boys ages 11 to 17. Using a nationally representative sample, they set out “to understand boys’ exposure to gambling activities,” and asked questions about different types of gambling: online gaming, “traditional” betting like on poker or lottery tickets, and sports betting. Common Sense Media has been a trusted resource for me for years. I often rely on its website to inform my decisions about screen-time or as backup with movie night selections when “everyone else is watching!” Its Betting on Boys report doesn’t give clear guidance for concerned parents like the site’s age ratings for books, shows and movies, but it does help connect the dots between common teen behavior and more troubling habits.

According to the survey, 36 percent of the boys reported gambling in the past year, rising to nearly half (49 percent) of 17-year-old boys. The survey results indicate a strong social pull: 84 percent of boys reported gambling if they had friends who participate. Offline gambling often starts as a social activity with relatives, including things like buying lottery scratch-off tickets at the gas station or, perhaps, NCAA bracket wagers. 

Against the backdrop of international social media bans and U.S. court cases about the addictive nature of certain online platforms, 59 percent of the Common Sense survey respondents said that online gambling content “just started showing up”—that is, it’s delivered to them via complex algorithms designed to keep users online and spending money. Boys who see online gambling content—even if they don’t seek it out—spend more than twice as much as those who don’t ($72 compared to $33 annually).

Gambling related to video games is the most prevalent on-ramp, an area few parents and boys even connect with gambling. These boys aren’t sneaking into casinos; they’re dropping a few dollars here and there for random chances to win something in an online game from home or from the lunch table at school. They describe spending money on in-game boosts or potential rewards—like randomized “loot boxes”—as fun and exciting. This may mask the addictive nature of the practice. Once boys start spending, and especially once they start losing money, many move on to more betting, for more money, and tend to lose more.

The survey’s insights on sports gambling came out right before this year’s Super Bowl. They report that about six in ten boys see gambling ads during sports broadcasts. In my house, every single Super Bowl ad block included promotions for sites like DraftKings and FanDuel. If you watch sports, online gambling ads are unavoidable and make it seem like betting is a natural extension of the game. I’m sure that’s the goal.

Adults are monetizing boys’ interests—games, sports, and their social interactions with each other—into something highly profitable, and with serious consequences for young men. Common Sense found that as boys lost more money, they became more likely to say that the purpose of gambling is to “win money” rather than provide them with a source of fun or a social activity. The report authors refer to escalation via “pathways” rather than “alarms.” A boy is unlikely to quickly develop a gambling habit that spirals out of control. Instead, exposure to gaming, algorithm-driven content, and peer behavior inches boys away from a harmless hobby to a disruptive addiction. In the survey, 27 percent of boys who gamble report negative consequences like stress and conflict with their parents. The boys are also using their parents’ money—nearly a quarter who gamble use a parent’s card with permission. More than one in five of the higher-loss gamblers use a parent’s card without permission. 

Like many of the boys surveyed, my teen son doesn’t share my sense of urgency about boys being led by algorithms down a path to future doom. He told me that gambling is dumb because it’s a waste of money. But when I mentioned a $5 bracket contest with some adults, he begged to make my selections in exchange for a share of the inevitable winnings. This disconnect may explain the draw of the in-game rewards that so many of his peers bet on, just a few dollars or even cents at a time. It doesn’t seem like betting—they aren’t sticking coins in a slot machine—but the effect is essentially the same.

The Common Sense findings made me second-guess our family bracket challenge, but come Selection Sunday we will still be scribbling out our picks. In our house, watching the tournament offers an opportunity to connect over our shared interest in sports (or, for my oldest daughter, the chance to explain who would win in an actual wolfpack vs. wolverine situation). I can’t block the algorithms or the ads, but at least I have a better sense of what my son is up against.

SOURCE: Michael B. Robb and Supreet Mann, “Betting on boys: Understanding gambling among adolescent boys,” Common Sense Media, 2026.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Jeff Murray
3.11.2026
Gadfly Bites logo
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

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

  1. As adverse financial consequences are finally, unavoidably dawning on school districts across the state (most of whom have ignored the obvious oncoming wave for years), more and more of them are reacting with the same first thought: Curtail school choice in any way they can. This includes closing borders to interdistrict open enrollment, like Cuyahoga Falls and Norton City Schools have already done… (Ideastream Public Media, 3/9/26) …and as the elected board of Ashland City Schools is currently considering. This despite the popularity of open enrollment with families and the student success stories attributable to it, as cited by elected school board members. (Richland Source, 3/10/26)

  2. Districts are also cutting their Covid-era virtual academies to save money these days, which seems like a good move to be honest if the 30 staffers-to-122 students ratio for Columbus City Schools’ academy is any guide as to how inefficiently these things have been functioning elsewhere. Leaving aside any of the obvious academic considerations of course. (Axios Columbus, 3/11/26)

  3. Meanwhile, Ohio is included in this roster of states where grouchers opponents are using “this one weird trick” to try and curtail vouchers, in lieu of ending them entirely. (Chalkbeat, 3/9/26) Ohio’s “curtailment trick” is, specifically, the bipartisan legislative effort currently underway to lower the income cap on EdChoice eligibility. Singing from the same nouveau hymnal is the deputy director of Honesty for Ohio Education, who complains in this op ed that the venerable Cleveland Scholarship doesn’t have an income cap of its own after more than 30 years. P.S. – Dude is also touting some thingo called “Strong Ohio Schools”. No idea what it might be, and while this is the first mention I’ve seen of it in the media, I’m sure its adherents will make whatever it is an unavoidably big deal soon enough. (Ohio Capital Journal, 3/10/26) For a more traditional voucher groucher concert experience, here’s the superintendent of Olmsted Falls City Schools playing just the hits. Hearing them again, it’s no wonder the Chalkbeat reporter in the first clip of this section suggests the new tactics “may reflect an admission by school choice opponents that these programs are here to stay.” (Cleveland.com, 3/10/26)

  4. Meanwhile, back in the real world, here’s a lovely kids’ eye view—complete with tons of awesome photos—of how a small group of private school students in Cleveland spend their afterschool time every day and how they experience their city in the process. This is a beautiful piece, and if you don’t think it has anything to do with school choice…think again. It is everything. (Signal Cleveland, 3/10/26)

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

Policy Priority:
School Funding
Topics:
Governance

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • Page 49
  • Page 50
  • Page 51
  • Page 52
  • Current page 53
  • Page 54
  • Page 55
  • Page 56
  • Page 57
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]