Cheers

• This year, more students than ever have been accepted to college via QuestBridge—a nonprofit that helps high-achieving high schoolers from low-income families access and afford higher education. —Forbes
• Charter school enrollment in Houston has nearly doubled since 2014 to about 94,000 students. —Houston Chronicle

Jeers

• American students are falling behind in math, and neither Democrats nor Republicans are rising to the challenge to help them. —Charles Sykes, The Atlantic
• Oakland Unified School District is in deep financial trouble, but the school board refuses to address overspending and declining enrollment. —San Francisco Chronicle
• Across the country, cellphones have “increasingly fueled and sometimes intensified campus brawls, disrupting schools and derailing learning.” —New York Times
• Interest in apprenticeships is increasing among students, but employers are reluctant to provide these opportunities. —The Hechinger Report

• Severe aggression in children may be linked to neuro-cognitive difficulties that require treatment. If educators can recognize the underlying factors and advocate for appropriate interventions, they can support these students and reduce classroom disruptions. —R. J. R. Blair and Daniel T. Willingham, American Educator
• Moody’s Ratings has issued a negative outlook for traditional K–12 public schools in 2025, as they face challenges like rising staffing costs and declining enrollment, while charter schools are expected to maintain a stable outlook despite financial pressures.—K-12 Dive
• What were the biggest discoveries in education research this year? Students are still hurting from the pandemic, charter schools are boosting college-going rates, teacher job satisfaction is dropping, student screentime is up, and much more! —Kevin Mahnken, The 74
• Michigan’s Tim Walberg has been selected as the next chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, where he may focus on issues such as parental rights, school choice, and the expansion of career and technical education. —K-12 Dive
• A dive into the research shows that boys in school tend to “dominate the extremes,” excelling at the highest levels while also being overrepresented in academic and behavioral struggles. —Thomas B. Edsall, New York Times
• The U.S. outpaces Europe in innovation and economic growth, but its relatively low share of top-performing students raises important questions. —Edward Conard, Wall Street Journal

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

1. After months of…well, who even knows what to call this facilities review process we’ve witnessed? After months of whatever this was, the elected board of Columbus City Schools voted on nine possible school building closures last night. Instead of doing it as a package, though, they voted on each building one by one, with varying outcomes and varying splits among members. (If they chose this method in an attempt to dispel the notion of arbitrary decision-making, I think this was not the way.) In the end, five school buildings were recommended for closure, as was the district’s office complex downtown. While the latter will be empty by the end of this school year, none of the schools will be shuttered until 2028 at the earliest. Four years is an eternity, and while district enrollment will assuredly continue to shrink over that time, those who oppose right-sizing district facilities will just as assuredly continue their highly emotional (just read the details of their ridiculous-sounding “protest” yesterday afternoon) and fact-free campaign that will assuredly render yesterday's votes moot, one way or another. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/17/24)
   
   

2. I have never heard of Fred Ode before, but he is listed as “a successful entrepreneur and philanthropist” from northeast Ohio who is also “a former public-school math teacher” (so specific). This brief bio is part of the op-ed he penned for Cleveland.com this week, where he proffers a “fourth R” to add to reading, writing, and arithmetic: he calls it “reality”. You can read the piece yourself to see what he means by that, but regardless of the particulars, I would suggest caution to anyone (successful entrepreneur/philanthropist or not) who wants to add another “R” on the to-do list of schools that aren’t yet successful at teaching the first three. But I am neither math teacher nor entrepreneur, so maybe I just don’t understand. (Cleveland.com, 12/18/24)
   
   

3. Sorry as ever to include a press release as news here in the Bites, but sometimes you have to grab the good news wherever you can find it—especially when it’s this good. The University of Dayton is rightly celebrating Jayla Treadwell, who completed her master’s degree in physician assistant practice last week and plans to stay in the Gem City to serve her neighbors there. Awesome! We can add to the kudos by pointing out that Jayla is a Dayton native; a graduate of Dayton Early College Academy (DECA), a charter school which is sponsored by our sister organization the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation; and that she has created a link between DECA and the UD PA program so that middle and high school students are exposed to it and can clearly see the pathway to success in that field for themselves. That is worth celebrating for sure. (Inside Education and Health Sciences blog, University of Dayton, 12/16/24)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

Dual enrollment, which allows students to complete college coursework and earn transferrable credits while still enrolled in high school, is a popular and growing pathway into postsecondary education. For many students, it also offers a way to take more advanced courses during high school and is often seen as an alternative to longstanding means such as Advance Placement and International Baccalaureate. Nearly every state now has formal programs for facilitating dual enrollment (DE), and the number of dual enrollees has tripled in the past twenty years. However, research lags on the effectiveness of DE in getting students to and through college. A recent report tries to bolster the research base.

A team of analysts from the Community College Research Center at Columbia University looks at national and state-by-state data on the postsecondary enrollment and degree completion outcomes of three groups of students who first enrolled in college in fall 2015. They are: DE students—high schoolers who enrolled at a postsecondary institution for the first time in fall of 2015 in order to take college courses while still attending high school; prior dual enrollment (PDE) students—new college freshmen who enrolled in fall 2015 after their high school graduation and had records of postsecondary enrollment while in high school; and non-dual-enrollment (non-DE) students—new college freshmen who enrolled after high school graduation but had no prior DE experience. The analysts use National Student Clearinghouse (NSC) data for most demographic and postsecondary institutional data and include neighborhood income data from the U.S. Census Bureau to estimate family income based on home addresses.

The sample comprised 3.6 million students from across the country. In the fall of 2015, 62 percent were non-DE students, 25 percent were PDE students, and 13 percent were DE students. All students were followed for four years after high school graduation, which means DE students were followed for a longer period of time than their peers. While the findings are largely just a snapshot of the college-going behaviors of each group—rather than any kind of controlled trial to determine causation—the report does offer some interesting comparisons.

Overall, the analysts find confirmation of widespread DE participation across states. However, just ten states (including California, New York, Washington, and Fordham’s home state of Ohio, among others) accounted for over half of all new DE students nationally in fall 2015. Texas was the top dog, with nearly twice as many students as the second-place state, New York. Community colleges enrolled 1.6 million students in the sample, with 60 percent of those students having PDE experience or being current DE students. By contrast, only 20 percent of the 2 million students who enrolled at four-year colleges had current or prior DE participation. DE students were highly likely to re-enroll in college for at least one semester after high school graduation, with 81 percent of those doing so within a year. In forty-one states, the re-enrollment rate for DE students exceeded 33 percent. In the top states, it was nearly half. The majority of re-enrollers (51 percent) opted for a four-year institution.

The remainder of the detailed analyses focus specifically on the DE students in the sample, with no further comparisons to the other groups included. Some examples: Forty-two percent of DE students went on to complete a college degree or certification within four years of finishing high school. Twenty-nine percent completed a bachelor’s degree, 10 percent completed an associate degree, and 2 percent completed a short-term certificate. Four years after high school, almost a third of DE students were still enrolled in college but had not yet earned a degree or certificate. In 41 states, DE students who enrolled in college right after high school had higher college completion rates than their non-DE peers. These outcomes were strongest in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and New Jersey. Even stronger outcomes were seen for students who participated in DE at four-year institutions and who then went on to matriculate at four-year schools. However, this population was less likely to live in a lower-income neighborhood or to be Black or Hispanic than their community college DE peers.

There’s lots more to dig into here, including the state-by-state comparisons along various data points. The bottom line for these analysts is that dual enrollment in high school appears to be a reliable pathway into college for all types of students. It also appears to function as a booster toward on-time degree completion. The analysts conclude that states could increase DE access to more high schoolers in the hopes of spreading more of its benefits around. But they also note that state leaders should closely monitor their own data to make sure that completion rates are reasonable and that students are not being set up to fail (at potentially great cost). The bottom line for research, however, is that causal links are still desperately needed to really establish whether dual enrollment is truly fulfilling its promise of access to college and degree completion—not to mention the various “flavors” of dual enrollment which have varying levels of availability and outcomes, which are not differentiated here at all.

SOURCE: Tatiana Velasco et al, “The Postsecondary Outcomes of High School Dual Enrollment Students: A National and State-by-State Analysis,” Community College Research Center (October 2024).

In a recent post, I examined three issues with Ohio’s school funding formula—a.k.a., the Cupp-Patterson plan—that Ohio lawmakers should focus on as state budget talks begin early next year. In this piece, we’ll examine three more formula elements that require attention.

Issue 4: Continued use of guarantees

Guarantees are excess dollars that shield districts from funding reductions otherwise prescribed by the formula. They typically come into play when districts are losing students and/or becoming wealthier factors that should lead to a reduced need for state aid under a fair funding formula. But instead of funding schools according to the formula, guarantees provide excess dollars to districts based on their historical funding levels and are often used as a political compromise to shield districts from cuts. At a recent committee hearing, Representative Beryl Piccolantonio noted that “in the final phase-in of the Cupp-Patterson plan, there are not supposed to be guarantees.” She’s right. The plan was routinely billed as one that would finally move Ohio away from guarantees, which were part of the “patchwork” formula that proponents of Cupp-Patterson—and others, including us at Fordham—had long decried.

And yet, they have not disappeared. Four years into implementation of the Cupp-Patterson plan, almost two in five districts (240 out of 611) are receiving extra funding via one of the three main guarantees this year,[1] which collectively cost the state $379 million. As table 1 shows, the number of districts on guarantees, and the amount spent, actually went up this year compared to last. If one goes back further to the Kasich-era formula, Ohio is now spending two to three times more on guarantees than it used to (see figure 7 of this report for FYs 2014–17 guarantees). Rather than solving the guarantee problem, we’ve moved backward.

Table 1: Guarantee funding in FY24 and FY25

East Cleveland is by far the largest beneficiary of guarantees, receiving a stunning $8,517 per pupil this year in guarantee funding alone. This largesse sits atop the district’s general formula funding, which amounts to $17,267 per pupil—already multiples above what a typical district receives in state aid. Why is East Cleveland so heavily subsidized? One clue is their enrollments, which have been in freefall over the past few years. In FY20, the district enrolled 1,770 students, but that number was down to just 1,114 students in FY25, a drop of 37 percent. Guarantees have shielded East Cleveland—and other shrinking districts—from reductions that should otherwise occur due to enrollment loss.

Guarantees short-circuit the formula, and lead to unfair and inefficient allocations of state aid. They also consume dollars that could be used to boost funding in other critical areas of education, like funding for low-income students or bold statewide initiatives such as literacy or (hopefully, soon) numeracy reforms. To their credit, proponents of Cupp-Patterson were concerned about guarantees, and suggested they would eventually vanish. In fact, two of the guarantees are actually called “transitional.” In the next budget, lawmakers should complete the “transition” and remove guarantees and move all districts onto the formula. That’s the truly fair way to fund schools.

Issue 5: The DPIA mess

At a press conference unveiling his school funding proposal in 2019, Representative John Patterson admitted that “we have been unable to fully define what ‘economically disadvantaged’ is.” He seemed to be alluding to challenges that Ohio has had in identifying low-income students. Most notably, this includes the problem of relying on free-and-reduced-price meals eligibility as a marker for student poverty. As discussed on this blog before, Ohio began implementation of the Community Eligibility Program (CEP) about a decade ago. This federal initiative allows mid- and high-poverty districts and schools to provide subsidized meals to all students. While this makes sense from a logistics and nutrition perspective, CEP has thrown a wrench in Ohio’s data on economically disadvantaged students. During the 2023–24 school year, sixty-nine districts reported universal disadvantaged rates (>95 percent) in addition to 1,020 individual schools (about one in three). But not every single student attending these districts and schools was actually low-income. Some were actually from higher-income households, and because they received subsidized meals by virtue of their schools’ participation in CEP, they were flagged as disadvantaged.

These identification problems have become a major school funding problem. Economically disadvantaged enrollments are used to determine districts’ disadvantaged pupil impact aid (DPIA). This funding stream is supposed to target extra state aid to meet the needs of low-income students. But due to the inflated headcounts, DPIA no longer effectively drives dollars to the highest-need schools. Some mid-poverty districts—those with a mix of students from varying economic backgrounds—are now receiving just as much DPIA funding as districts with more concentrated poverty. For instance, Euclid school district near Cleveland receives the same DPIA per pupil as the Cleveland school district because both participate in CEP and report 100 percent economically disadvantaged rates. Yet we know from Census data,[2] as well as pre-CEP data, that Euclid enrolls fewer low-income students than Cleveland.

Yet another issue that’s surfacing as CEP continues to expand across the state[3] is that high-poverty districts are now seeing their DPIA funding cut. It’s easiest to see using Cleveland as an illustration. Table 2 shows that the state average disadvantaged rate has moved upward, as more schools participate in CEP and report 100 percent rates. This causes the economically disadvantaged “indexes” of high-poverty districts to fall. Because these indexes are critical to determining funding, the actual DPIA amounts fall with it. Cleveland, for instance, has seen its DPIA funding cut by $249 per pupil within the past year. This hasn’t gone noticed by Cleveland administrators, and is likely to get the attention of other high-poverty urban districts and charter schools that face a similar situation.

Table 2: Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s DPIA index and funding amount, FY24 and FY25

The next General Assembly needs to clean up the DPIA mess. To do this, lawmakers must do two things. First, they should require DEW to identify low-income students based on direct certification, a process that’s already in use and identifies disadvantaged pupils through their families’ participation in SNAP, TANF, or Medicaid. Second, they should use direct-certification numbers to allocate DPIA funds, instead of the inflated economically disadvantaged rates based on meals eligibility. These steps would strengthen the equity of Ohio’s funding system by ensuring that low-income students are accurately identified and receive the resources they need from the state.

Issue 6: Weakened incentives for interdistrict open enrollment

Ohio has long had an interdistrict open-enrollment policy that allows students to attend district schools outside of the district where they live. Students benefit from this option, as they can attend public schools with programs and courses that may better fit their needs and interests or that aren’t offered by their home district. Other students may choose to attend school near extended family, or even one that is located closer to their home if they live near a district boundary. Fordham research has found that students who participate in open enrollment make academic gains, especially minority pupils who leverage the program to access higher-quality schools.

While most districts participate in open enrollment, they are not required to do so under law—and, alas, many suburban districts do not open their doors to non-residents. In such a voluntary program, the financial incentive to participate in open enrollment matters greatly. Under the state’s previous funding model, districts received $6,020 per open-enrollment student from the state.[4] That system made crystal clear the financial incentive and the amount likely covered the incremental cost of serving additional students.

Cupp-Patterson, however, changed course on open-enrollment funding. Instead of providing a simple, flat amount that applies across the state, the model now funds open enrollees at the state share of the base per-pupil amount of their district of attendance. Since that amount varies widely across districts and can only be found by digging deep into state funding reports,[5] this change muddies the incentive to allow open enrollment. Worse yet, this approach results in declining per-pupil funding for open enrollees in many districts, particularly higher-performing (often wealthier) ones where students stand to gain the most if they attend. The reason for the slippage is that state share percentages (SSPs) are now applied to the base amount.

Table 3 shows how this plays out using Franklin and Scioto County districts as illustrations. Under the old formula, all six of these districts would receive $6,020 per open enrollee. Now, however, they receive variable amounts. In the wealthier suburban Columbus districts, these amounts are much lower than under Cupp-Patterson, which offers them almost no incentive to participate in open enrollment. Rural Scioto County districts are less impacted by the change—they are less wealthy and receive higher amounts of state aid—but they still receive somewhat reduced open-enrollment funding. Remember, these comparisons are against a FY21 baseline; had the old formula been continued, the base amount would almost surely be higher today.

Table 3: Open-enrollment funding under the old formula (FY21) and Cupp-Patterson (FY25)

There is anecdotal evidence that some districts are responding to these weakened incentives by curtailing open enrollment. As a result, participation has slid over the past four years. In FY22, the state reported 79,823 open enrollees, but in FY25, just 74,557 students are in the program. This decline comes in the wake of years of consistent growth in open enrollment under the prior funding model.

State lawmakers should address open-enrollment funding to keep this option on the table for Ohio students. They have a couple policy options that would fix the problem. First—and more ideally—they could once again use the full base amount to fund open-enrollment students ($8,242 per pupil is the statewide average this year). This would make clear the incentive for open enrollment and increase funding amounts. Alternatively, legislators could use the higher of the student’s home district or district where the student attends state share of the base amount for open enrollees. While more complicated, this approach would ensure that students from, say Cleveland or Akron, aren’t funded at small amounts when they open enroll at a suburban district.

***

With much fanfare, Ohio lawmakers enacted a new school funding formula in summer 2021. The Cupp-Patterson plan certainly has its strengths. But as it has been implemented, problems have also been revealed. With any luck, lawmakers will make fixes in the next state budget that move Ohio towards a system that actually lives up to its popular name and is a “fair school funding model.”

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

1. As we noted last week, Cleveland.com’s reprehensible AI-generated story about cellphone policy survey results published by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce was definitely NOT the way to cover the topic. This version—from the smaller, lesser-staffed, and likely far-lower-funded LimaOhio.com—is definitely the proper way to cover the topic. For just a few examples: a) we learn directly from school leaders that previous cellphone-limiting policies have failed miserably across northern Ohio, b) that many of those same leaders don’t seem to have learned anything from their earlier flops, c) that parents are generally not supportive of the punitive version of phone use policies, d) that kids flouting phone use rules is endemic (as, apparently, is failing to flush the toilet after use in at least one district), e) that many principals are resorting to old school punishments to try and enforce these new-school rules, and f) that detentions and expulsions are primed to skyrocket in schools whose adults can’t figure out some other way of dealing with the issue. (LimaOhio.com, 12/13/24)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.

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

Ten years of steady growth

The Houston Chronicle reported this week that charter schools across the region have nearly doubled their enrollment since 2014, encompassing nearly 100,000 students and representing around 8 percent of total enrollment. Awesome! Additionally, they published a profile of two schools in the Houston area that have seen the most growth: KIPP Texas Public Schools and YES Prep Public Schools.

A moment

50CAN president Derrell Bradford joined host Paul Peterson on The Education Exchange podcast this week, discussing the state of charter schools specifically—and the school choice movement more broadly—in the aftermath of the 2024 elections. He calls this “a moment of peril and opportunity” for charters. Check it out to find out why!

School closure debate in Ohio

Earlier this week, Ohio Senate Education Committee heard testimony on SB 295, which is aiming to change the closure requirements for poor-performing public schools across the state. Coverage of the hearing from Clevleand.com focused on the potential that chronically underperforming district school buildings could be “charterized” sometime in the future if the bill passes. The Fordham Institute’s Chad Aldis testified at the hearing as well, noting that he is far more concerned about the possibility that some charter schools with a history of low performance will be allowed to escape consequences right now if the bill is enacted as it currently stands. An important piece of legislation to keep an eye on.

Kudos

Congratulations to the staff and administration of Dayton Leadership Academies, one of only two charter schools in the region that received an Excellence in Prevention award, which recognizes schools and districts who are implementing programs and strategies to prevent mental health issues in their schools. The awards were handed out by the Montgomery County Educational Services Center at a celebratory event this week.

Wrangling

Legal wrangling continued last week in the effort to create the first religiously-affiliated charter school in the country. Specifically, Oklahoma Attorney General Gentner Drummond asked the U.S. Supreme Court not to take up an Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that bars the state from entering into a contract to open the proposed St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School.

*****

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

As President-elect Trump and his team prepare for the first 100 days of office, they are setting their policy agenda and striving to make good on their campaign promises. In education, that will include decreasing the federal role (if not eliminating the U.S. Department of Education altogether), expanding school choice, and rolling back the Biden administration’s efforts to cancel student debt. With a Republican Congress on the horizon and a Secretary of Education pick poised for easy confirmation, the Trump administration stands a good chance of advancing this agenda.

I’d like to offer one more priority for the Trump team’s consideration—one that you didn’t hear on the campaign trail but could make President-elect Trump’s more noble aspirations possible: an investment in education R & D. By prioritizing high-quality research and development, the Trump administration can make the U.S. more globally competitive, empower state and local education leaders, and increase the ROI of education spending.

First, “education R & D” is a broad term, so I think it’s worth explaining. I think of R & D as the process of studying existing interventions and new innovations to improve or create products or practices. In education, R & D focuses on what works in teaching and learning, and explores nuances like what works, for whom, and in which conditions.

So why should R & D investments be on Trump’s education agenda? Especially when the President-elect has called for the Education Department to be shuttered and a Republican Congress is likely to cut discretionary spending? I’ll give you three reasons.

Federal investments in education R & D:

1. Strengthen the U.S.’s ability to out-compete China and other rising nations. Investing in education R & D isn’t just about improving schools; it’s about safeguarding America’s future. Earlier this year, I collaborated with the Aspen Strategy Group to make the case that when K–12 students aren’t prepared for the jobs of the future, the U.S. loses its innovation edge and puts its national security at risk.

American students are starting to lag in STEM subjects. The most recent NAEP results reveal declining math scores, with nine-year-olds down 7 points from 2020 to 2022 and thirteen-year-olds down 9 points from 2020 to 2023. In the 2022 PISA, which compares fifteen-year-old students globally, U.S. students were bested in science by their peers in nine countries, including Singapore, Japan, and Hong Kong (China didn’t participate but came first in science on its most recent PISA.)

Over the next decade, the tech workforce will grow twice as fast as the overall U.S. workforce, so American students need to be prepared to fill these roles. Yet, based on current degree completion rates, the Semiconductor Industry Association projects that 58 percent of new semiconductor jobs are at risk of going unfilled. Additionally, 2.1 million manufacturing jobs are projected to go unfilled by 2030.

Researching and developing new approaches to boosting student achievement will open doors to high-tech STEM careers and help the U.S. retain its status as a leader in innovation and a global superpower.

2. Give state and local education leaders the information they need to make evidence-based decisions on behalf of their communities. Teachers, families, and educators are most familiar with the challenges their students face when learning, but they often lack the time and resources to find or develop evidence-based solutions. Education R & D can identify systemic problems and share strategies to overcome them, giving local leaders the data and evidence they need to determine which solutions would work best for their students.

A prime example of this is the “Mississippi Miracle,” which really wasn’t a “miracle” when you consider the investments and strong leadership behind it. As the superintendent of the Mississippi Department of Education, Dr. Carey Wright used federally-funded research on the science of reading to convince the state legislature to put nearly $10 million into an evidence-based approach to teaching literacy at the K–3 levels. The new approach worked. Mississippi made the greatest strides in literacy of all states in 2019. After eight years of implementation, Mississippi fourth-graders moved up twenty-eight places in NAEP rankings to become twenty-first in the nation.

The federal government didn’t tell Dr. Wright to implement the science of reading in Mississippi. It enabled the research that led her to choose to implement the science of reading—and it made a big difference for students across the state.

3. Promote fiscal accountability and government efficiency. R & D is not just about coming up with new ideas and approaches; it’s also about evaluating existing interventions to see if they work, for whom they work, and under which conditions. In education, R & D informs which tools and approaches get scaled up to impact more classrooms, and which need to be reworked or discontinued. Taxpayers deserve to know if the programs and tools being used in their school district are actually paying dividends and improving student outcomes. Education R & D makes that possible.

The Alliance for Learning Innovation, the coalition I lead, has been sharing stories of high-ROI investments in an effort to increase transparency around federal spending and shine a spotlight on the investments that are paying off for kids.

With all this talk of a new “Department of Government Efficiency,” wouldn’t it make sense to promote the efficient deployment of education dollars?

If the Trump administration wants to strengthen national security, promote local control, and increase government efficiency, it should make room on its policy agenda for education R & D.

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

1. Back in July, our Aaron Churchill published a blog post titled “It’s time to dump Reading Recovery.” A whole lot has happened since then—from podcasts to research reports to legislation to lawsuits—and this coverage from a Georgia perspective includes that post (which it calls “scathing”) as part of the accumulation of antipathy toward RR and its ilk. (Atlanta News First, 12/10/24) Aaron’s July piece is here, if you would like to read it again.
   
   

2. Going even further back, our Chad Aldis was among the panelists at an Urban League event on the future of assessments and accountability in Ohio, which was held in Cleveland back in June. This new summary of the event tells us that Chad’s panel was called “Demystifying Assessments and Accountability” and that the “essence” of the discussion was captured in a line drawing created live as the panelists talked. You should take a look. No offense to my boss, but that’s clear as mud to me. Honestly, I’m not sure how valuable any of this was based on this recap. As a single example (there are more, as I’m sure you expected), I will note that a rep from Lorain City Schools told the audience—following discussion that her district was put under the auspices of an Academic Distress Commission after years of extreme academic suckitude—that Lorain has “taken a new approach to education”. To wit: “In our school district, we are trying to tell our staff we’re not worried about test scores. We’re not worried about assessments. If we can’t take care of the socioemotional aspects of our students first, then learning cannot begin. Often, people make choices and never listen to the people in which we serve. As a school district, we are stewards of the people, and listening to the parental and student voices are the greatest two voices we can hear.” The future sounds just like the past to me. (National Urban League, 12/11/24)
    
3. In case you missed it, we have been told that the elected school board of Columbus City Schools is likely to vote on a proposed school closure plan at its meeting next week. So far in the run up to the vote, the Dispatch op-eds are running 2-to-1 against closing anything. Here is a typical anti-closure opinion piece, generally citing the “sloppiness” of the process, from a very prominent district parent. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/11/24) Meanwhile, a member of the facilities commission is in the pro-closure camp, explaining in detail about how the combo of lower enrollment, aging facilities, inefficient use of resources, and the like are the vital components informing his stance on the issue. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/12/14)

Did you know you can have every edition of Gadfly Bites sent directly to your Inbox? Subscribe by clicking here.