After much criticism, state superintendent Paolo DeMaria decided to delay Ohio’s submission of its ESSA plan until September. One of the chief complaints was that the plan did not propose any cutbacks on the number of state assessments students take, and a committee is now forming to examine whether any could be culled.

The committee will find that most state assessments must be given to comply with federal law. ESSA, like No Child Left Behind before it, requires annual exams in grades 3-8 in math and English language arts (ELA); science exams once in grades 3-5 and 6-8; and one high school math, ELA, and science exam. This leaves just seven of twenty four state exams on the table for discussion: four social studies assessments, two high school end-of-course exams, and the fall third-grade ELA exam. Ohio students spend less than 2 percent of their time in school taking these state tests.

While eliminating any of these assessments would slightly reduce time on testing, doing so also comes at a steep price. Let’s take a closer look.

Social Studies Exams

Ohio currently administers exams in grades 4 and 6 social studies and end-of-course assessments in US history and US government. The Buckeye State has a relatively long history of exams in social studies (previously called “citizenship”). Ohio’s old ninth grade citizenship tests go back to 1990, and tests in grades four and six were added in the mid-1990s. In 2009, the state suspended social studies testing due to budget cuts in grades four and six, but they resumed in 2014-15. The state uses the results from social studies exams in its school accountability system.

One of the central missions of education is to mold young people into the knowledgeable citizens needed for informed participation in democratic life. Over time, though, American schools have crowded out social studies. Based on studies of instructional time, Harvard’s Martin West writes “Test-based accountability can result in a narrowing of the curriculum to focus on tested subjects at the expense of those for which schools are not held accountable.” Abandoning Ohio’s social studies tests could encourage further narrowing. Meanwhile, as several analysts (including Fordham’s Robert Pondiscio) have argued, in today’s raucous political environment, students need solid civics instruction now more than ever.

Of course, testing alone can’t cure all that ails social studies instruction. For instance, a mere 18 percent of American eighth graders reached proficiency on NAEP’s 2014 US history exam; in civics, the proficiency rate was just 23 percent. But ensuring its place among Ohio’s assessments counterbalances the incentive for schools to concentrate on ELA and math at the expense of social studies. It would also signal a clear commitment that social studies, American history, and US government are an integral part of students’ education.

End of Course Exams (EOC)

Ohio recently implemented two sets of EOCs in math and ELA at the high school level and could, under federal law, drop one in each subject.[1] The exams are Algebra I and Geometry (or Integrated Math I and II) along with ELA I and II. Starting with the class of 2018, the EOCs replace the Ohio Graduation Tests (OGTs) as the exams taken in high school. The OGTs were widely considered to be low-level exams assessing eighth grade content. The EOCs raise the bar for students, as they test content from their current high school courses—not stuff they were supposed to have learned years ago. EOC implementation is also part Ohio’s move towards college and career ready standards, including test alignment to the state’s new learning standards in high school math and ELA. Like Ohio, many states—also shifting to higher standards themselves—have decided to move towards EOCs in high school.

Commitment to higher expectations and more challenging high school assessments are needed in Ohio. Post-secondary data show that too many Buckeye students are not prepared for college. For example, roughly one-third of Ohio’s college freshman needs remedial English or math. Too few young people make it to college completion: Based on ODE’s post-secondary statistics, just one in three of the class of 2009 obtained an Associate degree or higher six years after post-secondary matriculation. Employers have repeatedly indicated that many young people are not ready for the demands of today’s workplaces. Testing twice in high school in math and ELA should keep high schools—and their students—focused on the goal of readiness for college or career.

Dropping a set of EOCs could also place at risk an important advancement in Ohio’s accountability system. With EOC implementation, the state recently began to calculate value added (or growth) for high schools. This has been a step forward, as high schools had previously been judged on the basis of graduation rates and simple test scores—poor measures due to their close link with demographics and prior achievement. While it may be possible to calculate value added based on just one set of EOCs, a second assessment yields results in which we can have more confidence. It increases the sample size, which in turn allows for more precise statistical estimates of student growth. Additionally, since a second EOC covers a larger number of students attending a particular high school, the results better portray overall school performance. The results from just one grade may not reflect the performance of a school with four grade levels.

Third Grade ELA (Fall Administration)

This is the first of two ELA state tests that third-graders take, the other being the normal spring exam. It may benefit school leaders and educators to have the early results, especially with the Third Grade Reading Guarantee’s retention provisions in effect. For instance, they may want to know which students are most in need of immediate attention before taking the spring exams.

***

Calls to ditch state exams are sure to be loud as the superintendent’s committee starts its work. Its members—and the legislature, which would ultimately make decisions about state testing—should think carefully about the consequences of abandoning any of these exams.

1. Despite what was discussed – and however heatedly that discussion was had by board members this week – I am reasonably certain that neither the number of school buses actually available to be driven (HOW MANY do they want?!) nor the ages of those vehicles are part of the ongoing problems Dayton City Schools is having with student transportation. But please carry on with your plans. (Dayton Daily News, 3/21/17)
    
2. The Enquirer this week confirmed one half of what was rumored in a WCPO-TV piece we clipped on Monday – the Cincinnati school board voted to invoke the take-back clause of their lease agreement with the Clifton Community Arts Center. Shortly, a 365-day clock will begin to tick for the CCAC to vacate so the magnet school across the street can expand. No formal word from the board yet on whether the much-smaller and likely-in-need-of-some-work mansion next door will be offered for rent to CCAC. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 3/20/17)
    
3. Youngstown schools’ CEO launched a new series of community input sessions this week to find out what district parents want from their schools. Unfortunately, only 1 parent showed up for the first meeting on Monday, although there were a lot of teachers. Additionally, the absence of all board members was noted. (Youngstown Vindicator, 3/21/17) Meanwhile, in tiny Frontier Local Schools in New Matamoros, Ohio, 40 parents showed up for the school board meeting this week, all apparently concerned about a realignment of elementary classes. Some threatened to leave the district via open enrollment if the 3^rd/4^th combo “experiment” didn’t work out for their children. (Marietta Times, 3/21/17) The second community input event in Youngstown last night had much better attendance, although I must admit the number of parents/district employees/community members is unclear. Some folks definitely covered multiple categories. Anywho, Mohip and team have their work cut out for them based on the sampling of input reported here. (Youngstown Vindicator, 3/22/17) Still no board members at last night’s Youngstown event. Here is a quick report on what they were up to instead. (Youngstown Vindicator, 3/22/17)
    
4. Here is an interesting – if unnecessarily provocative – piece on state support for private school students in Ohio. It talks a lot about vouchers (with State Rep. Teresa Fedor referencing Fordham’s EdChoice study from last year along the way) but also a bit about other “auxiliary support” for private schools in terms of staffing and textbook purchasing, among other things. Pretty interesting stuff. (Mansfield News Journal, 3/20/17)
    
5. Lorain schools’ dropout recovery program will apparently remain in exile in its rented church hall for another year at least. There is of course no room for them in the Colossus of Lorain (a.k.a. the district’s schmancy new high school) and the proposed alternative building the district already owns is apparently an even bigger pit than originally thought and will take a ton of money and time to be properly workable. (Northern Ohio Morning Journal, 3/20/17)
    
6. Editors in Akron opined in praise of State Superintendent Paolo DeMaria this week because, they believe, he finally “gets it”. (Akron Beacon Journal, 3/21/17)
    
7. It appears that Columbus City Schools is prepped for and pretty pumped about the new graduation requirements for high schoolers graduating in 2017-18 and beyond. So, why are folks trying to change them? (Columbus Dispatch, 3/21/17)

It’s that time of year when many of us are searching desperately for a local Girl Scout troop in order to buy some cookies. (Helpful hint: It’s super easy to find a cookie booth near you.) But the Girl Scouts aren’t just the bearers of thin mint goodness—the organization also has a research arm, which recently published The State of Girls 2017, an examination of national and state-level trends related to the health and well-being of American girls.

The report analyzes several indicators including demographic shifts, economic health, physical and emotional health, education, and participation in extracurricular/out-of-school activities. Data were pulled from a variety of national and governmental sources, including the U.S. Census Bureau and the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Trends were analyzed from 2007 through 2016.

American girls are growing more racially and ethnically diverse along with the rest of the country’s population. The report notes that the percentage of white school-age girls (ages five to seventeen) decreased from 57 percent in 2007 to 51 percent in 2016. Meanwhile the percentage of Hispanic/Latina girls increased from 20 to 25 percent while the percentage of Black girls decreased from 15 to 14 percent. Approximately 26 percent of all school-age girls are first- or second-generation immigrants, up from 23 percent in 2007. 34 percent of girls live in single-parent homes, and 41 percent of girls live in low-income families. Both these percentages are slightly higher than they were in 2007. 

For girls’ physical and emotional health, there’s both good news and bad. Most risky behaviors—such as smoking cigarettes and alcohol use—have declined. Fewer girls report being bullied, though there has been a slight increase in the number of girls who report being victims of cyberbullying. But there’s worrisome data surrounding emotional health: In 2015, 23 percent of high school girls reported seriously considering suicide, compared to 19 percent in 2007. The rate was highest among ninth-graders (27 percent). In addition, approximately 13 percent of low socioeconomic-status girls reported being depressed compared to 9 percent of more affluent girls. The report’s authors concluded that these data demonstrate the need for “better mental health assessments and interventions for youth in schools and communities.”

Speaking of school, the data related to high school completion and reading and math proficiency should already be familiar to those in the education world. The high school dropout rate has decreased for girls, but it’s significantly higher among low-income girls than among their higher income peers—6 percent compared to 2 percent, respectively. Using NAEP as its basis, the report also notes that although reading and math proficiency has generally improved for girls, achievement gaps based on race and income persist.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this report are the data on extracurricular and out-of-school activities. It’s a widely accepted fact that enrichment and extracurricular opportunities matter. Unfortunately, consistent school athletic participation is significantly lower for low-income girls: 17 percent participated regularly, compared to 31 percent of higher income girls. And it’s not just sports, either. Low-income girls also have lower levels of extracurricular participation in areas like community affairs or volunteer work and student council/government.

These statistics on America’s girls serve as a solid reminder that schools and nonprofit groups have a big role to play in ensuring that all young women have the opportunity to succeed.

SOURCE: “The State of Girls 2017: Emerging Truths and Troubling Trends,” The Girl Scout Research Institute (2017).  

In this report, the authors use administrative data from California to estimate the impact of suspensions on high school graduation rates, as well as the broader social costs of suspension.

According to the authors, the graduation rate for suspended students in California is 60 percent versus 83 percent for non-suspended students. However, as the authors note, much of this difference is likely explained by factors other than suspension. After controlling for several such factors, including GPA and low socio-economic status, the authors estimate that being suspended in high school reduces a student’s odds of graduating by 6.5 percentage points.

Unfortunately, like many similar estimates from previous suspension studies, this one most likely suffers from “omitted variable bias” insofar as the authors are unable to control for all of the factors that might make students both more likely to be suspended and less likely to graduate. And as in many of those prior studies, at least one omitted variable is fairly obvious: the same behavioral challenges (like poor impulse control) that make students more likely to misbehave might also make them less likely to graduate. Yet scholars lack access to data that tells them which students struggle with such challenges.  

This is a well-known problem. So it’s unfortunate that the authors chose not to acknowledge it in the paper.

Worse, even though their estimate of the impact of suspensions is probably inflated by unobserved differences between kids, they nevertheless use it to estimate the economic costs of suspension.

According to the authors, “a single non-graduate generates $175,120 in fiscal taxpayer losses and $579,820 in social losses over his or her lifetime.” Thus, since their estimates imply that 4,621 students a year fail to graduate from high school as a result of suspensions, they conclude that suspensions in California “result in fiscal losses to taxpayers of $809 million over their working lifetimes (from age 18 to 65) and social losses of $2.679 billion.” These numbers are, at best, speculative. Moreover, since (as the authors admit) the report doesn’t take outcomes for non-suspended peers into account, even if they were credible they would only tell part of the story.

Needless to say, all of this is pretty frustrating if you’re a “no excuses” aficionado (or just a lonely suspension skeptic in search of a fact-based discussion, but I digress). While it is true, as the authors observe, that there is “no research-based justification for the frequent use of suspensions,” the case against them is weaker than advocates have led themselves to believe.

SOURCE: Russell W. Rumberger and Daniel J. Losen, “The Hidden Cost of California's Harsh School Discipline,” Civil Rights Project (March 2017).

E-schools, a.k.a. virtual charter schools, have been so thoroughly mired in controversy that they’ve become radioactive in most education discussions. Or in most discussions, period. The current dispute in Ohio is largely technical and centers on the extent to which e-schools provide learning opportunities to students rather than merely offering them. This is much more than semantics; how to track attendance and student log-ins for funding purposes is at the heart of a year-long lawsuit against the Ohio Department of Education (ODE) by one of the state’s largest and most politically influential e-schools. Hundreds of millions of public dollars are at stake.

There have also been broad concerns about e-schools’ lagging performance in Ohio as well as nationally. Last year, a trio of education groups, including long-time charter advocacy organizations, began to share their concerns more publicly, offering policy recommendations to base funding on performance and consider creating enrollment criteria for students. These bold suggestions were embraced shortly thereafter by Ohio’s Auditor of State, Dave Yost, who recently ordered a statewide examination of how online charters collect learning and log-in data.

So it’s no surprise that Senator Joe Schiavoni, a long-time advocate for charter accountability, is back at it with another bill. His latest proposal (SB 39) would add new rules for Ohio’s virtual schools, which collectively serve 38,000 students—well, some of them. E-schools overseen by school districts would get a pass. If Schiavoni hopes to be a serious champion for quality, he needs to drop the legislation’s double standards, carve-outs, and special exemptions, which are precisely what Ohio’s latest charter reforms were meant to eliminate. Now is not the time for new loopholes or favoritism.   

Quick glance at SB 39

Let’s set aside whether the bill’s main provision—requiring e-schools to keep record of the number of hours students spend engaged in learning opportunities—is necessary. (In our view, Ohio’s charter reform law, HB 2, put adequate provisions in place to allow ODE to require log-in and attendance data.) What stands out most is the bill’s brazen partiality for district-sponsored e-schools and an attempt to hold them to a lower standard despite the fact that they presumably face the same issues with attendance tracking.

Take a look at some of SB 39’s provisions below, which would only apply to e-schools not sponsored by school districts. (This is not meant to be a comprehensive analysis of SB 39.)

• Each e-school must keep track of the number of hours each student is “actively participating in learning opportunities”
• Parents or guardians must be notified when a student fails to participate in learning opportunities for ten days in a row
• The school must calculate full-time equivalency (FTE)—which is the basis for how e-schools are paid—according to the amount of time a student was engaged in learning opportunities
• E-schools must provide additional report card information, including mobility data
• Test scores of students enrolled in an e-school who transfer back to their resident school district will be included in the e-school’s accountability report if the student had attended there more than 90 days
• Schools must include their A-F report card grades on their advertising, recruiting, or promotional materials
• Public meetings of an e-school must be made available to the public through live streaming
• If an e-student’s performance declines, her parents, teachers, and principal must “confer to evaluate” whether the student should continue in that school

The nine e-schools sponsored by school districts (out of 23 total in the state) would be unaffected by these changes. This begs all sorts of questions. If Schiavoni believes detailed log-in records are necessary to adequately gauge learning time in a virtual setting, why wouldn’t it also be applied to district e-students? If a student misses 12 school days, wouldn’t all parents of e-students appreciate notification? If transparency in governing board meetings (which are already public) are so important, why not require live streaming for all e-schools? Why not all publicly funded schools, for that matter? Why should the state change its funding calculation, but only for some e-schools? If test scores from e-students shouldn’t mar school districts in the event that students transfer back, is it fair (or even legal) to count scores in some instances but not others? What would happen if one of Ohio’s large e-schools switched to a district sponsor; would these provisions no longer apply to them?

Wanted: consistency

Despite most aspects of SB 39 being unnecessary and/or overboard, the bill’s intention to improve e-school accountability is reasonable given their performance history and the amount of funding at stake. Still, the carve-outs for district-affiliated schools have no place in an accountability bill. SB 39 also shines light on hypocrisy among some members of the General Assembly, who may be motivated by antipathy for Ohio’s big virtual charter networks, allegiance to traditional public schools, or both. Plain Dealer reporter Patrick O’Donnell covered this inconsistency in December with a particularly poignant headline: “A few online schools want special treatment to avoid paying money back to state.” Several district-sponsored e-schools serving at-risk students—faced with the threat of having to pay back public funds—made “emotional pleas” to the state legislature. They won the hearts of some Democrats—several of whom are typically unabashed in calls for more accountability for e-schools and charters broadly.

Perhaps those same lawmakers don’t realize that 40 percent of Ohio’s e-schools are sponsored by school districts. Many are low-performing and post similar scores (sometimes lower scores) compared to other e-schools. If SB 39 is sound policy, it should be applied across the board. On the flipside, if SB 39 would create undue compliance burdens, jeopardize the education of hard-to-serve youth, or impose unreasonable standards, Schiavoni and his fellow Democrats are entitled to be concerned. The problem lies in caring about only some schools and students, while thousands of others would be disparately impacted for the sole reason that they opted out of the traditional public school system. 

Given what we do at EdNavigator, people often ask us a variation of this question: “What makes parents think a school is good?”

There isn’t a simple e=mc squared formula that defines a good school because, as you might guess, parents aren’t all the same. Each family’s view of schools depends on the family’s own situation and preferences. Families with more than one child often think about school differently for each one.

We’ve written before that four topics about schools tend to come up in our discussions with families again and again:

1.   Overall student performance

Sometimes called “proficiency.” It means, how many of the students in this school can do all the academic stuff that’s expected of them in their current grade level? Parents care about it mostly because it helps them understand how well all the other students their child will be around in school are doing overall

2.   Student learning growth

Regardless of where students were performing when they entered a school, how much are they progressing from one year to the next? After all, a school can’t control whether a student is ahead/behind when she enrolls. It can only ensure that she advances while she’s attending the school. Parents don’t always know what to call this or how to ask about it, but after you talk to them for a few minutes, it’s almost always the thing that captures their attention.

3.   Student experience

What does it feel like to attend this school? Do students feel safe, supported, and believed in? Or does the school feel like an impersonal factory in which the students are more like raw materials?

4.   Family experience

A great school makes parents and caregivers feel welcomed, involved, and well-informed. Part of the team. Appreciated. The school is organized. It communicates regularly and effectively.

It’s very difficult to have a meaningful conversation about school quality without addressing several of these factors. However, when Louisiana families go to download their local school’s report card, they can only get good information about one of the four: proficiency. That’s what school letter grades (A–F) have been based on, historically.

The families we work with take the school letter grades seriously, but have a hard time understanding why they don’t take student growth into account. Shouldn’t a school where kids are making a lot of progress get a better grade?

After having a few of these conversations, we started issuing our own grades for Orleans and Jefferson Parish schools, which reflect that information and present a different picture. We use those grades every time we discuss a school with a family.

One mom's experience

Last year, for example, we were supporting a housekeeper at a downtown New Orleans hotel who wanted to move her two daughters to a better school. She was so fed up with her current experience, she was willing to send her daughters to a school on the West Bank, a trek from her home, if it meant upgrading.

One of the top-choice schools for most families on the West Bank would have been Martin Behrman Charter Academy. It was the second most popular elementary school in the area in 2015–16, with 184 families seeking kindergarten seats in the main round. It earned a C grade from the state; not bad, not amazing.

For several years in a row, however, Behrman has struggled with low student growth. Students there aren’t progressing the way any of us would hope. Nearby, Harriet Tubman Charter School also had a C grade from the state. It was less popular with families, receiving only fifty-nine main round kindergarten applications. And yet, Tubman students have shown much better growth than their peers at Behrman.

The state’s grading system showed parents two C-rated schools. No difference. A system that considered growth would have pegged Tubman as a B and Behrman as a D. Big difference.

The family chose Tubman.

Our take

To be clear, student growth isn’t everything. Just because a school has high growth doesn’t mean it’s always going to be a great school, or a great school for every family. It’s one piece of data. But I’m not sure how we could give good counsel to families about their school choices without it. Knowing how successfully a school can advance its students really matters to them.

When I hear that state grades should not include student growth because it will make them too complex for families to understand or it will somehow lower the bar for what it means to serve families well, all I can say is, that hasn’t been our experience. Families care about growth. The state accountability system should care about it, too.

Timothy Daly is a founding partner at EdNavigator and the former president of The New Teacher Project (TNTP).

Editor’s note: This post was originally published in a slightly different form on EdNavigator’s blog.

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

1. Interesting rhetorical pivot from the state supe this week. After announcing that Ohio was going to delay submitting its ESSA accountability plan due to “public outcry” over a lack of changes in the state’s standardized testing regimen (i.e. – lack of reduction in same) early in the week, Paolo DeMaria was at the end of the week turning the lens back on local districts. He notes that districts may very well have been “layering on” tests themselves over the years and might perhaps want to look at their own regimens for places to cut should they maintain the belief that their students are being tested too much. "It's not a stone we should leave unturned," he said. Is it just me who predicts that that particular stone will remain unturned? (Cleveland Plain Dealer, 3/17/17)
    
2. As you may have heard, Governor Kasich in his new biennial budget proposed an externship at a local business as a requirement for teachers to renew their licenses. Democrats in the General Assembly – all on their own, probably, with no prompting from anyone – quickly introduced a response bill that would require Governor Kasich to “intern” at a school or two instead. Perhaps knowing that this proposal may take a while to become reality, an enterprising reporter in Athens decided to play Kasich-for-a-day while “interning” with an intervention specialist at the local high school. Yep. I’m sure Kasich’s day would play out just like that. (Athens Messenger, 3/19/17) Meanwhile, in Newark, the local career tech education service center has launched a brand new event similar in spirit to what the governor is proposing at base: connecting high schoolers with local employers so they understand the progression from high school to career. Nice. (Newark Advocate, 3/17/17)
    
3. Before Ohio’s widely-available and wildly successful College Credit Plus program came around two years ago, dual-enrollment access to college classes for the state’s high schoolers was narrow and limited, and often driven by the colleges themselves. Especially small private colleges. With the wide availability and wild success of the College Credit Plus program over the past few years (within whose rules all dual-enrollment programs had to work), those smaller private colleges appear to be dropping out because it is no longer cost effective or recruiting new freshmen at an acceptable rate. (Columbus Dispatch, 3/19/17)

Editor’s note: ESSA accountability regulations were overturned. What now? We know reform advocates will continue their work to support ESSA engagement and implementation at the state level. At the same time, a complicated landscape just became even murkier for those on the front lines. To help navigate through the complexities, the PIE Network recently tapped the expertise of eight federal-facing partners. Our contribution, originally published in a slightly different form on PIE Network's website, is below.

“Taken from us too soon, after a valiant fight with ‘local control.’” So tweeted Morgan Polikoff after the Obama Administration’s ESSA accountability regulations succumbed to the Congressional Review Act. The rules shouldn’t go to heaven alone, however.

We should also allow many of the nation’s lowest performing schools to pass on to a better place—and use the federal law’s 7 percent Title I set-aside to give birth to new schools in their stead.

As education reform advocates know, the Every Student Succeeds Act got rid of the School Improvement Grants program and replaced it with a requirement that states spend 7 percent of their Title I allotment (about $25 million annually for a typical state) on efforts to “serve schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement activities or targeted support and improvement activities.” In other words, states still need to work on SIG-like efforts but without SIG’s rules and regulations.

While some may miss the “guardrails” that SIG provided, reformers should cheer the newfound flexibility associated with these dollars.

As Christy Wolfe of the National Alliance for Public Charter Schools has argued, ESSA opens the door to using Title I dollars to replace low performing schools rather than just struggling to turn them around. Wolfe explains that states are free to:

• Award funds directly to proven public charter operators to open new schools serving students who currently attend eligible (i.e., low performing) schools,
• Award expansion grants to high-quality charters to expand their capacity to serve students attending eligible schools, and
• Attract high-performing networks to open schools in a district with significant numbers of students attending eligible schools.

Even if you agree with leaders such as John White and Mitch Chester that turnarounds are “doable”, my impression—driven in part by the big Mathematica study released in January—is that they’re exceptionally difficult and success is very rare. Why not put some of your 7 percent set-aside into the “new schools” basket? Such an approach is not only allowable under ESSA—it’s downright heavenly.

The Obama administration’s guidance allowing transgender students to use their preferred bathrooms and locker rooms was in effect for just nine months. But for LGBTQ advocates and progressives, President Trump’s recent revocation feels like turning the clock back to the 1950s.

The rollback sparked a blaze of angst from transgender activists, celebrities, individual school districts, leading Democrats and even some Republicans.

As a supporter of LGBTQ rights, I’m huddling around this dumpster fire with all of you. I, too, feel frustrated and heartbroken. Mostly I keep thinking about all the moms and dads out there with the tough job of validating confused and frightened children. But I’m not here to waste time condemning federal guidance I can’t change, or speculating on whether the president and his cabinet give a damn about protecting marginalized kids.

I’m here to call out the hypocrisy I see from my fellow progressives.

Many of you are hostile to education policies that promise to deliver what you are rightly demanding now for LGBTQ youth: safe, supportive and inclusive schools. It’s not enough to be fired up about transgender bathroom protections as part of your daily Facebook resistance to Trump. The uncomfortable truth is that your staunch opposition to school choice might be imperiling LGBTQ kids, too.

The harsh reality

Opposition to school choice undermines access to the very learning environments you say all students deserve. And if you fight school choice in your community while never lacking for safe options for your own kids, that’s privilege at its finest—especially if your kids are straight, cisgender or have never been bullied to the brink of suicide—and we need to talk about it.

Many of the students who leave traditional public schools for alternatives do so because they are bullied, marginalized or feel unsafe at school. If you want to erode your faith in humanity, a quick Google search about the prevalence of bullying and teen/child suicide will do it. My own search yielded several pages of results in and around my community of Columbus, Ohio.

Research confirms that transgender and non-gender conforming persons attempt suicide at rates higher than in the general population, and that LGBTQ youth broadly are at high risk. We also know these groups are disproportionately stigmatized and bullied, and therefore can benefit the most from school choice.

In the midst of such depressing news are hopeful stories, too. Given the robust school choice sector in my state (360+ public charter options, five scholarship/voucher programs, and some inter-district open enrollment) students can find alternatives and experience a sea change in mental health.

A life-changing option

Progressives who reflexively and dogmatically oppose choice are demonstrating how little they know about the realities facing families and students who make these decisions. I’ve seen friends directly impacted by teen suicide; others have been able to avert crisis by changing schools. Those options were made available to them because of school choice programs, and because of the groundwork laid by choice advocates whom progressives largely caricature and demonize.

The life-saving power of school options is on full display at one charter school in my community, Arts and College Preparatory Academy (ACPA). ACPA is a high-performing, arts-focused college preparatory high school whose very mission is to provide “an environment that is safe, inclusive, and progressive.” The school is a paragon of tolerance, inclusion and safety for teens, many of whom felt victimized in their previous schools.

In 2012, it was awarded a grant by the U.S. Department of Education for the Equality Project, a student-led performance project meant to teach younger students tolerance and curb bullying. In 2014, it was the only charter school in the nation to receive a federal dissemination grant—this time for its unique Voice curriculum, meant to “challenge educators to reflect on how they support marginalized and under-served groups of students.”

To progressives angry at the revocation of Obama’s transgender guidance, I hope you take a moment to also consider the broader public (and private) education landscape and the role that choice plays in keeping students safe. If you are among those who spent much energy lambasting Trump’s pick for secretary of education, Betsy DeVos, for her stances on school choice, I encourage you to widen your lens.

Talk to a charter school student, online student or private school scholarship recipient who left her traditional public school for reasons related to gender identity, sexual orientation and/or bullying. There are hundreds—maybe thousands—of students in your community whose emotional health and safety might be a stake.

You’re right to worry about transgender students right now, but don’t let that concern be limited to the latest federal ruling. Challenge the dogma that dominates education policy discussions, do your own research and be open to the idea that one of the best ways to protect LGBTQ students might be challenging partisan thinking within your own political party.

Editor’s note: This article was originally published in a slightly different form by Education Post

1. We mentioned earlier this week that Ohio has decided to postpone submission of its ESSA accountability plan until September due to “outcry” from folks who said they hadn’t been heard during the input process. Perhaps not all devotees of the Patron Saint of Ink-Stained Wretches and Anguished Press Stoppers are as pleased with this outcome as earlier press coverage might have otherwise indicated. Case in point, this editorial from today’s Dispatch in which editors urge caution in adopting any ESSA changes that might water down accountability in Ohio. (Columbus Dispatch, 3/17/17)
    
2. Speaking of things that certain folks might want watered down for various reasons, some players in the charter school realm (and their opposites) testified this week in regard to the state’s sponsor evaluation system. (Gongwer Ohio, 3/16/17)
    
3. The proposed state budget includes cuts in support for school transportation, a change which of course some folks don’t care for. Those folks’ concerns were aired in legislative testimony this week. (Gongwer Ohio, 3/16/17) Meanwhile, the powers that be in ex-urban Groveport Madison schools have come up with what your humble clip compiler thinks is an ingenious – and cost-effective solution to one of their biggest transportation problems: lack of substitute drivers. Why not pay to train the district’s part-time staffers to drive and give them extra money to pick up bus shifts when the need arises? Smart! (ThisWeek News/Canal Winchester Times, 3/13/17)
    
4. The bright lights of Columbus are just a bit dimmer this week as one of our local education celebs has left us to go back to the big time. Dr. Lillian Lowery, former CEO of FutureReady Columbus, is leaving us to return to DC for a high-profile gig at Education Trust. Really – who can blame her? (Columbus Dispatch, 3/15/17)
    
5. Here is a really interesting story about a Mulligatawny Stew of players coming together to provide mentoring and support for LGBTQ high schoolers at a Columbus charter school known for its safe, inclusive, and progressive environment. And its arts-focused curriculum. Oh, and its rockin’ test scores. (Columbus Dispatch, 3/16/17) If you would like to learn more about the awesomeness that is the Arts and College Preparatory Academy, check out this opinion piece by our own Jamie Davies O’Leary. (Education Post, 3/14/17)
    
6. Loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers will remember the previous noisy kerfuffle between Cincinnati City Schools and the Clifton Cultural Arts Center regarding the district’s desire to use some or all of the center’s space – which the district owns and leases to the arts center – for the needed expansion of its burgeoning magnet school across the street. The issue has been on a quiet simmer out of the public eye for some months now and perhaps a new solution may have presented itself in the interim. The school board this week agreed to spend $700,000 to purchase an old mansion and some land adjacent to the current arts center. They are keeping mum about their plans at this point, but speculation in this piece is that the arts center might move to the mansion while the district gets the space it needs in the current arts center building. Seems like an interesting – if expensive – effort at compromise, and of course the district is still your landlord, so there’s that. But for now we’ll call it the Clifton Miracle. Just because. (WCPO-TV, Cincinnati, 3/16/17)