1. In case you missed it last week, the General Assembly passed the new two-year state budget and Governor Kasich signed it into law…making a record number of line item vetoes along the way. Jeremy Kelley took a look at 11 of those education-related vetoes and got some big names to help him make sense of the original intent of the language and the effect of the vetoes. Our own Chad Aldis is quoted on an item regarding charter sponsor evaluation rules. The legislature is due back in town tomorrow to possibly override some of those vetoes. Which ones and how likely they are to be overridden are still open questions. (Middletown Journal-News, 7/3/17)
    
2. Youngstown City Schools has a new interim superintendent, we discovered yesterday. He is a current district principal, well-regarded it seems, and will stay in the role at least until a permanent supe is found. In case you’re wondering: the previous interim was non-renewed, and the role of the supe in a CEO-style Academic Distress Commission district will apparently be as a communication liaison between the CEO and the elected board. Can’t imagine why they can’t find a permanent occupant. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/3/17) The district has a new athletics director too (well, a new “chief of physical development and athletics” to be precise). He is a Cardinal Mooney grad and retired college football coach, most recently in Pennsylvania. As all three of my dedicated Gadfly Bites subscribers know, I’m not that keen on sports stuff, but this interview is pretty interesting. Dude talks a bit about early college programs, how the athletics department can support the upcoming return to neighborhood schools, and what role athletics will play in the plans of the new principal at East High School. Fascinating. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/4/17)
    
3. Next up, we have an interview with Richard Stoff, President and CEO of the Ohio Business Roundtable, in which he discusses (among other things) BRIGHT New Leaders for Ohio Schools, the program to recruit and train business leaders to become school leaders across the state.  Good stuff. (LEADERS magazine, July 2017 issue)
    
4. Finally today, we give you the twisty tale of the American Virtual Academy of Ohio, an online-school-that-never-was. Mansfield City Schools’ effort to “recapture some of the students and revenue” the district lost to online charter schools (you know what I’m talking about, don’t you?) didn’t get very far as questions began to arise pretty quickly about the nature of the entity with which they entered into a contract to provide the services. The whole expedition seems to be over now, except for this exposé. A cautionary tale, I imagine, in several regards. (Mansfield News Journal, 7/1/17)

1. The Dispatch published an interesting piece this weekend discussing the lack of district superintendents who are female and people of color in Ohio. They interview outgoing Reynoldsburg supe Tina Thomas-Manning, an African-American woman, who talks about her difficulties in reaching the position. In the end, the discussion focuses almost solely on women vs. men and the people of color part of the question kind of fades away. I can’t wait to see the D’s analysis of how the numbers shake out for charter school leaders. I’ll just hold my breath while I wait for that one to be published… (Columbus Dispatch, 7/2/17)
    
2. Dispatch editors, meanwhile, were opining on the ongoing kerfuffle between Ohio’s largest online school and just about every entity of state government. Kinda like trying to hit a moving target. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/2/17)
    
3. Editors in Youngstown this weekend were opining on district CEO Krish Mohip at the start of his second year in charge. Seems generally favorable, with some uphill battles yet to come. (Youngstown Vindicator, 7/2/17)
    
4. Finally today, we have a set of profiles of recent high school graduates from various Stark County High Schools. Each story is individual (even the one about the quadruplets!) and each says a lot about the specific backgrounds, needs, and interests of the students. But I ask you to read carefully and see if there are any statewide education policies that appear to play vital roles in the educational lives and successes of these kids. I know that all three of my loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers are supportive of the types student-centric policies that break out from the status quo and are discussed regularly in these clips in perhaps some esoteric ways, so I’d just hope that folks who are not fully onboard with such education reform ideas might read this story and get the concrete message that seems to me to be screaming out of this piece. What’s the message? That CTE can mean great training and real careers; that online schooling can mean the difference between staying on track and falling irretrievably behind; that strong graduation requirements mean not letting kids with challenges just drift toward a worthless diploma because it’s easy for the adults; or that school choice can mean opening up the world to kids who might only know the schools their parents knew. Only the most important messages that I think need to be out there. (Canton Repository, 7/1/17)

1. After the departure of its high-profile leader in the recent past, FutureReady Columbus is still trying to get itself ready for the present day. The organization was born as a big ticket, partner-fueled initiative to help Columbus students get the best possible education. While the dollars and the big-name partners still seem to be in place, the unexpected need to do a second leader search has required them to slow their roll and to significantly shrink their focus. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/29/17) A similar organization in Toledo appears to have had a similar trajectory. Take your time, people. I’m sure it’s fine. (Toledo Blade, 6/29/17)
    
2. So, what’s up with that ongoing kerfuffle between the state’s largest online school and the Ohio Department of Education? And the State Board of Education? And the court system? And StateAuditor Man!? And the court of public opinion? And the Ohio Attorney General? And several newspapers around the state? Well, I’m glad you asked, but you might not be. You can check out updates on the fast-moving situation from the Plain Dealer (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/29/17), and the Dispatch (Columbus Dispatch, 6/29/17), and the Plain Dealer (again) for everything you might have wanted to know (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 6/29/17). But don’t come complaining to me if your head hurts afterward. And it ain’t over yet either.
    
3. Editors in Youngstown opined today in favor of at least some part of the above situation. The part where the state board of ed voted to ask politely for some money back. (Youngstown Vindicator, 6/30/17)
    
4. Elsewhere in Youngstown, at least one member of the district’s elected board has been busy with some research on CEO Krish Mohip, and appears confident enough in what he has found (related to Mohip’s previous work in Chicago) that he reached out to the Vindy with deets. The Land of Intestinal Fortitude, indeed. Fun fact: while it’s not noted in this piece, this story has links to Lorain’s CEO-style Academic Distress Commission as well. Two-fer! (Youngstown Vindicator, 6/30/17)
    
5. Folks in Dayton City Schools are high-fiving all over the place in response to their preliminary state test score data. It’s not final, but proficiency rates appear to be up a bit over last year’s numbers in most subjects in the district’s elementary and middle schools. Bad news – overall proficiency still stinks (highest percentage I saw on any of the tests was 38) and high school proficiency rates declined pretty much across the board. I guess when you’re at rock bottom, anything is a win, but if it were me I wouldn’t be writing the new advertising slogan just yet. “It’s a fairly good time to be a third grader in Dayton City Schools; everybody else hang on!” probably sounds better in a board meeting than it does on a billboard. (Dayton Daily News, 6/30/17)

With a choice-friendly President and Secretary of Education now in office, private school choice programs have been cast into the national spotlight. This week has been no different: On Monday, researchers released two major studies on vouchers—one on Indiana’s program, the other on Louisiana’s—and the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a decision that may have implications for choice programs across this nation.

Among other things, this means that the debate on private school choice has moved from the periphery of the education policy conversation to center stage. As a result, some of you may be joining the conversation for the first time. As a long-time participant in the voucher wars, we at the Fordham Institute thought it might be helpful to offer a get-up-to-speed guide featuring some of our “greatest hits” on the topic.

We’ve arranged it around four questions:

1. What does the research tell us about the impact of school vouchers on participants and on traditional public schools?
2. What is smart policy regarding results-based accountability in the context of private school choice?
3. How can we encourage private schools to participate in choice programs, and get high-quality schools to grow or replicate?
4. What are the pros and cons of a big new federal initiative on private school choice?

What does the research tell us about the impact of school vouchers on participants and on traditional public schools?

Boosting student outcomes remains a key goal of private-school choice. While Fordham isn’t a program evaluator per se, we’ve been proud to assist and support several important empirical analyses on the impacts of vouchers on both participants and pupils in public schools. Back in the early 2000s, we helped support an experimental study of a privately funded scholarship program in Dayton. The analysis found that African American participants made significant progress (more so in reading). Fast forward almost a decade: Ohio lawmakers had enacted a statewide voucher program known as EdChoice. In 2008, Fordham and a number other groups released an early study offering evidence that vouchers may have improved public schools as competition increased. Eight years later, we released a rigorous analysis of EdChoice by David Figlio. His study would corroborate the “competitive effects” finding, though he also found that voucher students themselves lost ground on state tests. As we’ve discussed, however, the participant analysis has several limitations that should be kept in mind. For an accessible overview of this study, see Dr. Figlio’s slide deck presented at our February event on voucher research.

What is smart policy regarding results-based accountability in the context of private school choice?

One of the central, thorniest policy questions of private-school choice programs is whether and how to hold them accountable for results. In 2009, we interviewed twenty top thinkers on choice and accountability. They offered a variety of perspectives on matters such as testing and transparency around those results; financial disclosures; and whether low-performing private schools should be stripped of their ability to enroll scholarship students. In the end, we suggested a “sliding scale” approach—private schools with more voucher students would face closer scrutiny than those with just a handful. Five years later, we released a policy toolkit aimed at state legislators wrestling with accountability in voucher or scholarship programs. Our recommendations insisted on protecting private schools’ freedoms, while holding them accountable for student outcomes (again on a sliding scale). In a couple follow-up blog posts, we continued to make the case that choice, done well, requires accountability for student learning. We noted earlier this year that as scholarship programs have expanded, states have indeed put into place reasonable accountability provisions, debunking one of critics’ favorite claims—that voucher-accepting schools are “unaccountable.”

How can we encourage private schools to participate in choice programs, and get high-quality schools to grow or replicate?

Not every private school decides to admit scholarship students when given the opportunity. Why do some schools participate, while others decline? In Red Tape or Red Herring, we surveyed private-school leaders to find out which policies weigh most heavily on this decision. Most respondents cite regulations that restrict admissions or religious practices as deterrents, while just a minority felt that testing discourages participation. The overwhelming majority said they were motivated by the opportunity to “expand their mission to their community.” Our case study of five Ohio private schools also reveals that vouchers are seen as a way to reach more families. Yet the school leaders also are candid about the challenges of maintaining a culture of high expectations, while working on shoestring budgets. Similar themes are echoed in a Fordham report that looked inside Catholic voucher-accepting schools in Milwaukee.

What are the pros and cons of a big new federal initiative on private school choice?

This all brings us to the burning question of the day, at least for Beltway policy wonks: Should there be a federal private-school choice initiative—and what should it look like? On these questions, we’ve got you covered. Just two days before President Trump’s inauguration, we co-hosted an event that debated three options for a federal private-school choice program. Throughout February, we published the views of a dozen top-notch experts in our fourth annual “Wonkathon.” We crowned a quartet from the Foundation for Excellence in Education as our “wisest wonks” in this competition, having won a popular vote for the most persuasive proposal. In February and April, we at Fordham co-hosted events that continued to explore issues in a potential federal choice program, from both research and policy angles. After weighing the competing arguments, Mike expressed his skepticism about the wisdom of a big new federal tax credit scholarship program.

***

Needless to say, we at the Education Gadfly have logged countless hours and spilled much ink wrestling with the issues around private school choice. We’ve done everything from commenting on presidential candidate Al Gore’s position on vouchers to penning editorials in newspapers to testifying before legislators in our home state of Ohio. We’ll continue to be relentless in advocating for thriving private schools that are accessible to families of all backgrounds. We certainly don’t have all the answers to get us there, but we hope you’ll consider joining us in this effort.

***

Fordham reports

Marshall Allen, “Public Support for Catholic Schools” in Scott Hamilton (ed.) Who Will Save America’s Urban Public Schools (2008); Chester E. Finn, Jr., et al, When Private Schools Take Public Dollars: What’s the Place of Accountability in School Voucher Programs? (2009); David Stuit and Sy Doan, School Choice Regulations: Red Tape or Red Herring? (2012); Ellen Belcher, Pluck and Tenacity: How Five Private Schools in Ohio Have Adapted to Vouchers (2014); Fordham Institute, Public Accountability and Private-School Choice: A Policy Toolkit (2014); David Figlio and Krzysztof Karbownik, Evaluation of Ohio’s EdChoice Scholarship Program: Selection, Competition, and Performance Effects (2016).

Fordham commentary

Michael Petrilli, “The problem with ‘bad voucher schools aren’t a problem,’” (2014); Michael Petrilli and Chester E. Finn, Jr., “The two tracks of school reform,” (2014); Michael Petrilli, “Vouchers have changed. Maybe your position should change, too” (2017); Michael Petrilli and Richard Kahlenberg, “Two experts debate whether public funds should be used to support private school vouchers” (2017); Aaron Churchill, “Don’t neglect vouchers’ competitive effects” (2017); Michael Petrilli, “The Fordham Institute’s 2017 Wonkathon: The $20 billion school choice edition” (2017); Fordham Institute, “A new federal push on private school choice?” (2017); Fordham Institute, “A $20 billion school choice tax credit program: Yes, maybe, how so?” (2017); Chad L. Aldis, “Testimony before the Ohio House Finance Committee” (2017); Michael Petrilli, “The three miracles required for Donald Trump to become the patron saint of school choice” (2017).

Apprenticeships are all the rage. President Trump recently announced a doubling of federal funding for apprenticeship programs to $200 million in his next budget. This follows an investment by President Obama of $50 million in the outgoing months of his administration. In fact, this follows a major rewrite of the federal legislation governing job training in 2014. The Workforce Innovation and Opportunities Act (WIOA) calls for a much greater level of coordination among workforce programs.

President Trump correctly noted that the organizational framework surrounding workforce development still needs some work, but this criticism is too simplistic. States have made major strides in recent years to improve the coordination of workforce development, and some have promoted apprenticeships as a part of the effort. The WIOA legislation made a requirement for workforce plans at the state level and some states have plans to expand apprenticeships. Many states have invested state tax revenue in apprenticeships and other mechanisms to strengthen training for youth.

Ohio, for instance, has recently taken critical steps to link apprenticeship programs to young people’s educational experiences. These include: 1) expanding linkages between high schools and state-recognized pre-apprenticeship programs through the College Credit Plus program, 2) developing an optional state recognized pre-apprenticeship pathway for students in regular career and technical programs, and, 3) expanding registered apprenticeships utilizing the state community college system, particularly for non-traditional apprentice occupations and under-represented populations.[1]

The point here is that apprenticeship programs are—not to mince words—boutique programs. A program that trains roughly 3,000 new apprentices a year in 2010 in Ohio cannot make a major dent in the labor demands for the state as a whole. In a study of ten states, only 35,000 students annually start apprenticeship programs. Ohio has over 5.8 million people working and has an unemployment rate of below 5 percent. There is great need for new entrants into the skilled trades. There are currently 7,500 jobs for “construction” alone and 700 for “welders” on OhioMeansJobs, the state online job posting system. In 2015, the combined output for all Ohio schools on an annual basis was only 654 welders. While it is projected to increase over time, the Ohio Education Research Center’s research shows that it can be very hard to meet the labor supply needs of growing firms with educational institutions.[2] All the more reason for the apprenticeship system to be improved.

Registered apprenticeship programs can be high quality. The best evidence indicates that the median annual earnings of completers of apprenticeships are over $60,000/year in the State of Washington, which works out to a median hourly wage of $37. In the ten-state study from 2012, the average difference in annual earnings for those in skilled professions was over $6,000 between those that did an apprenticeship and those that did not.  

Dr. Eric Hanushek recently suggested in an opinion piece that apprenticeships might not be the ideal education program for youth, and that young people need better general education. However, since the average age of apprentices is about 30 years old, apprenticeships are clearly serving a clientele that has tried other programs and had work experience and is looking for something new. An apprenticeship is still a great option for an adult seeking to support a family. And programs have gotten much better at linkages with community and technical colleges. In the future, they very well may be a real alternative for youth as well as 30-year-olds. But what I worry about in response to Dr. Hanushek’s work is that we throw out a good training system just because it doesn’t teach general skills as well as a good suburban high school.  

In addition to being small in comparison to the demand, apprenticeships are devilishly hard to scale up. An apprenticeship is a complex system of industrial relations, including an educational component (often at a community college), a trade union supervising the curriculum and training, and employers working on the practicum part of apprenticeships. The reason they thrive historically in Germany has a lot to do with the interdependence between firms, unions, and educational institutions and the “Lander” or regional government. We should be very skeptical that we can transplant the form to the United States without major effort at research and development. 

Doing this right at the national level is not going to cost $200 million. If we take the estimates on the government costs from the 2012 study, it might be on average $1,000 per apprentice. For an apprenticeship system as big as, say, the community college system, we would need $170 million dollars just for Ohio. What happens if we really want to take on the problem and we give $1,000 per apprentice to a state the size of Texas or even California? Costs will vary among programs, so the real costs will be much greater. Clearly, President Trump will need to increase the overall budget for apprenticeships, as will states, if we really want to make a dent in the demand for skilled trades in the nation.

The nation would do well to take education for careers more seriously than it has in the past. The apprenticeship system is a major part of this potential source of training. However, taking it seriously requires dealing with a whole host of fiscal, educational, and social issues. I hope the states, including Ohio, are up for it.

Joshua D. Hawley is Associate Professor in the Glenn College and an Associate Professor in the College of Education and Human Ecology at The Ohio State University.

In early June, the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) released an updated draft of its ESSA plan for public comment. The department had initially intended to submit its plan earlier this spring, but after heavy pressure, state officials decided to delay submission until September. The most important part of the document is its description of the state’s proposed school accountability and intervention policies. We believe that Ohio’s plan does a good job meeting both federal and state requirements.

Still, Ohio should aim for excellence, if not perfection. Allow me to identify three improvements worthy of consideration before ODE submits its plan to the U.S. Department of Education. These are sections that ODE could likely tweak without running afoul of federal or state law.

Eliminate the Chronic Absenteeism indicator (Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs—Indicators; lines 428-512)

ODE proposes using Chronic Absenteeism as a new report-card measure to comply with ESSA’s requirement for an indicator of School Quality or Student Success. This is a mistake. While related to student learning, absenteeism is not itself an outcome measure, which should form the basis of school accountability. Attendance should be viewed more akin to an “input” measure, like student demographics; as the Ohio Auditor of State writes, “attendance is merely an input over which schools have minimal control.” In addition, to maintain the integrity of the indicator, a robust process may need to be in place to verify schools’ attendance data. Audits of attendance data have revealed unintentional errors or intentional manipulation of records under what the Auditor has called an “honor system” of district attendance reporting. A recent Plain Dealer article notes that the district with Ohio’s highest chronic absenteeism rate claims an error was likely made in the data. For these reasons, ODE might consider other options to comply with ESSA’s School Quality indicator, such as using only its Prepared for Success component (for high schools) or perhaps data from its Achievement component (such as “indicators met” which would cover almost all schools).

Identify the bottom 5 percent of schools for “comprehensive support”—and no more (Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs, Subpart 4; lines 224-233).

ESSA requires states to identify a minimum of 5 percent of schools as low-performing and in need of comprehensive support—i.e., some form of state intervention. Ohio should affirm that it will identify, per the federal minimum requirement, the bottom 5 percent of schools. But ODE should also make clearer how it plans to identify comprehensive schools—the draft only refers to the use of the summative rating system. It does not indicate whether the total number of points earned by a school, or whether the overall A-F letter grades themselves will lead to identification of comprehensive schools. ODE should use the point system that drives the A-F ratings, not the summative ratings. That’s because the number of F-rated schools may exceed the 5 percent target. Using the points system, however, would allow ODE to identify just the bottom 5 percent. By limiting the number of comprehensive-support schools, the state could better focus its resources on the organizational changes necessary to improve Ohio’s lowest performing schools. It may also discourage state policymakers from lowering the bar just to have fewer schools assigned F’s and placed under state oversight.

Eliminate the Watch category of schools from the ESSA Plan (Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs, Subpart 4; lines 319-337).

Under ESSA, Ohio must identify two groups of schools as in need of improvement (“comprehensive” and “targeted” support schools). But ODE’s plan goes beyond these categories and identifies a third group of low-performing schools called “watch” schools. The basis for this identification is found in state, not federal, law, and ODE may not need to include Watch schools in its plan to comply with ESSA. In the coming days, Ohio lawmakers should consider eliminating or modifying the state law that allows ODE and the State Board to identify Watch schools and subject them to school improvement plans. Under federal law, Ohio must already intervene in schools with low-performing subgroups, i.e., “targeted” support schools. The Watch category goes further—perhaps a step too far—by identifying even more schools for intervention based on subgroup performance. It’s unlikely that ODE has the capacity to support in a meaningful way so many schools for improvement.

***

ODE’s ESSA plan should simply describe how it intends to meet federal requirements within the state accountability framework. In the areas noted above, ODE could dial back or clarify its compliance with ESSA before submitting the plan to federal officials. Each of these suggestions has the potential to reduce the administrative burdens—while maintaining accountability for outcomes—and free Buckeye educators to focus on students. 

The latest study from CREDO explores the student growth outcomes of charter networks in twenty-four states, New York City, and Washington, D.C. Overall, it includes 3.7 million students, 5,715 charter schools, 240 Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), fifty-four Vender Operated Schools (VOSs). And like previous CREDO studies, it relies on the virtual control record (VCR) method, which compares each charter school student to a statistically constructed “virtual” peer with similar attributes.

In the study, the authors identify three types of charter networks: CMOs, VOSs, and Hybrids. They define a CMO as an organization that oversees the operation of at least three charter schools and is the charter holder for those schools. In contrast, a VOS is overseen by an organization that operates at least three schools but does not hold their charters. Hybrid charter schools have aspects of both a CMO and a VOS.

Based on these definitions, the authors estimate that approximately 68 percent of charter schools are independent, meaning they don’t belong to any network, leaving 22 percent that are part of a CMO, 8 percent that are affiliated with a VOS, and just 1 percent that are Hybrids. On average, the authors estimate that independent charters have almost no impact on student learning gains relative to traditional public schools. However, CMOs achieve an additional seventeen days of learning in both math and reading, while VOSs achieve an additional eleven days of learning in reading, and Hybrids achieve an additional fifty-one days of learning in math and an additional forty-six days of learning in reading. On a related note, nonprofit schools, which include most independent schools and CMOs, perform ever-so-slightly better than for-profits, which include most VOSs.

Like previous CREDO work, the study uncovers dramatic variation in charter performance at the state level. For example, CMOs in Massachusetts produce an additional 177 days of learning relative to traditional public schools and an additional 125 days of learning relative to non-CMO charters. In contrast, CMOs in Nevada lose ninety-one days of math learning relative to non-CMO charters and 131 days relative to traditional public schools.

In addition to these state level differences, the study identifies some truly outstanding networks, including multi-state “super-networks” such as Uncommon Schools (plus 155 days in math) and KIPP (plus 51 days), as well as local standouts like Amethod (which achieves an astonishing 275 days of additional learning in math), Tekoa Academy, American Indian Public Charter School, and this year’s Broad Prize winner, Success Academy, which achieves an additional 200 days of learning in math.

Consistent with CREDO’s previous research on charters, which suggests that they provide greater benefits to minority students, the results also show that CMOs serve poor, black, and non-ELL Hispanic students much better than traditional public schools do. However, relative to traditional public schools, they achieve less progress with white, SPED, and ELL students. Overall, charters also achieve the strongest results in middle school and high school. For example, middle schools that belong to CMOs achieve an additional fifty-seven days of learning in math. Finally, despite the generally positive effects associated with brick-and-mortar charters, like previous CREDO studies, this one finds that online CMOs have a worryingly negative impact on the average student, equivalent to the loss of approximately 120 days of learning in math each year.

While management structure isn’t the catchiest angle from which to look at school success, this research is an important addition to the evidence of what works for charter school students.

SOURCE: James L. Woodworth et al., “Charter Management Organizations 2017,” Center for Research on Education Outcomes (June 2017).

An average of forty-four million unique visitors use GreatSchools every year to check out schools in their area and elsewhere. A new study analyzes searches conducted on the website to learn whether changes in the local school choice environment are reflected in the information that parents seek about school quality.

Analysts link monthly search data in census-defined cities and towns to information on changes in six types of school choice policies: intra- and inter-open enrollment, tuition vouchers, tax credits for donations to private scholarship charities, tuition tax credits, and open enrollment for Title I schools specifically mandated by NCLB sanctions. The researchers analyze over one hundred million individual searches between January 2010, and October 2013; they combine those data with state-level measures of school choice policies that relate to the six areas above to see how changes in those policies relate to changes in search behavior on GreatSchools. They also examine how charter school openings and closings relate to online activity.

Their primary finding is that, for most policies, there’s an uptick in search frequency tied to increases in the prevalence of NCLB-induced choice (measured as when schools receiving Title I funds fail to meet annual yearly progress for two consecutive years and must offer the option of students transferring out to another non-failing local school). In other words, when parents learn that their kids have a choice, they go searching for information about those choices. Specifically, a 10 percentage-point increase in NCLB-choice-based eligibility increases the number of searches by 7.2 percent. They find similar patterns for intra- and inter-district open enrollment (specifically, when these policies are put in place by state law allowing or mandating them), and private school tuition vouchers. But there are small to negligible relationships between search frequency and changes in tuition tax credits or charitable tax credits, perhaps because parents are less likely to understand how these options might benefit their child, or because GreatSchools has less information on private schools. They also find a strong relationship between charter school openings and searches; specifically, adding one more charter school to an area is associated with a 5 percent increase in online search activity.

In short, creating more school options appears to drive demand for information. Availability of data is essential—but a parent needs a reason to hunt down and use such information.

SOURCE: Michael F. Lovenheim and Patrick Walsh, “Does Choice Increase Information? Evidence from Online School Search Behavior,” NBER (May 2017).

This blog originally appeared as an editorial in today’s edition of the Columbus Dispatch.

The Ohio Senate just voted to allow the class of 2018 to receive diplomas without demonstrating proficiency in a single academic subject area. The competence-free graduation option, which came from recommendations made by the State Board of Education under pressure from local school superintendents, would award students a diploma upon meeting just two of eight conditions.

These include softballs like attending school regularly, obtaining a 2.5 senior-year grade-point average or completing community service. Show up, do a nominal number of assignments or a few months of part-time volunteer work, and the diploma is yours. Forget about setting a pitifully low bar; Ohio is about to remove it altogether.

It’s important to remember why, decades ago, Ohio and many other states decided to set competency-based graduation requirements in the first place. Namely, too many local school districts were willing to hand out diplomas that their graduates could not read, to young adults who had made it to 18 with the reading, writing, and math skills of grade-school students. The system had failed them.

The problem was most pernicious for poor and minority students, who were much more likely to be marched through school, year after year, without any responsible adults making sure they had actually mastered the material. The reforms of the past quarter-century were meant to ensure some basic level of equity — to guarantee that no Ohio child was simply passed along whether their schools had taught them essential skills or not. Graduation requirements were a key part of the strategy.

And there has been real progress as a result. In 2005, only 24 percent of Ohio students met the ACT’s college readiness benchmarks; by 2016, that number had risen to 33 percent.

Sadly, we still have a long way to go until we can look every Ohio student in the eye and say that we did right by them. The “rising tide of mediocrity” described by the Nation At Risk report in 1983, the year I was born, has not ebbed. Roughly one in three Ohio high-school graduates arrives at college wholly unprepared, requiring remediation in math or reading. And those are the students who actually attend college. The tide of mediocrity has continued to swell; the only difference is that we’ve found larger and sturdier islands of denial to shelter us from the waves.

Policymakers should be asking themselves how to ratchet up expectations and ensure that more schools rise to the occasion to help their students meet them. Instead, by “fixing” Ohio’s graduation “crisis,” they are embracing state-sanctioned low expectations, a resignation that we think students simply aren’t capable. Despite being cloaked in language about “flexibility” and the need to acknowledge students’ “other accomplishments”— as if personal triumphs or character traits will compensate for an inability to read or do math — Ohio policymakers are imposing a solution that most of us would never accept for our own children.

The State Board of Education justified its decisions based partially on the “potential unintended consequences to the class of 2018.” But what are the unintended consequences of expecting so very little of our students? How can Ohio leaders say that all children deserve an excellent education, no matter their family background or stake in life, and then turn around and expect next to nothing of them?

Don’t mistake political expediency for benevolence: There’s nothing compassionate about diminished expectations. I say this not only as an education policy analyst or a former public school teacher, but as a first-generation college graduate. I was a child who could have been written off in the same manner that Ohio lawmakers are set to do to scores of young people. Good intentions don’t matter when the stakes are so high.

The message we send matters immensely. We either signal to our students that they’re capable of reaching great heights, or we perpetuate a dangerous belief that they’re not resilient enough, not hardworking enough, not brilliant enough, not capable enough. It’s critical that the legislature reject the Senate’s proposed graduation alternative. If they refuse, Gov. John Kasich needs to stand up for the belief that all kids can learn, and veto these changes.

What does it take to engage all students? How feasible is it for a teacher to have a classroom full of diverse students all actively engaged and paying undivided attention? As a prior high school teacher, my inclination is to say that it can be done—but it takes lots of planning. Here are three strategies that I found successful in engaging students as a mathematics and physics teacher at Lawrence High School (through MATCH Education) and UMass Boston Upward Bound, respectively.

First, make the content relevant to students’ lives. Whether working with small groups of three to four students or teaching a full class, I quickly realized that students love to learn about things that relate to their own lives. For example, instead of giving my students a math word problem about an auditor in New York trying to check a firm’s financial statements, I replaced those details with scenarios that would have more relevance to my students. As many of them loved baseball, I would tweak obscure word problems to reflect innings, number of pitches, and runs to better engage my students. As another example, at Lawrence High, many students I worked with were from the Dominican Republic and had limited English proficiency. Although I was required to teach my classes in English, I often translated and described key math concepts in Spanish to more effectively engage my students. Being able to communicate with students in a language or dialect they are familiar with, and convert obscure math problems to topics of greater interest to them, not only lowered disengagement but also made my students feel appreciated and valued.

Second, put the student in the role of teacher. At MATCH, we read Doug Lemov’s Teach Like a Champion, and one of the book’s techniques the organization emphasized was the teacher-to-student speaking ratio. Teachers were not encouraged to speak more than 25 percent of the time to encourage student participation. I found that all of my students loved to explain concepts to their peers, and actively involving them in class discussions kept them from zoning out. Apart from asking students to lead discussions or explain their math solution to their peers, I often incorporated technology and mathematics manipulatives (such as triangles, squares, and cubes) to help students visualize surface areas or volumes of objects. While student-led teaching may not work with classes of all sizes, I personally found it very effective for small-to-medium sized groups of students and classes.

Third, foster a positive—yet challenging—learning environment. Some teachers love to decorate their classrooms with inspirational quotes and college memorabilia. Others depend on their positive energy and nature to create a welcoming and positive environment for students. Both can help make students feel safer and supported in class. Furthermore, teachers should promote various students’ interests and cultural perspectives through simple acts such as learning their language and culture, chatting with them about their extra-curricular interests, or just showing concern for their wellbeing. All students must feel that they belong before they can engage critically. To truly engage students critically, teachers must provide challenging material and content to students. When I was teaching, I quickly learned that high achieving students often finish their tasks faster than other students. In order to keep them actively engaged and thinking, I started preparing extra “challenging questions” which they could attempt after finishing their original assignment. Students began to compete in order to see who will get to the challenging questions first. In my experience, a competitive learning environment is a positive learning environment and can produce great results.

Based on my own experience in the classroom, I believe there’s much educators, school administrators, and policymakers can do to help create engaging classroom content; encourage effective or even untraditional delivery methods; and foster positive learning environments. Research has consistently shown that high student engagement leads to improved learning. For more on how high school students are engaged in their schools, check out our latest report, What Teens Want From Their Schools: A National Survey of High School Student Engagement.