When it comes to facilities, Ohio’s public charter schools have long gotten the shortend ofthe stick. They’re excluded from the state’s main school construction program, which has sent billions to school districts for high end facility upgrades over the past couple decades. Unlike districts, charters don’t receive any local taxpayer support for capital improvements either. Thankfully, the state does provide a per-pupil facility allowance that covers a portion of charters’ building expenses (e.g., rent and utilities). But their meager resources overall thwart more ambitious building projects that would allow them to occupy more suitable educational spaces and expand to serve additional students.
Recognizing these challenges, Ohio policymakers have made efforts to help charters access vacant or underutilized district-owned buildings via right of first refusal laws.[1] As outlined in statute, districts must offer to charters[2] buildings that meet one of two conditions: (1) any type of facility (e.g., instructional or administrative) that has not been used for one year or (2)an instructional-use facility in which less than 60 percent was used for “direct academic instruction” during the previous year.When a building meets one of these conditions, it’s deemed “unused” and the district must offer it to charters located within its territory for lease or purchase (the district decides which one).
High-performing charters[3] are first in line for an unused facility. If more than one is interested, an auction (for a sale) or lottery (for a lease) is held to determine the buyer. When no high-performers are interested, other local charters are next in line (with the same auction or lottery process if multiple entities are interested). Should there be no interest whatsoever in the facility, the district may either auction it to other entities or retain ownership. The facility must be sold or leased for at least “appraised fair market value.”
Having these provisions on the books is an important first step. Yet questions have emerged about just how accessible unused facilities are for charters in practice. For one, there are concerns that districts, which are loathe to compete with charters, are sidestepping these requirements and withholding buildings. Back in 2016, nearly half of charter leaders reported that districts were “generally uncooperative” in making facilities available. In 2019, former Auditor of State Dave Yost noted in a report that “efforts by school districts to prevent charter schools from employing unused district school buildings is an issue.” In 2020, the Columbus Dispatch ran a troubling story about the city’s school district giving the high-performing United Schools Network (whose schools Fordham authorizes) the runaround after it expressed interest in purchasing a vacant school.
A look at recent enrollment data also raises questions. In Youngstown, for example, East High School enrolled just 522 students in 2022–23, while it enrolled more than 1,300 students eight years ago. In Cleveland, Collingwood High School enrolled just 304 students last year, but enrolled 600 students a decade ago. And in Columbus, Innis Elementary School enrolled 214 students last year but served more than 400 students in 2014–15. These aren’t the only underenrolled schools, of course, and others could fall into that category if district enrollments continue to slide. How many schools operate at less than 60 percent capacity, but haven’t been offered for lease or purchase?
Finally, cost issues remain for charters seeking to purchase an unused facility. In some circumstances, the market value of a school building can run into the hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars, making a purchase—plus possible repair and renovation expenses—cost-prohibitive. This, along with the restrictive language allowing only local charters to vie for the facility, may be why districts often end up selling unused facilities to otherentities. It may also explain why only a handful of charters are located in former district buildings.
To address these issues, state lawmakers should work to strengthen the right of first refusal law in the following ways.
Require districts to report unused facilities to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, and then require the department to publish a list of such facilities and verify that they’ve been offered first to charters. Currently, there is no centralized record of which facilities are “unused” or confirmation that districts have indeed offered them to charters. Increased transparency and a verification process would help confirm that districts are following the law. A regularly updated list of unused facilities would allow charter leaders to know which buildings are available at a given time.
Tighten the language around what it means for a building to be operating at less than 60 percent capacity. Current statute that designates a severely underutilized building as “unused” is too vague and could allow districts to avoid offering such schools to charters based on technicalities.[4] For instance, a district could claim that 65 percent of the classrooms in a building are in use even if classrooms meant for twenty-five students are being used for just five. To make the capacity provision more concrete and enforceable, legislators should create a clearer enrollment- or occupancy-based standard (e.g., building enrollment is below 60 percent of its designed enrollment capacity).[5]
Allow all Ohio charter schools—no matter their location—to seek an unused district facility. As noted above, only charters located within a district’s boundary can purchase or lease an unused facility. To be sure, high-performing charters located in the district should continue to have first priority. But should no local high-performers express interest, all charters in the state and out-of-state charters that received approval to open should be able to buy or lease the building. This would allow Columbus-based charters to more easily expand into Cleveland (and vice-versa). It would also give existing charters an avenue to secure facility space in districts where charters have never had a significant (or any) presence.
Require districts to sell or lease the building for an amount less than the “appraised fair market value.” This would make acquiring a facility more affordable for charters, especially in areas with higher real estate values. Remember, taxpayers have already paid for these facilities, so providing them to charters at low cost isn’t a financial loss to the district. As for what the value should be, legislators could follow the Indiana model, which requires unused buildings to be offered for $1. If that isn’t politically workable, they could require sale or lease at half the building’s market value, or an appraised value as an educational facility (not private development). Lowering the price point would encourage more interest from charters and better ensure that school buildings retain their original purpose—to educate a community’s students.
Move to a lottery system to determine which charter (whether among high-performers or all charters) may purchase an unused facility. This shift, which would follow the current process for determining a lessee, would avoid an auction in which the price could get bid up beyond the fair market value (or some percentage of it, if recommendation four is adopted). An auction likely advantages more established charters over smaller startups that operate on tighter budgets, even if both are well-positioned to put the facility to good use. A lottery would put charters on equal footing when multiple parties have interest in the building.
Create a credit enhancement and/or revolving loan fund to support facility purchases. Expensive capital projects typically require charters to seek financing, as they aren’t likely to have saved enough for such projects. Legislators can defray financing costs for charter schools by creating a credit enhancement and/or revolving loan program. This would make the purchase of an unused district facility that needs major repairs more financially viable (as well as purchases and renovations of other types of properties—e.g., a commercial building). It would also allow charters to keep more money in the classroom instead of paying debt service.
Ohio’s right of first refusal law provides an avenue for charter schools to obtain purpose-built educational facilities often at more reasonable cost than other building options. It also helps ensure that districts are not hoarding vacant properties, perhaps letting themdeteriorate from neglect, or spending inefficiently by operating half-empty buildings. However, the policy has not opened access to unused district buildings in quite the way that one might hope. With some modifications to this section of law, more charters—whose enrollments are swelling—will be able to breathe new life into buildings that have long served students in their communities.
[1] This piece focuses on a mandatory disposal of a district facility. Districts may also choose at their own discretion to dispose of a facility. Local charters also have the right of first refusal in those cases, too.
[2] Independent STEM schools also have a right of first refusal alongside charters. However, there are only eight such schools in the state, so this piece focuses on charters’ access to unused district buildings.
[3] In general, a “high-performing” charter school under this section of law earned at least three stars on the state’s performance index and at least four stars on the state’s value-added growth measure on its most recent report card.
[4] The exact language is: “Any school building [is ‘unused’] that has been used for direct academic instruction but less than sixty per cent of the building was used for that purpose in the preceding school year.”
[5] Indiana legislation has a much clearer occupancy- or enrollment-based standard to determine whether a school is underutilized (see page 10).
NACSA is honored to feature the report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute titled Do Authorizer Evaluations Predict the Success of New Charter Schools?Lead researcher, Adam Kho (Assistant Professor at the University of Southern California) and Alex Quigley (Executive Director of Durham Charter School) will join the Fordham Institute's David Griffith to explain the report's methods and findings, as well as some potential takeaways for the field.
Career-technical education integrates traditional academic skills and knowledge with technical and job-specific skills. Over the last several years, Ohio policymakers have prioritized expanding access to career-technical education, funded programs to help students earn credentials, and bolstered initiatives related to work-based learning.
These are commendable efforts. But Ohio’s career-technical sector is increasingly complex. The average student and taxpayer do not realize all it has to offer. The policy brief below seeks to rectify that by providing a broad overview of the career-technical opportunities available to Ohio high schoolers, as well as the benefits of participating.
Introduction
A few decades ago, Career-Technical Education (CTE) was considered a path to nowhere. Typically called “vocational education” or “vo-tech” at the time, these courses were too often seen as a dumping ground for academically struggling students who were deemed incapable or unwilling to participate in traditional academic courses.
Recognizing that today’s students deserve better, that schools have an obligation to better prepare their students for the future, and that employers and the broader economy depend on a skilled workforce, state leaders in Ohio and elsewhere have worked hard to transform CTE programs and courses. Traditional academic skills and knowledge are now integrated with technical, job-specific skills that aim to prepare students for careers in high-tech, in-demand fields. At the high school level, effective CTE programming can provide students with the opportunity to earn industry-recognized credentials and postsecondary degrees. It can open the door to entry-level jobs. And it can also connect students to higher education programs, typically through community colleges that offer specialized training within a career field.
Ohio now has a vibrant CTE sector, and tens of thousands of high school students are availing themselves of these options. In 2021–22, over 135,000 secondary students were CTE participants, meaning they completed at least one CTE course that year. Of these, roughly 83,000 were CTE concentrators—students who earned two or more credits in a single career pathway. Since 2014, the number of high school students earning industry-recognized credentials has also steadily increased, from just under 9,000 credentials earned by the graduating class of 2014 to over 78,000 credentials among the class of 2022. The state budget bill passed in July 2023 includes a quarter billion dollars in new funding to expand the capacity of CTE providers, increase student participation in high-quality programs, and bolster initiatives like the Innovative Workforce Incentive Program, which aims to increase the number of students who earn qualifying industry-recognized credentials in “priority” industry sectors.
One key reason why participation and credential attainment have increased in Ohio is because beginning in 2014, state law required every public school (with a few exceptions) to ensure that students in grades 7–12 have the opportunity to enroll in CTE programming in state-approved career fields. How students access these opportunities—and how many options they have— depends primarily on where they live and what school they attend. There are also additional opportunities available through programs like College Credit Plus, Ohio’s statewide dual enrollment system.
But Ohio’s CTE system still needs work. It’s uneven and complex, which can lead to confusion and missed opportunities. The average student and her family may not realize which programs and courses are available, or may be unaware of the many benefits of participating in CTE. The average taxpayer may not realize how important it is for Ohio to continue improving, expanding, and investing in its CTE programs.
In this paper, we provide a broad overview of the various ways in which Ohio high schoolers can participate in CTE, and the benefits they can expect to derive from their participation.[1] Although there are plenty of areas across the sector that are ripe for improvement, recommendations for addressing these issues will come later, via additional in-depth analyses. This paper is designed to function merely as a directory of the state’s various CTE pieces and parts, so that policymakers and advocates have a common foundation—as simplified as possible, and all in one place—from which to move forward.
Who provides CTE and what types of opportunities do students have?
In Ohio, CTE programming is delivered through Career-Technical Planning Districts (CTPDs). These are distinct organizational structures that must meet state requirements and standards to offer CTE programming to students. There are three structures for CTPDs:
Comprehensive CTPDs
These are single school districts that provide CTE programming at schools or career centers located within district boundaries. Typically, students access this programming the same way they access traditional academic classes, as CTE courses are part of the district’s available course offerings. Comprehensive CTPDs are governed by the same local school board and superintendent responsible for operating the traditional district. They are funded via local taxes collected for the district, as well as through state and federal subsidies.
For example, the state’s largest district, Columbus City Schools, operates a comprehensive CTPD that offers nearly forty CTE programs to Columbus City Schools students, but also to students enrolled in other districts, charter, and STEM schools. It includes two career-technical centers that serve both juniors and seniors: Columbus Downtown High School, which is a full-day career center and offers both academic and CTE courses, and the Fort Hayes Career Center, which offers half-day CTE courses in certain career pathways.
Compact CTPDs
Compact CTPDs are groups of districts that collaborate and combine resources to offer CTE programming. Typically, different programs and courses are offered at various schools and buildings within member districts.
For example, the Six District Educational Compact in northeast Ohio is comprised of six suburban districts: Cuyahoga Falls, Hudson, Kent, Stow-Munroe Falls, Tallmadge, and Woodridge. It offers students who attend any of these districts a menu of twenty-eight CTE programs from which to choose. This includes programming and software development, athletic health care and fitness, an aeronautics careers academy, and a biotechnology academy. If a student is interested in participating in a program offered at a building other than the one they currently attend, they can attend half the day in their home school and the other half at their CTE school. Bus transportation is provided, and students can still participate in extracurriculars, like sports or marching band, in their home schools. Compact CTPDs like the Six District Educational Compact are governed by the board and superintendent of a lead district, which is always one of the compact’s member districts. They are funded via local taxes collected by participating districts and through state and federal subsidies.
Joint Vocational School Districts (JVSDs)
These districts operate as independent school districts and primarily offer CTE programming. Each one serves a geographic area containing adjacent school districts. Districts that do not directly provide CTE programming for their students—meaning they are not a comprehensive CTPD and do not participate in a compact CTPD—make CTE programming available to their students by partnering with a JVSD. Students can attend a JVSD full or part-time. JVSDs typically provide programming in a dedicated CTE-focused building, though they can also offer programming within member schools through satellite programs. For example, the Jefferson County JVSD serves several traditional districts as well as Steubenville Catholic Schools. It offers students fifteen CTE programs and boasts a full-service restaurant operated by its culinary arts students.
Students who aren’t enrolled in one of the districts served by the JVSD can still attend the JVSD if it has adopted a policy permitting open enrollment, as several in Ohio do. Because JVSDs are independent from traditional public districts, each one is governed by its own board. By law, their boards have many of the same powers, duties, and authority over management and operation as do traditional districts. They consist of appointed representatives who serve three-year terms, and can either be current elected board members from the participating district, or individuals with appropriate experience or knowledge. JVSDs are funded through local taxes and levies in participating counties, but also by state and federal subsidies.
Common features of CTPDs
Ohio has twenty-five comprehensive CTPDs, fifteen compact CTPDs, and forty-nine JVSDs.[2] Every public high school in Ohio—including charter and independent STEM schools—must be part of one of these CTPDs. As such, the CTE programming available to high schoolers varies across the state and depends on the CTPD option chosen by a student’s school. There are, however, some common features across all CTPDs.
Programming
State law requires that CTPDs provide students with courses representing twelve programs in at least eight career fields. CTPDs with fewer than 2,250 students enrolled in grades 7–12 are only required to provide courses in ten different programs in at least eight career fields. In total, Ohio supports thirty-nine programs of study across sixteen approved career fields. The state establishes content standards for each career field, as well as course titles, descriptions, and outlines. The sixteen fields and their associated programs of study are listed below.
* Ohio currently has no secondary CTE programs in this career field.
Work-based learning
One key feature of CTE is that it offers students the ability to get hands-on experience in their chosen career field via work-based learning. Although the specific work-based learning opportunities available to students depend on the CTPD they attend and the career field and program they choose, the state has established several guiding principles for these experiences. For example, experiences must occur at a work site and must be supervised by an instructor and an employer or business mentor. The state also recognizes several types of work-based learning, including internships and apprenticeships.
Alongside what’s offered through CTPDs, several state-funded programs help incentivize employers to create additional opportunities for students. For example, the High School Tech internship provides high school students with work experience in technology-related roles. Under this program, employers who hire high school interns in tech-related roles can be reimbursed for wages if students are employed for a minimum number of hours and are paid at least $12 per hour. The state also offers a tax credit certificate program for employers that offer work-based learning experiences to students.
Assessments
Students enrolled in CTE pathway programs are required to take end-of-course exams for each course in which they are enrolled. These exams are designed to cover the material identified in course outlines provided by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. The department also annually updates a CTE assessment and program matrix.
CTE exams are developed and administered by Ohio State University’s Center on Education and Training for Employment (CETE) via a proprietary system called WebXam. The majority of pathway programs have established end-of-course tests. However, because the state has been in the process of transitioning to a new model of testing in recent years, there are a few that still await development of their exams. There are three levels that CETE uses to delineate student performance: nonproficient, proficient, and advanced.
College Credit Plus
College Credit Plus (CCP) is a state-run, state-funded dual-enrollment program that offers academically eligible students in grades 7–12 the opportunity to earn postsecondary credit by taking college courses for free before high school graduation. State law requires all public schools serving eligible students to participate in CCP. This means that every student who meets CCP eligibility guidelines can access available postsecondary CTE courses through CCP, regardless of their assigned CTPD. The percentage of students statewide who have enrolled in CCP technical courses—defined as those that are part of an associate degree program of technical education—has modestly increased over the years. Roughly 13 percent of courses taken during 2015–16 were technical, compared to 15 percent during 2021–22.
The benefits of participating in CTE
Students who participate in CTE can benefit in a variety of ways depending on their chosen program and career field. Potential outcomes include the following.
Industry-recognized credentials
One of the key benefits of CTE is the opportunity for students to earn industry-recognized credentials that demonstrate their knowledge and skill mastery. Credentials verify a student’s qualifications and competence via a third-party, and signal to employers that job applicants are well–prepared. They can be prerequisites to certain jobs, and can also boost earnings and employment.
Certificates are earned when students successfully complete a training, course, or series of courses. Although certificates are issued for specific skills or competencies within one or more industries or occupations, they don’t always have a meaningful impact on a student’s job prospects. Some certificates may be part of hiring criteria but not associated with critical job tasks, or may be viewed by employers as desirable but not required. Certificates can also be awarded for attendance or participation.
Certifications indicate a student’s mastery of specific knowledge, skills, or processes that are measured against a set of accepted industry standards. Certifications are not tied to a specific educational program, but are typically awarded to students via an assessment or a validation of skills in cooperation with a business, trade association, or other industry group. To maintain a certification, students are usually required to meet ongoing requirements.
Occupational licenses are awarded by state government agencies and are often required for students to obtain specific jobs or positions.
Students can earn industry-recognized credentials by completing a comprehensive CTE program, by completing courses that integrate the content needed to obtain the credential, or via a state program dedicated specifically for students in their senior year of high school. Every credential is assigned a point value between one and twelve. Point values are based on employer demand and/or state regulations and often signal the significance of the credential. For example, within the health career field, credentials for CPR first aid or blood-borne pathogens compliance training are each worth one point. In that same career field, earning a state-issued license through the Ohio State Board of Pharmacy to become a Certified Pharmacy Technician is worth twelve points.
High school diploma
In addition to gaining specific job skills, students can use the CTE credits and experiences they’ve accumulated to meet Ohio’s graduation requirements. State law provides students with multiple pathways to demonstrate their academic competency and earn a diploma, and one of those pathways focuses on career experience and technical skill. It requires students to complete two of the following seven options. One of the completed options must be from the “foundational” category.
Foundational options
Earn a cumulative score of “proficient” or higher on three or more WebXams in a single career pathway;
Earn a twelve-point approved industry-recognized credential, or a group of approved credentials totaling twelve points in a single career field;
Complete a pre-apprenticeship program recognized by the Ohio State Apprentice Council (OSAC), complete an OSAC registered apprenticeship in the student’s chosen career field, or, if the program requires a student to be eighteen or older, show evidence of acceptance into an OSAC registered apprenticeship program after high school;
Obtain a state-issued license, such as an Ohio Commercial Driver’s License, for practice in a vocation that requires an examination.
Supporting options
Complete a 250-hour work-based learning experience with evidence of positive evaluations;
Earn the workforce readiness score on WorkKeys, which is a career assessment created by ACT to measure foundational skills required for success in the workplace;
Earn the Ohio Means Jobs-Readiness Seal, which requires students to demonstrate proficiency in fourteen state–identified professional skills evaluated by three mentors from school, work, or the community.
College credit
Another benefit received by students who complete CTE courses through College Credit Plus is simultaneously earning secondary and post-secondary credit. But CCP isn’t the only way that students can earn college credit for the CTE courses they complete. They can also do so through articulation agreements.
Articulation agreements are arrangements between secondary schools and colleges or universities that link high school–level courses to similar college courses. These agreements can be narrow—focused on a partnership between a single secondary school and a university—or they can extend statewide. Obtaining credit is a relatively simple process: Students request college credit for secondary classes they passed using a verification form. The Ohio Department of Higher Education, which administers articulated credit programs, has an online credit transfer tool that enables students to look up equivalencies for coursework, credentials, and experience. Articulated credit shows up on a student’s college transcript but does not include a course grade.
The majority of dual-credit options focus almost exclusively on traditional academic courses. For many students, this traditional route fits their postsecondary and career plans. But for the thousands of high schoolers who are enrolled in CTE programs, traditional dual-credit options aren’t always as useful. That’s where Career-Technical Credit Transfer, a type of articulated credit, comes in. State law requires that the state Departments of Education and Workforce and Higher Education create a policy that allows students to transfer technical courses to state institutions of higher education. The departments have opted to fulfill this mandate in two ways: through bilateral articulation agreements and Career Technical Assurance Guides (CTAGs).
Bilateral articulation agreements are arrangements between a secondary CTE program and a higher education institution. In essence, they are written assurances that courses completed in a secondary CTE program will count for credit at a particular college or university offering a program in the same field. Colleges outside the agreement can also award credit, but they aren’t required to do so. This option is typically utilized by career tech centers, and can include local business partners as part of the agreement.
CTAGs, on the other hand, are statewide articulation agreements. This means that, by law, all public colleges and universities are required to award postsecondary credit for particular CTE courses. Not every CTE course is included in a CTAG, but there are a wide variety of program options, like virtual design and imaging or electrical engineering technology, that transfer to a wide range of institutions. The state requires students to meet standards—such as successfully completing the course and earning a qualifying score on the corresponding end-of-course exam—to receive credit via a CTAG. Students must seek credit within three years. The state also has Industry-Recognized Credential Transfer Assurance Guides, which guarantee that students will be awarded college credit for approved industry-recognized credentials.
Conclusion
Ohio has a vibrant and established CTE sector. Every high school student has access to CTE courses and programs, whether through their assigned CTPD or through College Credit Plus. These courses and programs offer students the opportunity to explore various career fields, participate in work-based learning, earn high school and college credit, obtain a high school diploma, and attain industry-recognized credentials that can lead to well-paying jobs or additional educational opportunities.
But there is still much work to be done to ensure that Ohio’s CTE sector is living up to its full potential. Far too many students and families are unaware of the plethora of opportunities that exist along with their short- and long-term benefits. And although a foundation for transparency and accountability is already in place, the state must do more to clearly and concisely track data on access and outcomes, and to ensure that courses, programs, credentials, and work-based learning opportunities are rigorous and meaningful.
Acknowledgments
I wish to thank my Fordham colleagues Michael J. Petrilli, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Chad L. Aldis, and Aaron Churchill, as well as Cassandra Palsgrove of Ohio Excels, for their thoughtful feedback during the drafting process. Jeff Murray assisted with report production and dissemination. Special thanks to Nathan Leibowitz who copy edited the manuscript and Andy Kittles who created the design.
- Jessica Poiner, Senior Education Policy Analyst, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Endnotes
[1] This paper does not delve into federal standards, accountability, or Ohio’s Perkins plan.
[2] In addition, the state has two correctional institutions that offer CTE programming.
Over the course of the pandemic, the number of chronically absent students in Ohio skyrocketed, as it did nationally. In 2018–19, Ohio’s statewide chronic absenteeism rate was just under 17 percent, meaning that one in six students were missing at least 10 percent of instructional time. By 2021–22, the statewide rate had jumped to a whopping 30 percent; it ticked down to 26 percent during the most recent school year. Given the well-known negative impacts of chronic absenteeism, as well as lingering learning loss, it’s a significant problem that over a fourth of Ohio students are missing so much instructional time.
State leaders have floated several ideas aimed at addressing the issue. Last fall, the Ohio Attendance Taskforce released a series of recommendations aimed at bolstering attendance. More recently, a legislative proposal to provide cash incentives to kindergartners and ninth graders for regular school attendance has been making the rounds.
It’s understandable that state leaders are eager for solutions. This is a serious problem that has significant short- and long-term impacts on kids. But state policy alone won’t solve the chronic absenteeism problem. It’s local action and decision-making that will drive change.
Consider the Dayton Early College Academy (DECA), a charter school in Dayton. During the 2021–22 school year, DECA registered a chronic absenteeism rate of 30 percent. Rather than cast blame or shrug off responsibility, DECA staff rolled up their sleeves and got to work. They interviewed students and families to determine barriers for attendance. They hosted spirit days and family events to build positive relationships. And staff educated families on the impact of missed instruction, including that excused absences can be just as problematic as unexcused ones. These efforts paid off. During the 2022–23 school year, the chronic absenteeism rate at DECA dropped to 19 percent. Similar efforts in Columbus City Schools and Delaware City Schools have also proved successful.
These are clear, Ohio-specific examples of how school-led efforts are the most promising way to boost attendance. But that doesn’t mean that state lawmakers are helpless. In fact, the state plays a crucial monitoring role. Accurately tracking attendance and transparently reporting data is critical because, otherwise, we have no way of knowing the size and scope of the problem. For example, last fall, lawmakers in the House proposed prohibiting the department from including absences for which a student has a legitimate excuse in the calculation for the chronic absenteeism indicator on school report cards. But if schools are permitted to forego tracking absences because they are “excused” or “legitimate,” it will only appear that chronic absenteeism rates have improved. Hiding the ball won’t solve the problem. The negative impacts of missing school will remain.
State leaders who are feeling pressure to do more than just hold the line could take a page out of the early literacy playbook. Like chronic absenteeism, early literacy has a huge impact on students’ short- and long-term outcomes. Also, like absenteeism, improving early literacy hinges on local effort. In last year’s state budget, lawmakers figured out a way to leverage state policy to improve reading instruction in schools. These efforts offer a roadmap on how lawmakers can also respond to chronic absenteeism.
For example, during the upcoming school year, public schools will be required to use reading curricula that appear on a state-approved list of high-quality materials. The state already offers schools plenty of guidance on effective attendance intervention strategies. But just like they did with reading curriculum, state leaders could take it a step further and create a simplified, easily-accessible list of state-approved attendance interventions. Districts and schools with chronic absenteeism rates over a certain threshold could be incentivized to implement interventions from this list.
School-based coaching is another possibility. Last year’s budget allocated up to $18 million to pay for literacy coaches, who will be sent into schools with the lowest rates of reading proficiency. During next year’s budget cycle, lawmakers could set aside funding to send trained attendance coaches into districts with the highest rates of chronic absenteeism. These coaches could work with teachers and administrators to revise and improve their absenteeism prevention and intervention efforts.
The upshot? Chronic absenteeism is a problem that schools and local communities must address. But lawmakers aren’t powerless. Holding the line on data tracking and transparency is firmly in their control. So, too, is the power to incentivize schools to implement evidence-based strategies and to broadly share examples of what’s working. As was the case with early literacy, the goal for state policymakers should be to provide schools with the resources and funding they need to improve—and then hold them accountable for doing so.
And staying with the theme of the day, the biggest news in this piece is that the Greater Dayton School has at last moved operations to its fancy new purpose-built campus after operating in temporary digs for more than a year. While the main topic is a school-based health center co-located in the new building to provide services for students and families (nice), we also are reminded of the very important basics: The innovative private school is intended to serve only low-income students and its model includes an 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. school day, family-style meals with teachers, extracurriculars, and lessons in financial literacy and other life skills. Currently there are 105 students in preschool through fourth grade, with the plan to add a grade level per year through eighth grade. Families pay a nominal fee toward tuition, the rest of which is offset by vouchers and other scholarships. I’m still waiting for details of how the kids are doing (you know, data), but this is great news to me as it stands. (Dayton Daily News, 2/18/24)
Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.
Virtual charter schools in West Virginia have been given the ability to test some of their students remotely for the first time. The testing waiver, approved by the state Board of Education last week, applies only to full-time virtual students in grades 3-8; relates only to the West Virginia General Summative Assessment; and requires lots of signed agreements from school staff, proctors, parents, and students. Virtual schools are still free to conduct in-person exams if they wish and are able to do so, but the new flexibility takes some pressure off the state’s new-ish virtual charters who may not have had the time or the resources to set up in-person testing thus far.
The monthly gathering of Knox County school superintendents earlier this month turned into a late-season Festivus, judging from this coverage, since two state reps stopped by to listen in. Among the grievances aired: “I’m all for testing but when we reach proficiency, the state changes the standards and the tests.”; “I would like more local control over graduation requirements. I’m not saying reduce the number of credits. We just need more local flexibility.”; and “The entire education landscape has changed because we have given up more local control.” (Knox Pages, 2/14/24)
Finally this week, here’s a look at the Chesterton Schools Network. It started more than 15 years ago with one Catholic school based on the “classical” philosophy of G.K. Chesterton, located in Minnesota. The whole thing is new to me, despite there being a Chesterton School in Dayton, and I find it pretty interesting and uplifting stuff. But starting this fall, we are told, the network part will really start to blossom, with Chesterton schools opening in a dozen cities across the country, including Columbus. I don’t see any evidence that the Ohio schools accept EdChoice Scholarships, but it also appears to be a lower-tuition model designed to be as affordable as possible for families. Sounds like another good option for local families to check out. (City Journal, 2/14/24)
Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.
Today, InnovateOhio, under the leadership of Lt. Governor Husted, released a comprehensive AI Toolkit for education titled: Guidance and Resources to Advance AI Readiness in Ohio Schools.
“Over the past few years, AI has become a part of every aspect of our lives—including education. The explosion of AI has left schools playing catch up to devise strong policies around the new technology,” said Vice President for Ohio Policy Chad Aldis. “For district and school leaders, this new resource couldn't come at a better time.Innovate Ohio and Lt. Governor Husted deserve tremendous credit for leading on this time-sensitive and critical issue.”
The toolkit expertly pulls together a wealth of resources—from leading organizations around the world--on developing effective AI policy and guidelines. Increasing its utility, the toolkit has sections tailored specifically for policy makers, teachers, and parents.
“School leaders across Ohio are increasingly tasked with developing policy on AI. This toolkit will be a vital resource as they devise policies that take advantage of everything that AI has to offer while protecting student privacy and academic rigor,” Aldis added.
In recent months, teacher housing programs have begun to receivehigh-profileattention. And with good reason: As living costs have risen, teacher salaries have not kept pace, thereby decreasing many educators’ ability to live near their workplaces. In an ideal world, districts would just raise their salaries—after all, half of teachers say that salary increases that merely cover increases in the cost of living would motivate them to stay in the classroom—but political and resource constraints may limit this option. Add to the mix anxieties surrounding teacher recruitment and retention, and it’s hardly surprising that communities rural, suburban, and urban, from the east coast to Hawaii, have expanded efforts to improve educators’ access to housing.
In sum, a variety of teacher housing efforts are underway, and their number seems to be mushrooming. But are they actually a good idea?
In short: We really don’t know.
The anecdotal evidence is encouraging, but there’s a real dearth of research on such incentives for either attracting or retaining teachers. As for what extant research does tell us, we know that compensation was a major factor for 42 percent of teachers who left the profession (although, paradoxically, it was also a reason for 34 percent to stay). But we also know that few teachers—a mere 11 percent—say that housing support, specifically, would make any difference for them.
What’s more, even if housing assistance would have an impact, many programs are painfully inefficient when it comes to timeframes or population served. In Silicon Valley’s Los Gatos, for example, ninety education professionals completed interest forms to become the first residents of the district’s only available teacher housing complex—which offers an underwhelming four units, thereby serving less than 5 percent of interested parties. Austin is planning to repurpose an underutilized site that the district already owns, which might seem efficient, except for the fact that the entire project will take some seven years to complete. Somehow I doubt that telling teachers they might qualify for workforce housing, two presidential administrations from now, is going to persuade many.
And that’s not the extent of the challenges. Many of the housing programs have such low income cutoffs that few teachers even qualify. Only lower-paid district employees ended up qualifying for a Los Angeles housing initiative that had been intended to serve teachers; while bus drivers and cafeteria workers certainly deserve housing support, the initiative was a failure in terms of its original goal. And the pressure for already-overworked superintendents to serve as “property developers” can’t be helping the exceptionally high turnover rate in that profession, either.
Finally, many teacher housing efforts suffer from serious messaging problems. Quite justifiably, given their credentials, teachers want to be treated more like professionals. But recent reports have celebrated solutions like tiny homes constructed by children and Habitat for Humanity charity projects; hailed parking lots as housing “panaceas”; and highlighted opportunities for teachers to collaborate after hours in their building’s laundry room. Even if many teachers end up pursuing these opportunities, surely no one can believe that such narratives will help them feel more respected.
To be sure, there are ways to address some of these problems. The most promising housing-voucher programs could be scaled to serve more teachers, and they could do so immediately, without waiting for construction. Targeting housing programs to teachers in the most understaffed areas, like instruction for English learners, special education, physical science, and foreign language, could better ensure that limited resources are being put to strategic ends. And the rhetoric around these efforts can surely be revised, such that teacher housing sounds less like charity and more like military housing or the forms of relocation assistance that other professional jobs frequently offer.
Above all, policymakers should ensure that their decision-making isn’t guided by the PR appeal of a flashy initiative and an aesthetic digital rendering of what a building might look like in 2027. First, are there sufficient funds that could instead be spent on raising teachers’ salaries—a less logistically challenging and likely more persuasive policy solution—or are the districts cash poor but property rich? If the answer is truly no, then will the proposed housing solution meet the needs of teachers in that community, and when will it do so? And will it bolster broader efforts to make the teaching profession more appealing? Policymakers must carefully evaluate whether proposed housing initiatives actually reflect the best use of their finite resources.
Idaho’s public charter school law turned twenty-five last year. Over that quarter century, the statute has grown warts. It’s also too complicated, burdened by vestigial code and rules, and confusing to schools, authorizers,[1] and state education agencies alike.
The time for an update seems to have come. The “Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act” (a.k.a. HB422) passed out of the House recently on a vote of 66-3-1, passed out of the Senate Education Committee unanimously, and is expected to sail through the Senate in coming days.
Strong support for operational flexibilities
The updated statute seeks a balance between operator flexibility and accountability for performance, while also supporting the continued growth of Idaho’s charter sector, which has seen the addition of about forty new schools in the last eight years.
HB422 seeks to “reward public charter schools that meet their accountability measures with enhanced autonomy and freedom from regulatory burden.” Successful charter schools can earn autonomy. Those that have met all targets and satisfy all requirements over the terms of their contracts can renew for terms of twelve years. Longer terms mean that successful schools can spend less time worrying about renewal and more time educating students. This also saves time for the staff of the Idaho Public Charter School Commission, which authorizes 60-plus schools with a staff of three and a half employees.
Additional flexibility provided in the legislation would allow successful charter networks with multiple school sites to operate as a single local educational agency (LEA). This is common practice in other charter states and will enable Idaho networks to innovate in areas such as the cross-collateralization of debt for school facilities. This can drive down the costs of facility loans.
The bill also provides for “fast-tracked replication.” Schools that successfully complete at least one renewal cycle without conditions can clone an additional school—using the same model and serving some or all of the same grades—with paperwork and approval completing in a speedy forty-five days. This will allow successful schools that want to replicate themselves to spend less time navigating the regulatory process and more time planning their schools and finding teachers, leaders, and facilities. It should also save them some legal fees!
More transparency but light on results-based school accountability
On the accountability front, however, the pending legislation does some compromising, as has been the practice in Idaho, where parent choice and marketplace forces are the primary drivers of school accountability. On the plus side, the bill will allow “Revocation of a Charter.” Specifically, a charter may be terminated by its authorizer if, after fair notice, the school “commits a material and substantial violation of any of the terms, conditions, standards, or procedures required by this chapter or the performance certificate (including academic performance and growth).” This gives authorizers some discretion, but Idaho’s charter law (and charter program) has never been hawkish about closing schools for academic reasons. In fact, only nine charter schools have closed in Idaho since the early 2000s, and all were the result of financial mismanagement, low enrollment, or failure to maintain full accreditation.
Still, the “Accelerating Public Charter Schools Act” will encourage transparency around school performance. It requires authorizers to make school performance certificates—which must include student academic proficiency, student academic growth, and college and career readiness for high school students—available to the public and parents. It also requires an authorizer to “continually monitor the performance and legal compliance of the public charter schools it oversees, including collecting and analyzing data, and may conduct prearranged site visits, if needed, to support ongoing evaluation according to its performance certificate.” In this way, it is hoped that high-flying schools will be separated from struggling ones.
Then there’s the appeals process. If an authorizer does seek to revoke or non-renew a charter, that decision may be appealed to the Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH). This is a change from current law, which requires such appeals to go through the state board of education. The OAH was created in 2022 “to assure fair hearings without the perception of bias.” Whether this is an improvement won’t be known until the first case is brought to the OAH, but it is noteworthy that lawmakers are taking the decision of whether to approve the closure of a public school out of the hands of the state board of education.
HB422 also seeks to balance the role of authorizer as quality control agent with that of school support organization. Under current law, authorizers, especially the Idaho Public Charter School Commission and its seven-member board appointed by the governor, have struggled to balance oversight and school support. The new legislation tasks the state department of education with “enrolling charter schools in need of improvement in support and development programs, including but not limited to the Idaho Building Capacity Program.” The purpose of this program is to support Idaho’s lowest-performing schools in improving their instructional systems and targeting academic achievement. Another way to see it is as a last chance for a charter school to turn itself around or face revocation.
In public testimony, the primary author of HB422, Alex Adams of Governor Little’s office, made it clear that the bill is not perfect. It’s a balancing act. For other states, the parts most worthy of study and possibly embracing involve operational flexibility and the streamlining of the charter approval and renewal processes for high-performing schools. The Idaho approach to school performance has to be termed accountability-lite.
How does HB422 line up with national best practice?
I asked Todd Ziebarth at the National Alliance for Public Charter School what he thought of the changes in HB422 and he summarized it thusly:
HB 422 streamlines Idaho’s charter school law with the goal of balancing charter school autonomy and accountability. The bill largely accomplishes this goal. As a result, charter schools in Idaho will have more flexibility to innovate while still being held accountable for results.
HB 422 moves the Idaho charter school law closer to the National Alliance’s model law in two important ways. First, it requires that the terms of a charter school’s initial contract must be for six years, giving a new school a sufficient amount of time to prove its worth before it faces renewal. Second, it allows a high-performing charter school to have its contract renewed for up to twelve years, allowing the school to spend more time focused on educating students instead of completing bureaucratic paperwork requirements.
While HB 422 represents forward progress for the charter school sector in Idaho, more work remains to be done to provide charter schools even more flexibility to innovate, especially as it relates to teacher policies, and more equitable funding and facilities support—all while holding the line on ensuring that charter schools deliver results for Idaho’s families and taxpayers.
[1] In Idaho, the primary authorizer is the Idaho Public Charter School Commission. A handful of school districts authorize schools, as well. State colleges, universities, and nonsectarian colleges are also allowed to authorize schools, but none has yet taken this role on.
