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

Aaron Churchill
10.2.2026
Charter performance - 2025-26 blog image
Getty Images/utah778
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

For more than a quarter century, public charter schools have served Ohio families and students seeking tuition-free educational options in their communities. As independently run public schools, charters are freed from district bureaucracy but in return for the autonomy, charters are expected to deliver improved achievement. Ohio’s accountability structure includes an automatic-closure provision for underperforming charters and a sponsor evaluation system that ensures these entities (of which Fordham is one) take seriously their responsibility to hold charter schools accountable.

As of 2025–26, charter schools served 122,143 Ohio students. About three in five charter students attended a conventional brick-and-mortar school, as opposed to a dropout-recovery or online school.[1] Of the state’s 247 brick-and-mortar charters, 180 are located in Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown (the “Ohio Eight”).

We at the Fordham Institute typically focus on charter performance in the Ohio Eight. It’s where most charters are located and where the need to improve educational outcomes is the most urgent. Results from recent years—via both rigorous evaluations (including a new Fordham report arriving this month) and more basic report-card reviews, such as this piece—point in the same direction: Brick-and-mortar charters are moving the achievement needle in the right direction.

Did this pattern hold for the most recent school year? The short answer is yes, charters continue to outperform comparable districts. But as is typical, the data remind us also of how much work is still ahead.

Student achievement—performance index scores

To understand how charter students perform academically, we turn first to schools’ performance index scores. The index is a measure of achievement on all state exams that is akin to a proficiency rate—the percentage of students who “pass” an exam—but is more refined as it awards additional credit when students achieve marks above proficient. District-level index scores range from 54.1 (Lorain) to 112.9 (Solon), with a state average of 82.8.

As Figure 1 indicates, the achievement of Ohio Eight charter students falls substantially below the state average, reflecting the large achievement gap between low-income urban students and their statewide peers. However, the charter-to-state achievement gap has narrowed slightly from 2022–23 (19.8-point gap) to 2025–26 (17.1-point gap). And in a more apples-to-apples comparison of pupil achievement, we also find that Ohio Eight charter students outperformed their Ohio Eight district counterparts (index scores of 65.7 versus 62.2, respectively).

Figure 1. Ohio Eight district and charter performance, 2022–23 to 2025–26

Charter performance - 2002-26 blog Figure 1
Note: The 2025–26 charter results shown in Figures 1–3 and Tables 1–2 exclude 29 Ohio Eight charters whose test results have been flagged by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce for testing anomalies. The Ohio Eight district and charter averages are weighted by each district or charter school’s enrollment.

The next table disaggregates performance index scores by Ohio Eight city. Consistent with 2024–25 results, charter students in Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown outperform their district peers on this measure, with the widest margins in Dayton and Youngstown. On the other hand, charter students in Akron, Canton, and Cincinnati lag their district counterparts on the performance index.

Table 1. District versus charter school performance index scores, Ohio Eight cities, 2025–26

Charter performance - 2025-26 blog Table 1

Student academic growth—progress ratings

The performance index provides an important point-in-time snapshot of where students stand academically. But it’s also influenced by demographics, which can obscure the true educational impacts of districts and schools. The state’s value-added growth measure (a.k.a., “progress”) helps us understand the effectiveness of schools apart from the demographics of their students. Schools that receive high ratings on the progress component are more effectively moving students up the achievement ranks, while those with poor ratings are allowing students to slip even further behind.

On this measure of academic growth, urban charter schools also outperform their district counterparts. In the Ohio Eight, 11 percent of charters received an impressive five-star progress rating, while just 6 percent of district schools achieved this mark. (Kudos to these standout schools, whose names appear at the end of this piece.) Meanwhile, another 27 percent of charters received four stars compared to 24 percent of district schools. Taken together, 38 percent of urban charters demonstrated evidence of positive academic impacts—receiving four or five stars—while just 30 percent of district schools did so. Stronger charter progress ratings relative to district schools were also visible in 2024–25.

Figure 2. Ohio Eight charter versus district performance, progress ratings, 2025–26

Charter performance - 2025-26 blog Figure 2

Despite their superior ratings vis-à-vis districts, the Ohio Eight charters suffered a slight setback in progress ratings compared to their own performance in 2024–25. As Figure 3 indicates, 42 percent of Ohio Eight charters earned four- or five-star progress ratings last year, but that number edged down to 38 percent in 2025–26. Conversely, more Ohio Eight charters received unsatisfactory progress ratings (one or two stars) in 2025–26 than the year prior. The most-common progress rating across all four years is three stars. This rating generally indicates that the average student held their position in the achievement distribution.[2] While this means a school met growth standards, it also suggests (in the context of a low-achieving school) that little progress was made to cut the achievement gap.

Figure 3. Ohio Eight charter schools’ progress ratings, 2022–23 to 2025–26

Charter performance - 2025-26 blog Figure 3

* * *

Public charter schools have become mainstays in Ohio’s urban communities. For some families and students, charters serve as a vital escape hatch from their assigned district school. Others select charter schools to gain access to specialized programs (e.g., arts), services (special education or gifted), or curricula (classical) that align more closely with their educational needs, values, and priorities. Still others choose charters dedicated to preparing first-generation students to attend and complete college. For most families, multiple reasons likely motivate their choice of school.

Thanks to the accountability and funding reforms instituted over the past decade, Ohio better ensures that students attend high-quality charters. This year’s data reinforce the wisdom of these reforms—charters continue to outpace nearby district schools on key measures—yet also signal the importance of building on them, as persistent achievement gaps remain and quality is still uneven across the sector. As discussed in multiple pieces, state and local leaders can and should more aggressively support public charter schools—most notably, through equitable funding and facilities resources—so they can both deepen the quality of their educational programs and widen their reach to serve more Ohio students. The charter sector also needs to uphold its end of the bargain, with sponsors holding schools accountable for results (including closing chronic underperformers) and school leaders rigorously implementing practices that drive higher pupil achievement. A supportive policy environment coupled with strong oversight and school-based leadership are the right ingredients for further advances in charter performance.

Table 2. Ohio Eight district and charter schools receiving five-star progress ratings, 2025–26

Charter performance - 2025-26 blog Table 2
Note: Bold font indicates the school received five-star progress ratings in both 2024–25 and 2025–26.


[1] In 2025–26, 28,901 students attended a general-education online school, and 22,919 students attended a dropout-recovery school, which can be either online or site-based.

[2] It could also indicate a lack of statistical precision in the value-added estimate. This is more likely to occur when a school has fewer students (as discussed in this piece by Fordham research fellow Stéphane Lavertu).

Policy Priority:
School Choice
Topics:
Charter Schools
Jeff Murray
10.2.2026
Ohio charter news logo
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Stories featured in Ohio Charter News Weekly may require a paid subscription to read in full.

The preview didn’t lie – this feature presentation stinks

Last week, we discussed the impending announcement of the disposition of several buildings recently closed by Cleveland Metropolitan School District—and it didn’t sound promising for charter schools. The details, now available, show those fears to be correct. Seven schools are being given over to the City of Cleveland through zero-dollar “land swaps”, and a “sale-leaseback” arrangement (translation: still on the district’s books) for two others with “selected partners”. Said Cleveland mayor Justin Bibb: “I don’t want reckless charters that we can’t hold accountable to take over these school sites.” How does he think he can get away without allowing charter/private/STEM school operators to bid on these closed buildings? The city and district are sticking with an interpretation of state law that they believe gives them one year to do these insider deals because, as this piece explains it, “Once school buildings sit empty for a year, it becomes more difficult for districts to skirt the Ohio law that says they must sell their buildings to charter schools first.” Is there something special about CMSD’s mayoral-control model that allows them to skirt state law with impunity? They must think so, because otherwise these statements just reflect transparent contempt for the General Assembly.

Charter school report card analysis

Here’s a look at state report card data from charter schools in Ohio’s eight largest urban areas, courtesy of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s data guru, Aaron Churchill. Overall, he writes, “brick-and-mortar charters are moving the achievement needle in the right direction,” continuing to outperform their traditional district peers. However, there is still much work to be done to recoup Covid-era learning losses.

What the papers are saying

There has been minimal news coverage of Ohio report cards so far this year. So kudos to The Blade’s Vincent Lucarelli for being first out of the gate with a look at three charter schools in the Toledo area with ratings of three stars or higher. Nice! Weirdly, the editorial board finds very little good news in Lucarelli’s report, despite those high flyers and the fact that Lucas County charters overall averaged higher ratings than all of Toledo City Schools’ elementary buildings. From this they nonsensically conclude that “the legislature and the governor” haven’t improved education enough in Toledo or Ohio via their charter school “project”. Seems like the ed board missed an opportunity to point out that it’s way past time for the district to clean up its own house.

Straight to the source

Kudos also go to reporter Joe Lyons at the tiny Ashland County Pictures news outlet. He saw “questions…circulating” in an online forum about Ashland County Community Academy and went straight to the source to get answers. His visit to the local dropout recovery charter school—including interviews with school leaders and in-depth classroom observations—led him to determine ACCA is “a small, inspiring learning community built around students who need a different path to graduation.” Take a look at his detailed reporting here.

Good stewardship rewarded

Utica Shale Academy, a workforce-focused charter school in Salineville, Ohio, recently received a $900,000 rural transportation grant to buy additional vans. School leaders will use them to help more students get to and from school—as well as to their internships and jobs—on time. USA students will also learn by servicing and maintaining the vans. “We’re trying to be good stewards of the funds we have received while building student responsibility,” says school superintendent Bill Watson. Lovely.

National news of note

Four new charter schools proposed for Nashville were recently denied permission to open by the elected school board. This coverage says they were rejected for “various reasons”, but only the common “stealing students and money from the district” reason is cited here. All four have appealed to the Tennessee Public Charter School Commission. Their hearing is scheduled for October 9.

*****

Did you know you can have every edition of the Ohio Charter News Weekly sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

Policy Priority:
School Choice
Topics:
Charter Schools
Jeff Murray
10.2.2026
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. You have been warned.

  1. On Wednesday, we mentioned with some incredulity that Princeton City Schools was likely to lose student transportation service on October 1 due to an impending bus driver strike. So far so normal. But then we learned that these drivers were striking not against the school district but against First Student, the private company that contracts with the district. Weird, right? Not only that, but despite the company having contracts with a half-dozen or more districts in the area, this strike is specific to Princeton and the walkout would only affect that district. How in the fluke is this possible? Fortunately, the Enquirer’s Grace Tucker got the answer for us: When Princeton outsourced its transportation back in 2014, First Student was required to take on as many of the district’s existing drivers that wanted to stay. And while some contract bennies were “trimmed” at the time, the contract itself has lived on and is now in dispute, just as if First Student were a school district. The strike started yesterday and continues today. School’s still open in Princeton, but absences “won’t count” and “virtual options” are available for students who can’t/don’t show up for the duration of the disruption. Cuckoo bananas. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 10/1/26)

  2. Also really weird: The Toledo Blade editorial board’s opinion piece about charter school report card data. At least, I think that’s what it’s about. They mention the handful of charters who did well, as cited in a news piece we discussed on Monday, and also note that almost all charter schools in Frogtown performed better than almost all Toledo City Schools elementary buildings. But then they conclude, nonsensically, that “the legislature and the governor” haven’t improved education enough in Toledo or Ohio via their charter school experiment. What the flunk, guys? How about we stop pointing fingers and call for cleaning up our own house instead? (Toledo Blade, 9/30/26)

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
The Education Gadfly
10.2.2026
Gadfly Guy
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

WHAT WE’RE READING

University of Miami’s Bruce Baker updated his list of America’s most financially disadvantaged (a.k.a. “still screwed”) school districts, each one serving “far needier children than the districts around it, with less money.”

EXTRA CREDIT:

The overwhelming response to the Nikole Hannah-Jones article continues, with another 37 articles published this week, for a grand total of 82 (so far). We’ve put them all in one place (here) for your reading pleasure. Among the latest entries are great takes by John Arnold, Derrell Bradford, Danyela Souza Egorov, Jill Filipovic, Maud Maron, Elizabeth Grace Matthew, Robert Pondiscio, Ian Rowe, Inez Feltscher Stepman, and Steven Wilson.

Other edu-opinions worth your attention:

Chad Aldeman, “I Used to Think Private Schools Shouldn’t Exist”

Neetu Arnold, “Why Is New York Dumping Its High School Exit Exam?”

Charlie Barone, “AI No Get Enemy”

Paul W. Bennett, “AI in the Classroom: Why Has the Light Turned to Amber?”

Aaron Churchill, “How Ohio’s brand-new advanced math policy will work”

Joe Cruz, “I’m a College Professor. Writing Isn’t as Important as We Think.”

Emily Freitag, “Bans aren’t the answer”

Michael Horn and Thomas Arnett, “Could Alpha School disrupt K–12 education?”

Kevin Huffman, “U.S. test scores keep falling. But these states are getting it right.”

Richard Kahlenberg, “How the Culture War Put Public Schools at Risk”

Michael Kirst, “California needs a stronger state role in education—without abandoning local control”

Bruno Manno, “So Many Credentials, So Little Value—What States Can Learn From Ohio’s Reboot”

Alexander Russo, “My misguided six-year foray into ‘social justice journalism’ (2016-2022)”

Larry Sand, “AI in Our Schools—Its Use and Abuse”

Timothy Shanahan, “Why Congress’s Latest Foray Into the Reading Wars Is Too Sloppy to Work”

John Stossel, “The war on gifted education is hurting poor kids”

Matthew Yglesias, “Math needs a phonics-style reckoning”


Editor's note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli's Substack, SCHOOLED, a 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, and lively discussion—including reader reactions and pushback.

The Education Gadfly
10.2.2026
Gadfly Guy
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

CHEERS

Cheers to Louisa Moats for her decades of work helping children learn how to read. “For a long time, Moats found herself on the losing side of America’s so-called reading wars, the back-and-forth over the best way to teach kids to read,” writes Time magazine’s Belinda Luscombe in an extended profile. Today, states are leaning into the science of reading, with many relying on Louisa’s LETRS teacher-training program to help get evidence-based practices into classrooms.

—

Economist Noah Smith weighs in on last week’s viral Nikole Hannah-Jones essay (like, yes, everyone else), in his case pointing out that spending more money on smaller classes won’t fix bad schools.

We should be spending more money on educating our poorest and most disadvantaged students. But that money should be spent less on flooding those schools with ever more teachers of questionable quality, and more on raising pay to attract highly competent people capable of making a big difference in disadvantaged kids’ lives. If we did that, then stories like Nikole Hannah-Jones’ might be more of a rarity in America.

JEERS

Yet policymakers appear to be moving in the opposite direction from the one Noah Smith—and research evidence!—indicates they should. A new NCTQ study shows a declining number of states providing (or requiring) incentive pay for hard-to-staff subjects and schools. Sarah Sparks has the details, noting that teacher shortages are especially acute in special education. So why aren’t more states offering differentiated pay when bonuses are associated with lower turnover?


Editor's note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli's Substack, SCHOOLED, a 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, and lively discussion—including reader reactions and pushback.

Selim Tlili
10.2.2026
Student outside school with a backpack
Getty Images/SbytovaMN
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

“What we’re going to do for our kids’ education” might be the single most common discussion I have had in my social life as a parent.

Like many parents in NYC and across the country, I was captivated by Nikole Hannah-Jones’s essay in the New York Times. Parents are constantly asking themselves, “Have I done right by my kid” when it comes to education.

Every single parent I have ever spoken to with the means to choose has agonized over this decision. Most parents from NYC that I know go one of three ways: try and get their kid into a gifted and talented program, send their kid to private school, or move to the suburbs.

We didn’t want to do that with our son. Both of us wanted to find a school that would reflect the diversity of NYC. We wanted our son to have a diverse group of friends who lived in our neighborhood as part of a community. This was our fundamental value and guided our process as we sought out a local public school.

We were a little concerned about the academic rigor, but we figured that we wouldn’t get everything we wanted. In our eyes, the diversity and cohesiveness of the community of the school were more important than anything. “We can figure out how to make up for whatever he is missing,” we figured. Then middle school hit.

—

In sixth grade, my son got straight A’s. But he could barely write a single page or do more than ten math problems without suffering from academic exhaustion. We loved our son’s school, particularly how strong it was at offering a sense of community even through Covid. But as he got older, I needed more for him. We decided to explore the idea of moving our son to a charter school.

I was deeply against this. I’ve taught in public and private schools, and my strongest feelings of antipathy were towards charter schools. My feeling was that charter schools recruit inexperienced young teachers and work them to the bone for a few years while “skimming the cream” of the students who could be in a local public school.

My stance had to evolve when I begrudgingly visited one and saw a diverse group of students reading books in the library.

My belief that charter schools take advantage of young teachers couldn’t survive meeting teachers at a school who were in their tenth year teaching and seemed to love what they were doing.

It couldn’t survive when I heard the principal talk about how students compete to become part of the “million words club,” where they take tests after reading books and are credited with the number of words towards the goal of reading a million words. After seeing my son not finish a single book in his first year of middle school and now competing to read multiple books in a month, my preconceptions could not survive.

What I thought was a matter of principle against school choice was actually an untested assumption. I still have these concerns about charter schools as a whole, but the evidence in front of me showed me that my image of charter schools wasn’t universal.

I decided that the best way for me to give my son what he needs and maintain my values was to send my son to a charter school but to still maintain my relationship with my son’s former school. I had served as PTA co-president for two years. Now I serve on the newly formed school grant-writing committee. I continue to work to improve a school that served my son so well but no longer could meet his needs.

I am gratified that I am able to play a small part in helping other kids experience the same thing that brought all of us together as a community.

—

In a social media post written in June of 2024, Hannah-Jones wrote, “Eight years later, I still know we made the right choice” when referring to their choice of school for their daughter. Her recent essay suggests concerns that weren’t publicly shared. Some critics have argued that this is hypocritical, but I don’t have a problem with her changing her mind. Parents make decisions for our children, and we change our minds when we need to. It seems perfectly reasonable to love a school and be sure that you made the right decision at one point and then when something as significant as the pressures of high school come, to decide that what you have is not enough.

I’ve stopped thinking about where my son attends school as a matter of moral principle. My commitment to community and diversity remains but where that occurs is no longer held as sacred. My educational philosophy is now closer to being a deeply believed, but lightly held, hypothesis. I strongly believe in the values that made us choose our school. But I think I am humble enough to say that priorities have to shift even as you maintain your convictions.

I decided that even if my son needed to leave, I could stay and continue to serve the community that served us so well. We can continue to find ways to help a school even when we aren’t immediately getting a benefit from the school.

My son needed to leave. I did not.

Policy Priority:
Quality Choices
Topics:
Charter Schools
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
The Education Gadfly
10.1.2026
Nikole Hannah-Jones
Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism/Flickr
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

The viral article by Nikole Hannah-Jones— “In Fighting for Every Black Child, Did I Betray My Own?”—sparked an outpouring of responses from opinion writers far and wide, as did the accompanying This American Life episode. As a public service—and because of the opportunity I believe this moment provides to the school reform movement—I am tracking all of the posts we spot. If we missed any, please let us know at [email protected]. (Last updated October 8, 2026.)

—Mike Petrilli

Responses ranked by the outlet’s reach, as determined by Claude

  1. Roland Fryer, “The Education of Nikole Hannah-Jones” (The Wall Street Journal)
  2. Matthew Hennessey, “The Oblation of Nikole Hannah-Jones” (The Wall Street Journal)
  3. Joel Klein, “Nikole Hannah-Jones vs. Randi Weingarten” (The Wall Street Journal)
  4. Maud Maron, “Nikole Hannah-Jones and the Price of ‘Equality’” (The Wall Street Journal)
  5. Emma Camp, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Is Wrong About School Choice” (The Wall Street Journal)
  6. Elizabeth Grace Matthew, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Is Not a Bad Mom. She Is a Bad Journalist.” (USA Today)
  7. Joshua C. Robertson, “Nikole Hannah-Jones missed the lesson. School choice matters” (USA Today)
  8. Kira Davis, “The cult of the left takes no prisoners, only sacrifices — including their kids” (New York Post)
  9. Daniel Di Martino, “Nikole Hannah-Jones ignores who failed her daughter—the teachers union” (New York Post)
  10. Rich Lowry, “‘Perverse priorities’ made Nikole Hannah-Jones put her cause before her child” (New York Post)
  11. Sam Munson, “I’m an NYC dad—here’s what Nikole Hannah-Jones got so wrong about our schools” (New York Post)
  12. Ian Rowe, “Nikole Hannah-Jones accidentally gave us a vital lesson on school choice” (New York Post)
  13. Isaac Schorr, “Nikole Hannah-Jones failed her daughter and learned absolutely nothing from it” (New York Post)
  14. Keturah Kendrick, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ New York school dilemma is shared by Black parents everywhere” (MS NOW)
  15. Jesus Mesa, “Nikole Hannah-Jones May Have Just Written a Eulogy for Woke Idealism” (Newsweek)
  16. Idrees Kahloon, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Faced Too Much Apathy to Win” (The Atlantic)
  17. Jenisha Watts, “Why I’m Sending My Black Son to Private School” (The Atlantic)
  18. Paul Ollinger, “Nikole Hannah-Jones just ran head-first into the great dumbing-down” (The Hill)
  19. Jay Caspian Kang, “Individual Choices Won’t Fix America’s Public Schools” (The New Yorker)
  20. Zak Cheney-Rice, “No One Can Fix School Segregation Alone” (New York Magazine)
  21. Anya Kamenetz, “The Most Polarizing Parenting Essay Ever?” (New York Magazine)
  22. David Harsanyi, “Why Nikole Hannah-Jones is wrong about failing schools” (Washington Examiner)
  23. Jill Filipovic, “What Are Progressives Supposed to Do About Public Education?” (Slate)
  24. Alex Galbraith, “Wanting the best school for your kid doesn’t make you a hypocrite” (Salon)
  25. Evan Barker, “I was a white girl at a majority-black school. Here’s what the education debate gets wrong” (The Times)
  26. Coleman Hughes, “Lessons from Nikole Hannah-Jones’ School Experiment” (The Free Press)
  27. Brittany Bernstein, “How NYC Public Schools Failed Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Daughter” (National Review)
  28. Charles C. W. Cooke, “That Should Be Curtains for Nikole Hannah-Jones” (National Review)
  29. Charles C. W. Cooke, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn’t Say” (National Review)
  30. John R. Puri, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Daughter Is Not the Only Victim” (National Review)
  31. Inez Feltscher Stepman, “The Underfunding Myth Is Exposed” (National Review)
  32. John Daniel Davidson, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn’t Know What Education Is” (The Federalist)
  33. Auguste Meyrat, “Nikole Hannah-Jones learned the hard way what ruins schools” (Blaze Media)
  34. Leslie-Bernard Joseph, “We Don't Have to Choose Between Racial Justice and Academic Excellence” (The Root)
  35. Mona Charen, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Has the Wrong Answers on Schools” (The Bulwark)
  36. Hannah Anderson, “On the Education of Children” (The Dispatch)
  37. Jonah Goldberg, “A Parent Should Play Favorites” (The Dispatch)
  38. Andy Smarick, “We Need More Regret in Our Politics” (The Dispatch)
  39. Jill Abramson, “‘I was wrong’ are the most powerful words we have” (Boston Globe)
  40. Daniel Idfresne, “Nikole Hannah-Jones mistakes academic tracking for discrimination” (Boston Globe)
  41. Joy Sewing, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ school choice regrets hit a nerve for Black families. Mine, too.” (Houston Chronicle)
  42. Jenice Armstrong, “NYT writer practiced her principles with her daughter’s schooling” (The Philadelphia Inquirer)
  43. Nedra Rhone, “Nikole Hannah-Jones and the difficult school choices Black parents have faced for 150 years” (Atlanta Journal-Constitution)
  44. Torrey Snow, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ hard lesson on school choice” (Baltimore Sun)
  45. Andrea Williams, “The missed opportunity in Nikole Hannah-Jones’ essay” (The Tennessean)
  46. Khari Thompson, “When you’re a Black student in America, nothing is simple” (WBUR)
  47. Danyale Freeman, “Nikole Hannah-Jones and the Black Education Debate” (Ebony)
  48. Danyale Freeman, “Op-ed: We’re Adept to Missing The Actual Point with Nikole Hannah-Jones” (Ebony)
  49. Matthew Yglesias, “Why I send my kid to low-income urban public schools” (Slow Boring)
  50. Noah Smith, “Stop spending money on smaller classes” (Noahpinion)
  51. Alex Tabarrok, “The Tragedy of Nikole Hannah-Jones” (Marginal Revolution)
  52. Billy Binion, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Experiment Accidentally Undercuts Her Case Against School Choice” (Reason)
  53. Nick Gillespie, “Like Nikole Hannah-Jones, My Parents Put Ideology Over Pedagogy in Sending Me to Catholic School” (Reason)
  54. Ilya Somin, “Exit, Voice, and Nikole Hannah-Jones” (Reason)
  55. Corey Walker, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Daughter Was Right” (Quillette)
  56. Cory Franklin, “Nikole Hannah-Jones has been mugged by reality” (Spiked)
  57. Diane Hernández, “From ‘woke’ inclusion to disillusion: Journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones reflects on her daughter” (Voz)
  58. Daniel Buck, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones Learned from Her Daughter’s School” (AEI)
  59. Colleen Hroncich, “What Does Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Mea Culpa Say About the Importance of School Choice?” (Cato Institute)
  60. Danyela Souza Egorov, “The Unmentioned Villain in Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Story” (City Journal)
  61. Jennifer Weber, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones Wouldn’t Let Herself See” (City Journal)
  62. Manikka Bowman, “The Real Lesson From Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Public School Dilemma” (Education Week)
  63. Shavar Jeffries, “Families Do Not Have to Choose Between Community and Excellence” (The 74)
  64. Kelsey Piper, “I’m with Nikole Hannah-Jones on this one” (The Argument)
  65. Steven Wilson, “The Solution Nikole Hannah-Jones Didn’t Take” (Education Next)
  66. Selim Tlili, “My son needed to leave his school, but I did not: A reflection on Nikole Hannah-Jones's essay” (Flypaper)
  67. Augustus Mays, “Black Parents Should Not Have to Choose Between Tutoring and Therapy” (Education Trust)
  68. Corey A. DeAngelis, “NYT’s Nikole Hannah-Jones Regrets Sending Her Daughter to Failing Public School” (The Daily Economy)
  69. Jason Bedrick, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Owes Her Readers an Apology Too” (Civitas Institute)
  70. Josiah Padley and Catrin Wigfall, “Here’s the lesson for Hannah-Jones: School reform outweighs school narratives” (American Experiment)
  71. Brady Leonard, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Fails the Test” (Independent Institute)
  72. Jenny Devenny, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Essay Means for White Families” (Integrated Schools)
  73. Peter Boghossian, “She Failed Her Child. She Kept The Ideology.” (Substack)
  74. Freddie deBoer, “No school will decide Najya Hannah-Jones’s Future or Fate” (Substack)
  75. Musa al-Gharbi, “On Education” (Substack)
  76. John Arnold, “A huge missed opportunity to call for real reform” (X)
  77. Andrew J. Rotherham, “An Education Conservative Is a Liberal Who’s Had to Do Cafeteria Duty? What Nikole Hannah-Jones Misses About Public Education. Plus Fish.” (Eduwonk)
  78. Joanne Jacobs, “A black mother’s choice for her son: It will be private school” (Joanne Jacobs blog)
  79. Joanne Jacobs, “I created schools good enough for my own children” (Joanne Jacobs blog)
  80. Joanne Jacobs, “Urban schools can succeed: Check the options before you flee to the suburbs” (Joanne Jacobs blog)
  81. Peter Greene, “On Reactions To That Nikole Hannah-Jones Piece” (Curmudgucation)
  82. Derrell Bradford, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Biggest Blind Spot” (Vital City)
  83. Jed Wallace, “When Cognitive Dissonance Becomes Cognitive Offloading” (Charterfolk)
  84. Eva Moskowitz, “I Also Sent My Children to a Nonselective, Overwhelmingly Minority Public School, but It Wasn’t a Sacrifice.” (Success Academies blog)
  85. Naomi Kanakia, “The Case for Greatness” (Substack)
  86. Alexander Russo, “The hero Nikole Hannah-Jones could have been” (Substack)
  87. Julian Vasquez Heilig, “Response to Nikole Hannah-Jones about Her Daughter” (Cloaking Inequality)
  88. Robert Pondiscio, “The Lessons We’re Not Learning From Nikole Hannah-Jones” (Substack)
  89. Chad Aldeman, “Parents Should Not Feel Guilty for Choosing a Good School” (Substack)
  90. Lane Anderson, “What I wish other White parents understood about the Nikole Hannah-Jones essay” (Substack)
  91. Nicholas Bagley, “Democrats Gave Up On The Schools” (Substack)
  92. Rachel Barnhart, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Viral Essay and What It Means for Rochester” (Substack)
  93. Ceci Bell, “Double Binds: The Tensions Between Black Activism, Collective Responsibility, and Individual Choice” (Substack)
  94. RHG Burnett, “For Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Tragedy; For the Nation, a Catastrophe” (Substack)
  95. Jack Despain Zhou, “The Failed ‘Hostage Theory’ of Nikole Hannah-Jones” (Education Progress)
  96. Vivia Chen, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Is Triggering My Inner Chinese Mom” (Substack)
  97. Charles Cole, III, “Read Out Loud Day” (Substack)
  98. Fit to Teach, “An Inner-City Teacher’s Response to Nikole Hannah-Jones’s NYT Article” (Substack)
  99. Matt Frendewey, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Made Her School Choice. All Parents Deserve Theirs.” (Substack)
  100. Mike Goldstein, “Those ‘Cafeteria Kids’ Fighting Each Other in that Nikole Hannah-Jones Essay” (Substack)
  101. Rachel Hills, “Don’t Take the Wrong Lesson from Nikole Hannah-Jones’s School Choice Essay” (Substack)
  102. C Liegh McInnis, “Hannah-Jones Article, MBF Report, Howard Rambsy, John Jennings, BET, Bob Moses, Robert Smith, and Upcoming Events” (Substack)
  103. Anthonio L. Orridge, “While We’re Debating a Black Mother’s Choice, the System Gets Away Clean” (Substack)
  104. Jonathan Plucker, “‘Regrets, I’ve Had a Few’ Edition” (Substack)
  105. Oiyan Poon, “Reflections on Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 2026 Essay on School Segregation, Inequalities, and Choices” (Substack)
  106. Derek Regensburger, “Nikole Hannah-Jones is barking up the wrong tree by blaming systemic inequalities for her daughter’s failed education” (Substack)
  107. Andy Spears, “Getting it Wrong on Education: Idrees Kahloon of The Atlantic Just Can’t Help Himself” (Substack)
  108. Tabitha St. Bernard-Jacobs and Adam St. Bernard Jacobs, “The Personal vs the Systemic: Parenting Realities Within Racist Societies” (Substack)
  109. Chris Stewart, “The myth of middle-class school choice supremacy” (Substack)
  110. Chris Stewart, “We Should All Be Najya Now” (Substack)
  111. Winkfield Twyman, “A Rebuttal to Nikole Hannah-Jones II” (Substack)
  112. Paula White, “Ten Years Later, Nikole Hannah-Jones Still Misses the Point” (Substack)
  113. Amal Young, “The Principal Who Didn't Retire” (Substack)
  114. Damon Young, “Every Choice A Parent Makes Is Ideological” (Substack)

Responses Alphabetized by Last Name

  1. Jill Abramson, “‘I was wrong’ are the most powerful words we have” 
  2. Chad Aldeman, “Parents Should Not Feel Guilty for Choosing a Good School”
  3. Musa al-Gharbi, “On Education” (Substack)
  4. Hannah Anderson, “On the Education of Children”
  5. Lane Anderson, “What I wish other White parents understood about the Nikole Hannah-Jones essay”
  6. Jenice Armstrong, “NYT writer practiced her principles with her daughter’s schooling”
  7. John Arnold, “A huge missed opportunity to call for real reform”
  8. Nicholas Bagley, “Democrats Gave Up On The Schools”
  9. Evan Barker, “I was a white girl at a majority-black school. Here’s what the education debate gets wrong”
  10. Rachel Barnhart, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Viral Essay and What It Means for Rochester”
  11. Jason Bedrick, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Owes Her Readers an Apology Too”
  12. Ceci Bell, “Double Binds: The Tensions Between Black Activism, Collective Responsibility, and Individual Choice”
  13. Brittany Bernstein, “How NYC Public Schools Failed Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Daughter”
  14. Billy Binion, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Experiment Accidentally Undercuts Her Case Against School Choice”
  15. Peter Boghossian, “She Failed Her Child. She Kept The Ideology.”
  16. Manikka Bowman, “The Real Lesson From Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Public School Dilemma”
  17. Derrell Bradford, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ Biggest Blind Spot”
  18. Daniel Buck, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones Learned from Her Daughter’s School”
  19. RHG Burnett, “For Nikole Hannah-Jones, a Tragedy; For the Nation, a Catastrophe”
  20. Emma Camp, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Is Wrong About School Choice”
  21. Jay Caspian Kang, “Individual Choices Won’t Fix America’s Public Schools”
  22. Mona Charen, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Has the Wrong Answers on Schools”
  23. Vivia Chen, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Is Triggering My Inner Chinese Mom”
  24. Zak Cheney-Rice, “No One Can Fix School Segregation Alone”
  25. Charles Cole, III, “Read Out Loud Day”
  26. Charles C. W. Cooke, “That Should Be Curtains for Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  27. Charles C. W. Cooke, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn’t Say”
  28. John Daniel Davidson, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Doesn’t Know What Education Is”
  29. Kira Davis, “The cult of the left takes no prisoners, only sacrifices — including their kids”
  30. Corey A. DeAngelis, “NYT’s Nikole Hannah-Jones Regrets Sending Her Daughter to Failing Public School”
  31. Freddie deBoer, “No school will decide Najya Hannah-Jones’s Future or Fate”
  32. Jack Despain Zhou, “The Failed ‘Hostage Theory’ of Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  33. Jenny Devenny, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Essay Means for White Families”
  34. Daniel Di Martino, “Nikole Hannah-Jones ignores who failed her daughter—the teachers union”
  35. Danyela Souza Egorov, “The Unmentioned Villain in Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Story”
  36. Jill Filipovic, “What Are Progressives Supposed to Do About Public Education?”
  37. Fit to Teach, “An Inner-City Teacher’s Response to Nikole Hannah-Jones’s NYT Article”
  38. Cory Franklin, “Nikole Hannah-Jones has been mugged by reality”
  39. Danyale Freeman, “Nikole Hannah-Jones and the Black Education Debate”
  40. Danyale Freeman, “Op-ed: We’re Adept to Missing The Actual Point with Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  41. Matt Frendewey, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Made Her School Choice. All Parents Deserve Theirs.”
  42. Roland Fryer, “The Education of Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  43. Alex Galbraith, “Wanting the best school for your kid doesn’t make you a hypocrite”
  44. Nick Gillespie, “Like Nikole Hannah-Jones, My Parents Put Ideology Over Pedagogy in Sending Me to Catholic School”
  45. Jonah Goldberg, “A Parent Should Play Favorites”
  46. Mike Goldstein, “Those ‘Cafeteria Kids’ Fighting Each Other in that Nikole Hannah-Jones Essay”
  47. Peter Greene, “On Reactions To That Nikole Hannah-Jones Piece”
  48. David Harsanyi, “Why Nikole Hannah-Jones is wrong about failing schools”
  49. Matthew Hennessey, “The Oblation of Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  50. Diane Hernández, “From ‘woke’ inclusion to disillusion: Journalist Nikole Hannah-Jones reflects on her daughter”
  51. Rachel Hills, “Don’t Take the Wrong Lesson from Nikole Hannah-Jones’s School Choice Essay”
  52. Colleen Hroncich, “What Does Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Mea Culpa Say About the Importance of School Choice?”
  53. Coleman Hughes, “Lessons from Nikole Hannah-Jones’ School Experiment”
  54. Daniel Idfresne, “Nikole Hannah-Jones mistakes academic tracking for discrimination”
  55. Joanne Jacobs, “A black mother’s choice for her son: It will be private school”
  56. Joanne Jacobs, “I created schools good enough for my own children”
  57. Joanne Jacobs, “Urban schools can succeed: Check the options before you flee to the suburbs”
  58. Shavar Jeffries, “Families Do Not Have to Choose Between Community and Excellence”
  59. Leslie-Bernard Joseph, “We Don't Have to Choose Between Racial Justice and Academic Excellence”
  60. Idrees Kahloon, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Faced Too Much Apathy to Win”
  61. Anya Kamenetz, “The Most Polarizing Parenting Essay Ever?” (New York Magazine)
  62. Naomi Kanakia, “The Case for Greatness”
  63. Keturah Kendrick, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ New York school dilemma is shared by Black parents everywhere”
  64. Joel Klein, “Nikole Hannah-Jones vs. Randi Weingarten”
  65. Brady Leonard, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Fails the Test”
  66. Rich Lowry, “‘Perverse priorities’ made Nikole Hannah-Jones put her cause before her child”
  67. Maud Maron, “Nikole Hannah-Jones and the Price of ‘Equality’”
  68. Elizabeth Grace Matthew, “Nikole Hannah-Jones Is Not a Bad Mom. She Is a Bad Journalist.”
  69. Augustus Mays, “Black Parents Should Not Have to Choose Between Tutoring and Therapy”
  70. C Liegh McInnis, “Hannah-Jones Article, MBF Report, Howard Rambsy, John Jennings, BET, Bob Moses, Robert Smith, and Upcoming Events”
  71. Jesus Mesa, “Nikole Hannah-Jones May Have Just Written a Eulogy for Woke Idealism”
  72. Auguste Meyrat, “Nikole Hannah-Jones learned the hard way what ruins schools”
  73. Eva Moskowitz, “I Also Sent My Children to a Nonselective, Overwhelmingly Minority Public School, but It Wasn’t a Sacrifice.”
  74. Sam Munson, “I’m an NYC dad—here’s what Nikole Hannah-Jones got so wrong about our schools”
  75. Paul Ollinger, “Nikole Hannah-Jones just ran head-first into the great dumbing-down”
  76. Anthonio L. Orridge, “While We’re Debating a Black Mother’s Choice, the System Gets Away Clean”
  77. Josiah Padley and Catrin Wigfall, “Here’s the lesson for Hannah-Jones: School reform outweighs school narratives”
  78. Kelsey Piper, “I’m with Nikole Hannah-Jones on this one”
  79. Jonathan Plucker, “‘Regrets, I’ve Had a Few’ Edition”
  80. Robert Pondiscio, “The Lessons We’re Not Learning From Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  81. Oiyan Poon, “Reflections on Nikole Hannah-Jones’ 2026 Essay on School Segregation, Inequalities, and Choices”
  82. John R. Puri, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Daughter Is Not the Only Victim”
  83. Derek Regensburger, “Nikole Hannah-Jones is barking up the wrong tree by blaming systemic inequalities for her daughter’s failed education”
  84. Nedra Rhone, “Nikole Hannah-Jones and the difficult school choices Black parents have faced for 150 years”
  85. Joshua C. Robertson, “Nikole Hannah-Jones missed the lesson. School choice matters”
  86. Andrew J. Rotherham, “An Education Conservative Is a Liberal Who’s Had to Do Cafeteria Duty? What Nikole Hannah-Jones Misses About Public Education. Plus Fish.”
  87. Ian Rowe, “Nikole Hannah-Jones accidentally gave us a vital lesson on school choice”
  88. Alexander Russo, “The hero Nikole Hannah-Jones could have been”
  89. Isaac Schorr, “Nikole Hannah-Jones failed her daughter and learned absolutely nothing from it”
  90. Joy Sewing, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ school choice regrets hit a nerve for Black families. Mine, too.”
  91. Andy Smarick, “We Need More Regret in Our Politics”
  92. Noah Smith, “Stop spending money on smaller classes”
  93. Torrey Snow, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’ hard lesson on school choice”
  94. Ilya Somin, “Exit, Voice, and Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  95. Andy Spears, “Getting it Wrong on Education: Idrees Kahloon of The Atlantic Just Can’t Help Himself”
  96. Tabitha St. Bernard-Jacobs and Adam St. Bernard Jacobs, “The Personal vs the Systemic: Parenting Realities Within Racist Societies”
  97. Inez Feltscher Stepman, “The Underfunding Myth Is Exposed”
  98. Chris Stewart, “The myth of middle-class school choice supremacy”
  99. Chris Stewart, “We Should All Be Najya Now”
  100. Alex Tabarrok, “The Tragedy of Nikole Hannah-Jones”
  101. Khari Thompson, “When you’re a Black student in America, nothing is simple”
  102. Selim Tlili, “My son needed to leave his school, but I did not: A reflection on Nikole Hannah-Jones's essay”
  103. Winkfield Twyman, “A Rebuttal to Nikole Hannah-Jones II”
  104. Julian Vasquez Heilig, “Response to Nikole Hannah-Jones about Her Daughter”
  105. Corey Walker, “Nikole Hannah-Jones’s Daughter Was Right”
  106. Jed Wallace, “When Cognitive Dissonance Becomes Cognitive Offloading”
  107. Jenisha Watts, “Why I’m Sending My Black Son to Private School”
  108. Jennifer Weber, “What Nikole Hannah-Jones Wouldn’t Let Herself See”
  109. Paula White, “Ten Years Later, Nikole Hannah-Jones Still Misses the Point”
  110. Andrea Williams, “The missed opportunity in Nikole Hannah-Jones’ essay”
  111. Steven Wilson, “The Solution Nikole Hannah-Jones Didn’t Take”
  112. Matthew Yglesias, “Why I send my kid to low-income urban public schools”
  113. Amal Young, “The Principal Who Didn't Retire”
  114. Damon Young, “Every Choice A Parent Makes Is Ideological”
Kennedy Sundberg
10.1.2026
Rocky terrain
Getty Images/Velez
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

The push for no-zero grading policies, which prohibit assigning zeros for class assignments or tests, began during a broader “equitable grading” movement arising from the view that traditional grading is rooted in bias and discourages students. Critics counter that such policies inflate grades in ways that demotivate students and that higher standards produce better long-term outcomes.

This debate extends beyond policy circles. Multiple Fordham Institute studies show that teachers and students share concerns about no-zero grading policies. Eighty-one percent of teachers say giving partial credit for assignments that are never turned in harms academic engagement. Similarly, high school students report that weak grading standards, along with widespread AI-driven cheating, diminish their learning experience. Yet despite such findings—and a dearth of empirical evidence supporting the practice—no-zero grading continues to spread. About 27 percent of teachers nationally report working in a school with some form of no-zero policy.

In a working paper, Dan Goldhaber, Maia Goodman Young, and Luke Caldwell at the National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research (CALDER) aim to map out the no-zero grading policy landscape in one state. They examined 295 traditional school districts in Washington State, covering 2015–16 through 2024–25, and collected documents ranging from board policies to school-level student handbooks.

Using AI[1], the team created a system[2] to determine what counts as a no-zero policy and identified 68 districts with such policies. To better understand what types of districts are more likely to adopt no-zero policies, the CALDER team estimated the probability of adoption in a given year, controlling for district size, location, test proficiency rates, as well as student demographics. They also looked at variation across schools within the same district.

The study finds that no-zero grading policies increased by 110 percent over ten years across the school districts examined. These policies are most common at the elementary level, but high schools had the fastest growth rate: 350 percent since 2016. Many of these no-zero policies predate the Covid-19 pandemic, with nearly half of the elementary-level policies’ adoption dates predating the 2015–16 school year.

The results also reveal enormous variation in how districts write and implement no-zero policies. Sixteen percent of those with such policies have contradictions between board policy and school handbooks. For example, one source established a no-zero policy while another permitted zeros. There is a particularly wide range when it comes to enforcement. Some districts require students to redo their assignment with mandatory structured support sessions, while others exclude the assignment from the gradebook. Some districts assign a partial score, while some policies vary by assignment type.

Perhaps the most striking finding is an equity paradox. While these reforms are typically framed as equity tools, Washington districts with more low-income students were less likely[3] to have a no-zero policy. At the elementary level, districts serving more special education students were also less likely to have no-zero policies. Among high schools, suburban districts were more likely to adopt such policies than city districts of similar size and student population.

The study is limited, of course—to a single state and to published policy documents. It cannot capture how teachers implement these rules in the classroom. Yet it exposes the unevenness of no-zero grading policies, which are hard to find and often inconsistent even within the same district. This may favor privileged students in multiple ways. Families with more education and institutional savvy may, for example, be better positioned to advocate for their children when rules are unevenly applied. And because high-poverty districts have fewer no-zero policies to begin with, this gap could give wealthier students a GPA advantage in college admissions. No-zero policies are framed as equity tools, yet their distribution doesn't match their intent. The landscape seems most uneven for the students these policies were designed to benefit.

SOURCE: Dan Goldhaber, Maia Goodman Young, and Luke Caldwell, "Where Have All the Zeros Gone? The Landscape of No Zeros Grading Policies," CALDER Working Paper No. 345-0826 (August 2026).


[1] The method they used is called retrieval-augmented generation. It uses large language models to search and classify documents, grounding the response in verified source material. The LLM’s response is pulled only from the source material rather than from the LLM’s training data. The CALDER team completed this process using two LLMs: Sonnet 4.6 and Claude Opus 4.7.

[2] It was a “typology system” that examined the following in each policy document: the source of the policy, what the policy applies to, how zeros are structurally eliminated, and how missing or plagiarized work is handled.

[3] A 10 percentage point increase in a district’s low-income student share is associated with a 0.93 percentage point decrease in the likelihood of no-zero policy adoption.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders
Jeff Murray
10.1.2026
F grade
Getty Images/IcemanJ
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Dual enrollment (DE) programs allow students to take college courses for credit—usually at no cost—while still in high school. Students must pass the course in order to earn credit. Efforts to increase DE access mean more high schoolers than ever are taking college courses. This has many upsides, but also increases the likelihood that unprepared students will enroll in them and fail. A recent report tries to uncover what happens to students who don’t pass. Could participating in DE still hold value for them?

A group of researchers from WestEd looked at data on more than 1.7 million California public high school students[1] who entered ninth grade between 2015–16 and 2018–19. The current DE framework in the state dates to 2016 and was meant to expand access to college-level coursework—particularly for low-income students, students of color, and first-generation college-goers—by reducing previously identified barriers to DE participation. Features include removing a number of academic prerequisites, focusing on community college coursework, and bringing instruction directly to high schools rather than requiring teenagers to travel to campuses. The majority of the full sample (55 percent) was Hispanic, and 73 percent were from low-income families, reflecting California’s overall student demographics. The researchers broke sample students into one of three groups: those who never enrolled (Never DE), those who enrolled and never failed a course (Passed DE), and those who took and failed at least one course (Ever Failed DE).

Perhaps surprisingly, the vast majority of California high schoolers (1.6 million, or 94 percent) never took a single DE course in that time.[2] Of the remainder, just over 93,000 took and passed their DE courses, while approximately 18,700 (17.1 percent) failed at least one such course. Students in the Passed DE group were demographically similar to the full sample, but students in the Ever Failed DE group were disproportionately Hispanic (65 percent) and from low-income families (83 percent). Students in the Ever Failed DE group were also lower achieving on average than their peers (46th vs 61st percentile in math). While low-income status was a strong predictor of DE course failure, the researchers note that the better prepared a low-income student was before attempting DE—i.e., higher performance on the state’s eighth grade math assessment—the weaker the influence of family income.

Because DE enrollment is not random, the researchers used inverse probability weighting to approximate the impact of failing one or more DE courses on a student’s likelihood of enrolling in college after graduation. They found that students in the Ever Failed DE group are 10–12 percentage points less likely to enroll in college within 18 months of high school graduation compared to their peers in the Passed DE group. The more courses failed, the higher the college enrollment “penalty.” There was no difference in these outcomes between students in different socioeconomic groups. However, the average student in the Ever Failed group was still 6 percentage points more likely to enroll in college than the average student who never attempted DE at all.

All of this is consistent with similar findings around students who take and fail AP tests, with a spokesperson saying that “studying hard, preparing for the exam, following through — can change the way students see themselves and raise their ambitions for college.” The WestEd researchers (and other analysts) conclude from their findings that efforts to remove barriers to DE participation for lower-income students and students of color provide value for those students, regardless of whether they pass their college courses. This appears to be modestly true when college enrollment is the only outcome under scrutiny, but that should not be the end point of the discussion. The more academically prepared DE students are, the likelier they are to pass their courses and accrue credits that will be valuable in persistence and completion and, perhaps, in reducing college costs along the way. In other words, high schools should give more of their students access to DE, but they should also make sure that they are academically ready for the work before they start.

SOURCE: Jenna Howard Terrell, et al., “Course Failure in Dual Enrollment and the Impact on College-Going,” Annenberg Institute at Brown University (July 2026).


[1] The term “district” is used throughout the report and there is no indication whether charter school students are included in the analysis.

[2] There is no formal discussion in the report as to why this number is so high, but Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) participation is longstanding and widespread in California. For comparison, 13 percent of Ohio high school students took at least one DE course in 2022–23.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Curriculum & Instruction
Teachers & School Leaders
Robert Pondiscio
10.1.2026
Nikole Hannah-Jones
Brazilian Association of Investigative Journalism/Flickr
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

I’m going to be impatient and blunt: Nikole Hannah-Jones’s daughter did not fail to learn fractions because she and her classmates were Black. Her teacher did not repeatedly fail to show up to work because the school was segregated. Neither did her assignments go ungraded because affluent children attended school elsewhere. The report cards and grades she received that concealed her elementary-level deficiencies were not caused by insufficient funding. These failures—all of them—were evidence of incompetence.

The injustice in Najya’s story is not that her school enrolled mostly poor minority children. It is that a school serving these children—an astonishingly well-funded school—was permitted to function this poorly.

A competently managed school puts a qualified teacher in front of children every day. When that teacher is absent, it has a plan for maintaining instruction. Teachers are expected to assign work, examine it, and provide feedback to students. They assess what children know and can do. Grades and report cards convey meaningful information to students and parents. When a child falls behind, someone notices and intervenes. Principals are responsible for making sure those things happen.

All of this should be obvious, yet has gone almost entirely unremarked upon in the voluminous response to Hannah-Jones’s recent essay about her daughter’s education. The piece has renewed arguments about integration, school choice, hypocrisy, parenting, and whether Hannah-Jones deserves credit for admitting that the decision she defended so passionately and aggressively harmed her daughter. But we should make sure not to lose sight of two more important lessons. The first concerns the stunning degree to which debates about education take institutional competence for granted. The second concerns a generation of education reformers who, whatever their overconfident mistakes, would have recognized instantly the failures Hannah-Jones describes and refused to excuse them.

The response to Hannah-Jones’s essay has been remarkably generous. She has been praised effusively for the candor and courage required to admit that the choice she made for her daughter was a mistake. The praise is undeserved. Bravery requires more than confessing error after its consequences become impossible to ignore. Hannah-Jones did not merely make a private decision about her own child. She used her considerable influence to turn that decision into a moral argument. For years, she mocked, condescended to, or condemned parents and education reformers who believed disadvantaged children should not have to wait for some larger social transformation before receiving a decent education. She treated parents who sought out better schools for their own children as not merely making a different choice, but perpetuating inequities.

She was explicit about her moral stance. “I don’t think she’s deserving of more than other kids,” Hannah-Jones said of Najya in a 2017 NPR interview. “I think that we can’t say ‘This school is not good enough for my child’ and then sustain that system. I think that that’s just morally wrong.”

To be very clear: The revised story she now tells is not a mea culpa or an act of bravery. It seeks to be exculpatory yet is devastating to her theory of change. But avoid at all costs the temptation to take a victory lap lest you repeat her mistake.

Let me ask an awkward, impertinent question: Do you earnestly believe that America’s teachers want three-fourths of students to read and do math below proficiency? Is it your assumption that principals, superintendents, school boards, education professors, and even teachers union leaders welcome these mediocre results? This is the first lesson Hannah-Jones’s experience should force upon both her critics and admirers. We argue ad nauseam about what schools believe, what incentives they face, how much money they receive, who attends them, who governs them, and what curriculum they adopt. But all of these arguments elide a question we refuse to ask: Do the people and institutions responsible for educating children actually know how to do the work well?

Hannah-Jones had a theory of change. She believed that segregated schools suffered because well-off families took their influence, expectations, resources, and social capital elsewhere. In her original account of enrolling Najya at P.S. 307, she wrote that she had seen how “the presence of even a handful of middle-class families made it less likely that a school would be neglected.” She believed her family would help integrate the school economically and that “we would be able to make up for Najya anything the school was lacking.”

Hannah-Jones understood even then that there was a risk to her daughter. “I had moments when I couldn’t ignore the nagging fear that in my quest for fairness, I was being unfair to my own daughter,” she wrote. She worried whether she had made the right decision for Najya, but she concluded, “I knew I made the just one.”

That sentence deserves attention. Hannah-Jones consciously weighed what might be best for the child in front of her against what she believed justice required. Her theory of change resolved the conflict: Families like hers could make the school less neglectful, while her own family could compensate for whatever deficiencies remained.

She put that theory to an unusually favorable test. Her family is educated, affluent, politically sophisticated, and deeply engaged with considerable professional and social capital. They advocated, organized, complained, and supplemented. They did virtually everything the theory asked of them. And still the school failed their daughter.

Where did you get that idea?

This should be a cautionary tale, not a victory lap. Every education movement becomes enamored of a theory of change and assumes that if we get the structures, incentives, resources, or policies right, results will follow. For years, at education-reform meetings and conferences, I’ve challenged this assumption with an impolite question: “You have this idea that schools and teachers know what to do and all you need to do is hold them accountable. Where’d you get that idea?”

This was the great unexamined assumption of the education-reform era. Standards would tell schools what children should know. Tests would reveal whether they had learned it. Accountability would create incentives for adults to improve. School closures would impose consequences for persistent failure.

All of these ideas had merit. Testing and accountability in particular performed an essential function: They made it harder for schools to tell parents their children were doing fine when they weren’t. Najya’s story is a vivid reminder of why that mattered. She received reassuring grades while accumulating academic deficits that became painfully obvious when she finally entered a more demanding school.

There is a bitter irony here. Hannah-Jones once characterized No Child Left Behind as an abandonment of integration. Instead of integrating schools, she said, the Bush administration had effectively decided, “We’re going to make these poor Black and Latino schools equal to White schools by testing and accountability.”

Najya’s experience does not prove that testing and accountability can make a bad school good. It demonstrates something more modest but essential: Parents need honest information about whether their children are learning. Najya did not suffer because adults tested her too much. She suffered because report cards and grades told her family she was succeeding when she wasn’t. But accountability could tell us that a school was failing without telling the people inside it how to improve. It could create urgency; it could not create expertise.

More recently, I have revised this lesson in speaking to rooms full of my fellow school-choice advocates. “You have this idea that there’s all this talent and dynamism just waiting to be set free from bureaucrats and union domination. Where’d you get that idea?”

Choice changes incentives. It changes governance. It allows families to escape schools that fail them and entrepreneurs to create alternatives. These are considerable virtues. But none of it fixes the competence problem. Responding to Hannah-Jones’s essay in The Wall Street Journal, Roland Fryer described this problem clearly. “Choice advocates make the opposite mistake by assuming choice is enough,” he writes. “Choice can provide an exit from a bad school; it isn’t a production function for creating a good one.”

Precisely. Will an ineffective teacher suddenly become competent merely because we change the person who signs her paycheck? Structural reforms can create conditions for improvement, but they do not guarantee it.

The assumption hiding inside our theories of change

Once you notice the assumption of competence, you see it everywhere.

Social justice theory says that concentrating disadvantaged children in the same schools concentrates disadvantage. Change the mix of students and families, and resources, expectations, peer effects, and social capital should improve. Maybe so. But someone still has to teach fractions.

School-finance theory says money can purchase smaller classes, better materials, tutoring, specialists, higher salaries, longer school days, and any number of potentially useful things. But someone has to know what to purchase, whom to hire, how to organize the work, and whether it’s improving instruction and student outcomes.

Accountability theory says adults and institutions respond to incentives. Measure outcomes, make results transparent, reward success, and impose consequences for persistent failure. But someone still has to know what to do differently on Monday morning.

Even when it comes to the reforms I strongly support, the competency problem does not disappear. Take curriculum. A district can purchase an excellent knowledge-rich curriculum, deliver materials to classrooms, train teachers, align assessments, and require implementation. None of that ensures that the teacher understands the material well enough to explain it, recognize misconceptions, ask productive questions, or determine whether children have learned it. They may adapt it or even decide not to implement it at all.

Or take the science of reading. States can ban three-cueing, mandate phonics, adopt screening assessments, and require teacher training. But legislators cannot look over a child’s shoulder, hear the particular error she is making, diagnose its source, and decide what to do next. We change everything around the classroom and assume that what happens inside it will change too. Where did we get that idea?

The black box

What if schools don’t know how to improve? This is a less satisfying political problem or culture-war issue because it implicates nearly everyone: schools of education, districts, state agencies, curriculum providers, professional-development organizations, unions, reformers, philanthropists, and policymakers. But it has one great virtue as an explanation: It takes seriously the enormous variation we see among schools serving similar children.

Fryer observed that “resources alone can’t explain disparate outcomes among schools serving similar children with similar budgets.” Right again, but that ought to make us curious. If two schools serving broadly similar children with comparable resources produce dramatically different results, we have a duty to understand what is happening inside them.

What are the teachers doing? What curriculum are they using? How much instructional time is protected? What happens when children don’t understand something? What does the principal do all day? What happens when a teacher chronically fails to perform? What information do parents receive? Does an A on a report card mean a child has mastered the material, or merely that she completed her assignments?

These questions lack the grandeur of debates about segregation, markets, democracy, and social justice. But they are where the work of education actually happens.

What the reformers got right

There is a second lesson in Hannah-Jones’s story that deserves to be stated just as clearly.

For all its mistakes and excesses, the education-reform movement that arose roughly a quarter-century ago began with a proposition that now seems almost radical in its simplicity: Black and Hispanic children are capable of much higher achievement than the public education system was producing. Adults and institutions had to accept responsibility for the results.

Of course, poverty mattered. Segregation mattered. Racism mattered. Family circumstances mattered. But none of that was an excuse for giving a child a poor education.

It is difficult to read Hannah-Jones’s account of her daughter’s education without being struck by how completely the failures she describes violated that ethos. A Black child from Brooklyn could not do fractions? Her teachers owned that failure. An honors student got an A in algebra without possessing elementary mathematical knowledge? The school owned it. A third-grade teacher repeatedly failed to show up and children were farmed out to other classrooms? The principal owned it. Parents were repeatedly reassured while their children accumulated enormous academic deficits? The system owned it.

To be clear, ed reformers of the bygone era did not have all the answers. They were too confident that standards, tests, accountability, choice, new governance structures, or closing bad schools and opening new ones would cause better practice to emerge. But we should not allow criticism of the movement’s solutions to obscure the moral authority of the problem it set out to solve. Education reform put student achievement—particularly the achievement of poor Black and Hispanic children—at the center of the national conversation. It demanded honest information about whether children were learning. It rejected the idea that miserable academic outcomes should be accepted, contextualized, or explained away because children were poor, Black, Hispanic, or disadvantaged.

The best charter schools served overwhelmingly poor Black and Hispanic populations and sometimes achieved results dramatically different from neighboring institutions serving similar children. That did not prove poverty was irrelevant, segregation didn’t matter, or every charter school was good. It proved that schools matter. What adults do matters.

Hannah-Jones’s story should occasion some reconsideration of the reform era’s reputation. The failures she describes are a functional catalog of what those reformers warned against: low expectations disguised as compassion, grades that concealed rather than communicated, adults explaining failure instead of correcting it, and disadvantaged children who paid the price.

These, then, are the two lessons I take from Hannah-Jones’s story. The first is competence. Changing a school’s demographics, increasing its funding, holding it accountable, changing its governance, giving parents choice, adopting a better curriculum, or mandating better instructional practices can all create conditions for improvement. None of it eliminates the need to ensure adults know how to teach, lead, assess, diagnose, intervene, and improve.

The second is about responsibility. In correcting the excesses and shortcomings of the education-reform era, we should not discard its most important insight: Schools have an obligation to educate the children in front of them, and poor outcomes for disadvantaged children are not inevitable facts of nature to be shrugged at or waved away. Children should not have to wait for America to solve poverty, racism, segregation, inequality, or any other social problems before receiving a decent education.

Those two lessons belong together. Responsibility without competence produces frustration, churn, and disillusionment. Competence without responsibility permits institutions to become complacent and excuses to proliferate. Good schools require both.

The next task for education reform is therefore not merely helping parents identify good schools. It is understanding what makes schools good—and figuring out how to make effective practice routine rather than exceptional. The next generation of reform should begin with two questions: Are we willing to hold schools responsible for whether children learn? And do the adults responsible for educating them know how?

The reform generation understood the first question better than its critics sometimes acknowledge. Its mistake was underestimating the second.

A theory of change needs to answer both.

Editor’s note: This was first published on the author’s Substack, The Next 30 Years. And a shorter version of this argument appeared previously in The Wall Street Journal.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Evidence-Based Learning
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • Page 3
  • Page 4
  • Page 5
  • Page 6
  • Current page 7
  • Page 8
  • Page 9
  • Page 10
  • Page 11
  • 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]