| The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Jeff Murray

1.21.2026

Listen to this article

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

Buckeye Local School District in Medina County has, by its own admission, a dismal track record of convincing voters to pass levies. After three dozen failures in 40 years, it seems that district leaders may have finally gotten the message, because they have decided to move forward with plans to build a new school without a levy, using funds that they have saved up with decades of, frankly, unexpected budgetary frugality. I’m sure there are some state-level fiscal moves that are also motivating Buckeye Local to tap their $40 million (!?) slush pile right now, but this story indicates that it’s primarily time for a new building because the permeating smell in the old one has gotten so overwhelming it can no longer be ignored. Personally, I agree. Something stinks up there all right. Taxpayers have been smelling it for years; and now everyone else can experience it as well. (Ideastream Public Media, 1/20/26)
As I have been saying consistently, my personal concerns with efforts to ban student cellphone use in schools lies not with the kids, but with the adults. I keep looking for evidence to the contrary and keep finding the same thing: Despite what the single Cincinnati City Schools parent quoted in this “mission accomplished” coverage asserts, I feel like there’s some wobbling here from the only other commentator—the local teachers union VP. Do you? Or am I just looking too hard? (Spectrum News, 1/21/26)
Speaking of teachers unions (when aren’t we doing that, really?), elected board members in Toledo City Schools are starting a listening tour regarding proposals to—among other things—consolidate, reconfigure, and close schools in the district’s (heinously overdue) response to ongoing, years-long student enrollment declines. They say they are looking for a wide variety of perspectives, including particularly that of “union leadership”. As if an elected school board would ever be unsure of their unions’ perspectives on anything. (Toledo Blade, 1/20/26)
Staying on topic, Ravenna City Schools in northeast Ohio has experienced a nearly 50-percent reduction in student enrollment since the 1990s. In this coverage, we learn that they have also been redistributing kids and closing school buildings—one at a time—since the early 2000s in response to this fact. Once West Main School shuts down at the end of the current school year, Ravenna will have closed more buildings than it currently occupies…which seems just right. West Main will hit the auction block immediately after closure, says superintendent Ben Ribelin, just as most (but not all) of the district’s closed buildings have done. “We’re trying to reduce our assets,” Ribelin explains. “Education people are not landlords.” Amen, sir. Amen. (Akron Beacon Journal, 1/20/26)
Sadly, no new charter or private school operators seem to have come into Ravenna via the district’s prudent, logical, and state-law-compliant property sales, but maybe if the population of school-age children is that low (and still falling) up there, perhaps it’s not the availability of buildings that is at issue. No such problem in Cincinnati, where a brand new college-preparatory private high school—Gray Road Christian Academy—will open its doors this fall. Why yes, they will be accepting students using EdChoice Scholarships. It says so right in this initial coverage and we didn’t even have to ask. (Local 12 News, Cincinnati, 1/17/26)

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

Chester E. Finn, Jr.

1.20.2026

Listen to this article

Stephen H. Hess, 1933–2026

I lost a great friend, and America lost one of its finest writer/historians, when Steve Hess passed away on Sunday morning at the age of 92.

Perhaps you don’t recognize the name. Perhaps that’s because he did not seek the limelight—and perhaps because the latest of his 25 books emerged seven years ago, a memoir that he titled Bit Player: My Life with Presidents and Ideas. But Steve was so much more than a “bit player.” He was, along with much else, one of our foremost biographers of presidents, critical observers of the election process, and students of the Washington media, as well as the White House and presidency. You’ll find a partial biography and bibliography on the Brookings website and an inadequate one on Wikipedia. Dig a bit deeper and you’ll find such seminal works as America’s Political Dynasties, The Washington Reporters, and Organizing the Presidency. The list goes on.

Yes, those were all pre-Trump and much has changed in the past few years. Steve, in recent months, would sort of shrug his shoulders when asked about Trump. He said he had stopped talking to journalists about it because there was nothing useful to say. But the last time we saw him, he also commented on a bit of light at the end of the present dark tunnel, mostly because he saw some cracks in the current edifice—and didn’t see how it could sustain itself over time. (Others have lately made similar comments.)

Steve was a classic “moderate Republican” who earned his first political spurs as a speechwriter in the Eisenhower White House. I met him in 1969 when I (a 25-year-old graduate student) followed my doctoral advisor to Washington and became part of Pat Moynihan’s team at the White House. Turned out that Steve was already there, serving as Pat’s deputy. And what a superb deputy/boss he was.

Four years later, I’m working in New Delhi, again with Moynihan (now U.S. ambassador to India), and who should turn up to visit, tour, and lecture but Steve Hess. That’s when Renu—my then fiancé—also made his acquaintance. And a year after that, as she and I were trying to figure out where back in the U.S. we might both reconnect to jobs and locate our young family, it was Steve who introduced me to Brookings, where he already was situated (and remained for half a century!). That led to our settling in the D.C. area and made possible a stateside relaunch of Renu’s medical career. We likely wouldn’t be doing what we’re doing today if it weren’t for Steve.

Who then remained a dear friend, birthday celebrant, travel companion, and brunch guest along with his wonderful wife of many decades, Beth Amster Hess. He invariably offered insights into the state of the nation, the GOP, whomever was then president, and the world beyond. He listened patiently. He replied thoughtfully. It was all very old school. And it was invariably educational for us, as well as pleasurable. Old school, yes, but never stodgy. Plus he was almost as interested in the doings and accomplishments (and challenges) of our kids and grandkids as we were.

Among the many Hess books on our shelves, in addition to his mis-titled memoir, two are particular favorites. One is his astute guide to the lost world of “campaign etiquette” (circa 1998). The other is his wonderfully insightful account of the odd-couple relationship between Moynihan and Nixon, which of course intersects with my own history.

When Steve, at 90, finally went “emeritus” at Brookings after five decades of affiliation there, the Brookings team produced a wonderful podcast series of reminisces, spanning his long and (for a guy who more or less stayed in one place) extraordinarily varied career. It repays attention both by anyone with an interest in modern American history and all who may want to learn more about a man who was so much more than a “bit player” and in so many ways. May he now rest in peace.

Jessica Poiner

1.20.2026

Listen to this article

It’s been nearly three years since policymakers established Ohio’s science of reading initiative. The sweeping statewide effort requires public schools to use state-approved high-quality instructional materials, calls on teachers and administrators to complete professional development, and tasks the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) with conducting audits on the state’s educator preparation programs to ensure that future teachers are well-trained in the science of reading. It also prohibits three-cueing, an instructional approach that encourages students to guess at words based on pictures or context rather than using phonics-based word recognition skills.

The findings of the first round of ODHE’s audits were released in December, marking the latest step in Ohio’s journey to improve early literacy. In total, the audits examined 614 reading and literacy-related courses across 49 public and private institutions of higher education. For each institution, the audit team—ODHE commissioned The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk to carry out the work—reviewed course materials including syllabi and textbooks, observed instruction, and conducted interviews. Needless to say, it was a massive undertaking.

Institutions were assigned a rating based on two measures: 1) the percentage of audit metrics their programs addressed within the required 12-Hour Reading and Literacy Core,[1] and 2) the degree of compliance with Ohio’s statutory definition of the science of reading, which prohibits three-cueing. Ratings fell into three categories: “In Alignment,” “In Partial Alignment,” or “Not In Alignment.” Institutions that taught or promoted three-cueing were automatically classified as Not In Alignment.

Seventy-nine percent of the 48 institutions that received alignment ratings achieved designations of full or partial alignment. Thirty-three earned a rating of In Alignment while another five were rated as In Partial Alignment. The primary distinction between the two was the number of audit metrics met: Those that were only partially aligned failed to address three or more metrics. Two institutions that earned In Alignment ratings—Kent State University and Lourdes University—were identified as exemplars and lauded for practices including embedding structured literacy practice into coursework and field supervision, pursuing grant-funded professional learning, and partnering with districts.

Ten institutions (21 percent) earned ratings of Not In Alignment due to a documented use of the three-cueing approach in assigned texts, lecture materials, assessments, or classroom observations. It’s important to note that the presence of three-cueing in even one course section was enough to trigger this rating, regardless of how many audit metrics an institution addressed. For example, six of the ten institutions met 100 percent of the audit’s metrics but were identified as misaligned because some course sections weren’t compliant with Ohio’s statutory definition of reading science. The report identifies the number of noncompliant course sections per institution, which ranges from one at Cleveland State, Ohio Dominican University, and Ohio University to a whopping 17 course sections at Ohio State. (Ohio State’s findings probably shouldn’t be surprising, given that the school hosts Reading Recovery, one of the leading organizations promoting three-cueing.)

Next steps depend on an institution’s rating. Those that were categorized as aligned were provided with advisory recommendations to refine their programs. Partially aligned institutions are required to address all audit metrics by revising syllabi, course content, and assessments. Meanwhile, the ten institutions deemed Not In Alignment were given mandatory and advisory recommendations and must remove all texts, course materials, and instructional practices that promote three-cueing. The report notes that, for some, documenting that they’ve replaced noncompliant texts should be enough. Others, however, will need a “comprehensive review” by ODHE. Either way, state law requires institutions to address audit findings within a year. The chancellor of higher education must revoke approval for programs that fail to do so and are out of alignment.

For the most part, Ohioans should feel encouraged by the audits and these findings. Many institutions put a considerable amount of work into ensuring alignment with state standards, and it shows in the data. On average, they addressed 98 percent of audit metrics. The majority ensured three-cueing wasn’t included in their programming. And the audit team praised several institutions for their active engagement in professional development and providing teacher candidates with extensive opportunities to apply evidence-based literacy practices in the field.

This kind of progress is great news for the kids who will one day be taught by these educators. But Ohio’s work is far from over. Helping institutions address audit metrics they missed and expanding faculty expertise in reading science are both identified in the report as key next steps. Addressing the stubborn presence of three-cueing, however, is the top priority. The ten institutions using instructional methods and materials rooted in three-cueing “risk misinforming preservice candidates about effective literacy instruction.” Going forward, it will be crucial for state leaders to hold these institutions accountable for addressing audit findings and meeting state expectations. Failing to do so could derail efforts to boost reading achievement statewide.

[1] Ohio requires elementary teacher preparation programs to dedicate twelve credit hours to reading instruction, including a three-credit course in phonics.

Policy Priority:

Standards & Accountability

Topics:

Accountability & Testing

Jeff Murray

1.20.2026

Listen to this article

Researchers looking at the impacts of teachers union membership on schools have had an easier time focusing on finance-related outcomes—including former students’ earning power as adults—rather than academic achievement. While not the first research to do so, a new working paper exploits a natural experiment to try and overcome the non-random nature of union membership in order to examine student outcomes more directly.

In 2011, Wisconsin enacted Act 10, which effectively made union membership optional. The legislation also specifically curtailed public-sector unions’ collective bargaining rights and required them to hold annual elections to remain legally certified. Prior to Act 10, over 98 percent of Badger State teachers were union members. After its passage, that eventually dropped below 50 percent and roughly half of the state’s 400 union locals were not re-certified by public school teachers.

Morgan Foy, a researcher from the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, uses individual-level data on all public school teachers from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction (DPI) from 2006–2022. These include demographic characteristics, schools where they worked, and grades and subjects taught. He also was given access to de-personalized data on all public school students in the state over the same time period. These include demographics, attendance and disciplinary records, and standardized test scores for grades 3–8 and 10. Foy normalized exam scores to keep them consistent in the wake of test changes in various subjects and years of the study. DPI data began linking teachers and their students in 2017, thus Foy is able to create a classroom-level teacher value added measure from that point. Union re-certification election results came from the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission and teacher survey data regarding union membership came from NCES.

Importantly, the methodology hinges on two timely but unrelated developments. The first is that, while Act 10 eventually affected all of public education, implementation dates varied across districts because changes only kicked in when an active collective bargaining agreement ended and a new one began. The second is that, starting in January 2016, state law required all union dues to be itemized as part of reporting by political action committees. This allowed for precise data on who was and wasn’t a union member, a level of detail that was previously unavailable.

As a preliminary finding, Foy reports that higher-performing teachers, as measured by value added, are less likely to remain union members relative to their lower-performing peers after union decertification, keeping in mind that individual teachers could still opt to be union members even if their local organizations were decertified. Relatedly, he finds no difference in who opts in and who opts out of union membership by value-added score when they have this choice. “This is consistent,” he concludes, “with the idea that lower-performing teachers value the representation benefits that unions provide relatively more than higher-performing teachers.”

Exploiting the staggered decertification process experienced by local teachers’ unions over time, Foy finds positive impacts on student outcomes in districts with less union membership compared to districts with more membership. Specifically, by three years after decertification, student test scores in math, English language arts, science, and social studies increased by over 5 percent of a standard deviation, and student attendance increased by roughly 1 percent (in average days attended) five years after decertification. Additionally, Foy determines that these benefits are not due to changes in the composition of the teaching force following a loss of union representation, as he found no evidence of differences in teacher turnover rates with or without decertification. Rather, his value-added analysis indicates that teachers who were employed both pre- and post-decertification increased their productivity in decertified districts compared to districts whose union membership remained stable.

Foy concludes from his unique analysis that ending “union protections” for teachers results in direct academic and nonacademic benefits for students. Unfortunately, the mechanisms at work are unclear. (It’s definitely not increased teacher pay or more classroom inputs, as the data available indicate neither of these occurred in districts where unions were decertified.) Instead, Foy surmises that “union efforts to insulate workers may adversely affect the quality” of teaching from the start. And only by ending the union representation system will many teachers reach their full productivity and quality.

SOURCE: Morgan Foy, “Selection and Performance in Teachers’ Unions,” NBER Working Paper (October 2025).

Policy Priority:

School Funding

Topics:

Governance

Kevin Huffman

1.16.2026

Listen to this article

Editor’s note: This was first published in SCHOOLED, Mike Petrilli’s Substack, which hosts weekly education-reform conversations around K–12’s biggest topics.

I’ve been deep in the tutoring space for four years now. Accelerate funds promising programs, research, and policy development in an effort to scale practices that work. We have tried to approach the research with true neutrality, and have not been cheerleaders in the space. After four years, funding more than two dozen randomized control trials and dozens of other studies and analyses, and working deeply in 11 states, here is what I can say with great certainty:

High-dosage tutoring helps students gain a few extra months of learning in core subject areas when the students receive the sessions they are supposed to receive.

What I find heartening in the space is that all of the things that Mike Petrilli recently delineated—from Liz Cohen’s excellent book, The Future of Tutoring—as critical questions are all: 1) resolvable and 2) peripheral to the core question of dosage. Should we ensure tutors are well selected and trained? Yes. Should we align the sessions with core curricula? Yes. But, across a wide range of domains, what we find again and again is that tutoring advances outcomes when it is delivered a sufficient number of times. The other pieces are basically just determinants of the degree of magnitude.

The challenge that we keep seeing—which Jill Barshay covered in Hechinger, analyzing the University of Chicago’s large scale study—is that districts and schools repeatedly fail to deliver the sessions. Then you wind up with very modest impacts.

That’s a failure of implementation and accountability. I would argue that tutoring doesn’t fall into the category of “it’s too hard so we just can’t scale it.” It’s really not that hard to have tracking systems and accountability for delivery. As with many of the walk-backs in education over the last decade, we just often decide that it’s too hard to do things like say, “if you get money to do this thing, then we require proof that you did the thing.”

I could go on, but to me, high-dosage tutoring is the embodiment of the truly absurd public conversation we have in the ed policy space that goes something like this:

Here’s a thing that works!
Hmmm, we have to do some stuff to actually implement it.
[A bunch of places take the money but just don’t do it.]
Wow—it doesn’t look like the thing worked.
Look—shiny thing over there!

I’ve lived through this in much tougher bare-knuckle arenas like teacher evaluation. (Hey, I wonder what two places—in the hundreds and hundreds of data points—had the largest NAEP gains in a cycle ever? Oh, the two places that leaned in on teacher evaluation? I’m sure it’s a coincidence.)

By comparison, tutoring is a layup. People like it (it polls higher among parents than any other education policy). Its evidence base is incredibly strong. Implementation can focus on one simple baseline proposition—ensuring kids get their sessions. And it builds on, rather than replacing, existing instruction.

We make things way too hard sometimes. Let’s get kids to school, ensure they have excellent instructional materials, train teachers on how to use them, have accountability for ensuring students actually advance on track, ensure any student that falls behind grade level immediately begins to receive tutoring, and track and report all of the above. I promise you: It will work.

Policy Priority:

High Expectations

Topics:

Evidence-Based Learning

Curriculum & Instruction

Teachers & School Leaders

Liz Cohen

1.16.2026

Listen to this article

Editor’s note: This was first published in SCHOOLED, Mike Petrilli’s Substack, which hosts weekly education-reform conversations around K–12’s biggest topics.

As I said on the Education Gadfly Show podcast earlier this week, I’m not actually interested in whether all kids get tutoring. What I’ve always cared most about is whether all kids are learning and how we can improve public education systems to improve student outcomes, especially for low-income kids. I continue to believe tutoring is an important tool in this work. Here are three big reasons I’m sticking with tutoring as a solution that should be on the table for states, districts, and schools in 2026 and beyond, even in the midst of very real resource constraints.

1. Schools and school systems need a strategy if they are going to truly change. Conveniently, tutoring works best when part of a strategy.

The districts and states doing the best work with tutoring are the ones using tutoring strategically as a way to support specific groups of students who are performing below grade level.

The District of Columbia is a great example of a place where teacher salaries are quite high, and where tutoring is being used as part of a strategic overhaul of math instruction that includes new curriculum, teacher training, and more. Two years ago, students in D.C.’s math tutoring program gained an average of two months of learning over 15–20 weeks of tutoring. But last year, students in the program gained three months of learning. D.C. is improving their tutoring and improving their math instruction, all while paying teachers quite well.

I would love to see a school system where no student needs additional support. In the real world, at least today, that’s not the case. So if districts or states are seeking to answer the question, “How do we support students below grade level with an approach that has the highest likelihood of success while also focusing on supporting teachers to use great materials so that kids actually learn?” tutoring is a good answer. In Baltimore City Public Schools, 72 percent of kindergarten students and 64 percent of first grade students who get tutored moved at least one level up on the early literacy assessment used by the district. In Guilford County, North Carolina, tutored students outpaced the state average for growth in kindergarten and first grade. These kinds of results seem like they would also help teachers as more students in the classroom are truly prepared for grade-level work. That might help teachers like their jobs more, regardless of pay.

2. Tutoring is a back-to-basics play.

School, especially the early grades, should be focused on reading and math, with a side dish of writing and general social skills. Tutoring gets kids more time on the exact core academics that matter most. Kids benefit from more time on task, more time reading aloud to a trusted adult, or more time practicing tricky math skills. Teachers, even amazing highly-paid teachers, can’t give 30 kids the individual opportunity to showcase their practice and get specific feedback, especially in a classroom where half or more of kids are below grade-level. Pair this with the knowledge that demonstrating competence is key to building motivation, and we begin to make the case that tutoring is a back-to-basics academic effort with the added benefit of increasing student motivation towards learning.

The book from 2025 that has most influenced my thinking about education isn’t a policy or political book, but a book called Instructional Illusions by three learning scientists. In remarkably concise, clear writing they explain exactly why learning doesn’t happen in so many classrooms. One takeaway I had from that book is that activities like quality tutoring—that require the student to actually do something real with immediate feedback from a trusted adult—helps avoid many of the illusions that plague classroom settings, like the engagement illusion that lets teachers believe busy students are learning or the discovery illusion that lets teachers believe children need to discover answers for themselves.

3. Tutoring is a wonderful opportunity for growing civil service opportunities and creating an American culture of learning.

From college students looking for part-time jobs to older Americans looking to spend their time meaningfully, tutoring is an opportunity to engage many more Americans in education. We’re seeing this play out. Hundreds of thousands of Americans across all ages have raised their hands to work as tutors or mentors in the past five years.

In turn, that might help create more of a culture of learning that our country sorely needs. Education shouldn’t purely be transactional. It’s not all about the degree. America is better off if young people care about learning, about exploring the world and all its possibilities, about finding out what excites them and motivates them. So the more adults, both young and old, play a role in a child’s education, the more a child learns that learning is itself a valuable part of life, one that remains meaningful throughout adulthood. Is this wishful thinking? Absolutely! I wish it nonetheless.

Policy Priority:

High Expectations

Topics:

Evidence-Based Learning

Curriculum & Instruction

Teachers & School Leaders

Jeff Murray

1.16.2026

Listen to this article

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

THAT’S why not

Unused district school buildings must, by Ohio law, be offered for sale to charter, private, and STEM school operators on the open market. Abhorring the idea of selling to the “competition”, districts have found several loopholes to circumvent this law, including property swaps with other “taxing entities” such as cities or port authorities. Here’s one example currently ramping up in Mahoning County, where one county commissioner is ready to “swap” Youngstown City Schools’ Kirkmere Elementary (surely underutilized but not yet closed) with an unspecified county property. If the building is sold to a charter school operator, as the law intends, that deal would relieve the cash-strapped district of an expensive financial obligation while simultaneously bringing in hundreds of thousands of dollars in needed revenue. Instead, County Commissioner Carol Rimedio-Righetti tells WFMJ-TV that, “It’s a good location, and if it is, in fact, going to be open and vacant, why not go government-to-government?” If allowed to go through, her plan would result in the county receiving a building for free, Youngstown City Schools getting whatever white elephant property she wants to offload, Youngstown having to take on all financial obligation for maintenance and/or development of that property, and district taxpayers realizing zero financial benefit from the deal. Even if such a deal is legal, the reason why not to do it is abundantly clear.

New research findings

The 74 this week covered the release of a new report digging into the impact of switching schools on students with special needs in Michigan. The study finds that math and reading test scores improved for both special education and general education students for at least two years after they switched from a traditional district to a charter school. Absenteeism also decreased. “Charter schools can be a useful educational tool for parents with students with disabilities,” said report co-author Scott Imberman. “They shouldn’t be quick to rule it out, because it does seem that, for at least a substantial segment of disabled students, charter schools are helpful for them.” You can read the full report here.

Different hope

Florida governor Ron DeSantis this week suggested that some legislative changes may be made to his signature Schools of Hope program, whose latest iteration—allowing charter schools to request co-location in underutilized district buildings—has faced strong initial pushback. “It’ll be done, I think, rationally,” he said in a press conference. Among the most likely changes would be requiring charter schools to shoulder some of the costs of operation in the shared buildings, all of which are borne by districts in the current version of the plan.

Legislative watch – Hoosier edition

Indiana House Bill 1423—which would enact and operationalize the recommendations of the Indianapolis Local Education Alliance—was recently referred to the House Education Committee. Among its many groundbreaking provisions, the law would create a new Public Education Corporation and governing board in Indianapolis designed to unite operations, governance, and sharing of buildings and tax funding for district, charter, and private schools in the capital city. Hearings on the bill should begin soon.

Legislative watch – Magnolia edition

Mississippi House Bill 2—a wide-ranging education law that would impact all school types—recently passed the House by a vote of 61-59. Among other things, HB 2 would expand the areas where charter schools could locate in the state by allowing them in districts that have at least one D or F-rated school building, rather than needing a D or F rating for the entire district as is currently permitted. The bill moves to the Senate for debate in the coming weeks.

*****

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