| The Thomas B. Fordham Institute

Jeff Murray

12.1.2025

Listen to this article

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

The college-scholarship granting organization Say Yes Cleveland has released its very first report card. There are some interesting nuggets in this coverage, focused on the first six years of the program, including the fact that 713 students from Cleveland Metropolitan School District and affiliated charter schools have already earned a college degree or postsecondary certificate with the assistance of Say Yes. What’s stopping the thousands of other eligible grads from doing the same? The program’s chief administrator names two big things: Affordability and not being adequately prepared academically. The money is an issue the district has no control over. The academics, however… “It is critical that the breadth and quality of instruction in the CMSD – beginning in preschool all the way through 12th grade – set our students on a path toward college and career readiness,” the report concludes, “no matter what choice they make after senior year.” Sounds just right to me. Honestly, if you fix that part, you may not even need the big fancy scholarship organization at all. Full report can be read here. (Signal Cleveland, 12/1/25)
Meanwhile, all of the stakeholders quoted in this piece seem to agree that big layoffs are inevitable in Columbus City Schools. Everyone from the elected board president, to the union boss, to OSU prof/data-driven truth teller Vlad Kogan has a different take on when it will happen, how it will be done, and how extensive the cuts will be. But it definitely ain’t zero. (Columbus Dispatch, 12/1/25)
After all of that data and spin, here’s a look at what school kids actually care about these days: The quality of lunch food, the cleanliness of the bathrooms, and the ability to learn about and join student clubs. (Your Ohio News, 12/1/25)

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

Chad L. Aldis

11.26.2025

Listen to this article

As we approach Thanksgiving, it’s fitting to pause and reflect on the past year—to take stock not only of the challenges we face but also of the progress being made and the people working tirelessly to improve education across our state.

At the Fordham Institute, we spend much of our time pointing out weaknesses in Ohio’s education system—lagging math achievement, uneven reading results, and troubling rates of chronic absenteeism. These realities can be discouraging. Yet this time of year offers a reminder that there’s also much to be thankful for—evidence of commitment, collaboration, and persistence that should give us hope for what’s ahead.

A continued commitment to literacy and the science of reading

Governor DeWine and Director of Education and Workforce Dackin deserve tremendous credit for their steadfast focus on literacy and the science of reading. Ohio’s most recent report card results remind us that far too many students still struggle to read proficiently—only 61 percent of third graders reached proficiency in 2024–25. Yet unlike in years past when research-backed reforms were rolled back when there was a small bump in the road, the administration laudably doubled down after this year’s report card making clear that, “Literacy remains a top priority.”

The DeWine team has implemented a strong, research-based literacy framework: from approving high-quality reading curricula to providing $169 million for teacher training and literacy coaches to requiring teacher-prep audits to ensure future educators are ready to deliver evidence-based instruction. It’s an enormous task, and implementation will take time. But the direction is right, and the resolve is unwavering. For that, I’m thankful.

Renewed focus on math achievement

Math achievement has recovered more slowly post-pandemic in Ohio than reading has, but there’s fresh reason for optimism. Just last week, the Ohio Senate unanimously passed Senate Bill 19, a bipartisan effort to strengthen math education across the state.

The bill represents a comprehensive approach—one that supports struggling learners while also ensuring advanced students are pushed to reach their full potential. Senate Education Chair Andy Brenner deserves recognition for championing this work and crafting legislation that brought every senator on board. In today’s polarized environment, bipartisan cooperation on behalf of kids is no small feat.

This focus on math—and on ensuring all students have access to rigorous, well-taught content—is something to celebrate.

Expanding career-connected learning

Another bright spot in Ohio education has been the sustained effort to strengthen career-connected learning. From a continued commitment to support incentive funding for in-demand credentials to a reexamination of how those credentials count toward graduation, the state continues to take steps that help young people prepare for meaningful careers.

Senator Kyle Koehler’s recently introduced Senate Bill 328 would strengthen career exploration in middle school, bolster career planning supports, and improve our ability to measure the return on investment for career education programs. These efforts reflect a recognition that success after high school can take many forms—and that Ohio’s education system should empower all students to find pathways that fit their interests and strengths.

Cutting red tape to empower educators

Finally, there’s encouraging movement on an issue that rarely makes headlines but matters immensely: regulation. The Ohio House’s unanimous passage of House Bill 455 (sponsored by Representatives Manning and Bird), which reduces unnecessary mandates on public schools, signals a growing understanding that educators need space to teach, not more bureaucracy.

When lawmakers from both parties come together to streamline rules and keep the focus on outcomes rather than micromanaging every detail, that’s a win for schools and students alike. It’s also a reminder that progress often comes from quiet, bipartisan efforts to make the system work better for those on the front lines.

Looking ahead with gratitude

So yes, there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about where Ohio stands, but there’s also reason for gratitude. I’m thankful for state leaders who continue to prioritize literacy, for legislators who see the value in improving math instruction and expanding career readiness, and for the countless educators who make these reforms real every day.

At Fordham, we’ll keep doing what we’ve always done: holding systems accountable, analyzing what works, and advocating for policies that help every child reach their potential. But as Thanksgiving approaches, I’m also taking a moment to simply say thank you to the many Ohioans striving, often behind the scenes, to make our schools stronger and our students’ futures brighter.

Happy Thanksgiving.

Policy Priority:

School Funding

Topics:

Governance

Jeff Murray

11.26.2025

Listen to this article

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

Fordham’s Aaron Churchill and Ohio State University’s Vlad Kogan are among the experts quoted in this extensive piece looking at the state of mayorally-controlled school districts across the country. Not sure there’s one central message emerging from all the analysis, except that some folks that have it want to change it, while some that have it want to keep it; and that the same exact divide exists in those cities that don’t have it too. Who’da thunk? (Chalkbeat, 11/22/25)
Speaking of mayorally-controlled school districts, leaders of Cleveland Metropolitan School District are beginning to get a handle on—and to answer questions from the public about—all the various details of what will change when the proposed school closures and mergers are completed. These include staffing, services, transportation, extracurriculars, budgets, and more. You know why they can give that information now? Because a mayorally-controlled district has more authority to make—and stick to—such plans versus an elected board. Just sayin’. (Signal Cleveland, 11/21/25)
And speaking of details, Akron City Schools is poised to undergo its first official performance audit in nearly 30 years. The move appears to have been instigated by new treasurer Wayne Bowers—whom we have discussed before as wanting to make some big changes in how the district does its fiscal business, even as he aired that business in a way that seemed to your humble clips compiler as a tad “gabby” for a typical district. But the elected school board backed him up, voting unanimously to engage the Ohio Auditor’s Office for the gig. Amusingly, it is noted at the end of this piece that “District officials also are looking at ways to boost student enrollment, including bringing students back who may have left for a charter or private school”. Sure hope no one up there is counting on the Ohio Auditor of State to solve that lost cause for them! (Akron Beacon Journal, 11/24/25)
Meanwhile, Elyria Catholic High School has launched a capital campaign. “With enrollment growing and programs expanding,” said school president Annie Heidersbach in her announcement letter, “we must ensure our facilities rise to meet the needs of today’s students — and tomorrow’s.” The plan includes creation of a new Leadership and Innovation Center and Courtyard, which will be “a transformative hub for learning, leadership development and student support” and will include “flexible gathering areas and a comprehensive student success hub that unites guidance, STEM, career and college advising.” All this and more besides. Best of luck to them in their huge endeavor. (The Chronicle Telegram, 11/25/25)
While first released back in July, Ohio’s new plan to improve K-12 mathematics instruction and student achievement is getting some fresh attention in the news. Sounds pretty good to me: Proven curricula, lots of teacher training, and the involvement of instructional coaches. But there’s still a few things that trouble me—such as the insistence that “math anxiety” is a thing and that instruction “often overemphasize rote skills at the expense of deeper mathematical thinking”—which now that I think about it may be more a focus of this piece than the actual plan. Full plan is here, so take a look for yourself. (Cleveland.com, 11/22/25)
Finally this week: The November election may have happened more than three weeks ago, but it ain’t over until all the recounts are done. To wit: A $70 million bond issue has apparently passed in Jonathan Alder Local School District by just three votes after a recount was completed earlier this week. (NBC 4 News, Columbus, 11/25/25). Meanwhile, a ballot issue that would reduce income tax revenue for Carlisle Local Schools faces a recount of its own after it was defeated by a mere five votes. Crazy stuff. (Dayton Daily News, 11/24/25)

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

Miriam Kurtzig Freedman

11.25.2025

Listen to this article

Editor’s note: This is the second in a three-part series in which Miriam Kurtzig Freedman reflects back on a half-century of special education law in the United States. Part I focused on where we are now and the need for a new law, and Part III outlined the key components for better special education in the U.S.

While the IDEA succeeded in its mission to provide access to education for all students with disabilities (SWD), we also have much to question. Is it achieving the education mission for them? Is it effective and efficient? Equitable and fair? How does it affect students who are not disabled? And teachers, administrators, parents, and taxpayers? So many questions.

A pivotal issue that needs a fix is this one: the IDEA’s uncapped entitlement, built on an adversarial due-process system. Too often, it has led to an emphasis on litigation and the fear of litigation, not learning. It has divided schools, questioned the expertise of teaching professionals, and confused and angered parents—all at great cost with uncertain evidence of success for SWD.

The fact is this. The use for bureaucrats, lawyers, and litigation who seek access to schooling is so mid-20th century because the IDEA solved that challenge years ago. Now, all SWD are included in schools. Going forward, educators, not lawyers, should determine how to educate children. Parents should partner with educators to help their children thrive. Due process rights and litigation no longer belong here.

Education is, at heart, a partnership among teachers, parents, and students—not lawyers and bureaucrats. Years ago, when I visited schools in Holland, I asked a principal whether attorneys attend meetings about students with disabilities. She laughed: “Lawyers? Absolutely not!”

We could learn from that.

I believe that, in many ways, we’ve lost our way and allowed misguided “strangulation by regulation” and other quagmires and unintended dysfunctions to divert us from the basic mission of educating SWD. If we truly want our students to succeed, we cannot continue with the same old 1970s broken framework. It is time to end the entitlement for students with mild or moderate needs and their parents and build a new approach.

Tinkering around the edges, as Congress has done through several reauthorizations over the years, will not do. The IDEA was written in the 1970’s—a very different era. The exclusion of SWD from schools is far from today’s challenge. In fact, many, including me, believe that too many students are labeled as SWD.

Among the many unintended consequences of this law is this one. While one would hope that struggling students in general education classrooms would receive early intervention to help them learn, too often general educators are encouraged to refer these students to special education. We must ask why, in the United States of America today, a student needs a disability label in order to get early interventions. This “wait to fail” model is pernicious, wrong, and contradicts the science of learning. We need, instead, to build a stronger general education approach with built-in supports that will, ultimately, require less special education.

Here are three additional challenges that demand attention.

First, over-identifying many students with mild or moderate needs. Too often students are classified as specific learning disabled (SLD)—by far, the largest group of students with disabilities—because they did not learn to read by third grade. Yet our schools are still fighting bitter “reading wars” between phonics/the science of reading and balanced literacy/the whole language approach. Failure to agree on how to teach this cornerstone of literacy has left many students behind. We must ask if all of these SLD are truly disabled or victims of a confused general education approach that failed them.

Similar questions can be asked about students with speech/language impairment. We know—research has shown—that if young children don’t hear and use enough words at home or in the community, their language development is stunted. Too often, they enter kindergarten already behind! Tragic.

Before we label more students as disabled, let us turn our attention to alternative cures that can be nourished in general education, homes, and communities. Our current ever-expanding approach to label children as SWD is neither healthy nor sustainable.

Second. The adversarial system weakens the science of learning which is built on trust. The due-process structure has turned too many schools into battlefields—parents vs. educators, lawyers vs. administrators. At every point, from referral to IEP development and implementation, a school may make a mistake, often called a “violation.” Lawyers are ready to pounce, making the IDEA an example of a “full employment for attorneys act.” Smart for our SWD? Smart for our nation? The law’s constant legal tension erodes trust and diverts focus from student learning and building partnerships with parents.

Third, stifling bureaucracy and costs in money and time. Even as we don’t know how much money is spent, we do know that precious time for paperwork and compliance is time taken away from teaching and learning for all students. Ask any superintendent.

What do we need instead? At a minimum, I urge us to follow the science of teaching and learning in how we educate SWD, not the constraints and demands of a misapplied legal system. Lawyers, bureaucrats, and legislators don’t educate—teachers do. It’s time to help students, all students, learn. The time for a new law is long overdue.

Policy Priority:

High Expectations

Topics:

Evidence-Based Learning

Curriculum & Instruction

Governance

Teachers & School Leaders

Aaron Churchill

11.25.2025

Listen to this article

In the latest saga at Columbus City Schools, district officials are mulling the elimination of busing for high school students as a cost-cutting measure. State law doesn’t require districts to transport high school students—the state mandate applies only to K–8 students—so the district could legally take this step. But just because something is permissible doesn’t mean it’s wise.

As they consider transportation changes, district leaders should consider the attendance crisis rolling through the city's schools. Figure 1 shows the chronic absenteeism rates of Columbus high schools during the 2024–25 school year. Every high school save one reported that more than half their students were chronically absent. Rates top 70 percent in most of the schools. Such astronomical numbers easily double the statewide absenteeism rate and exceed the districtwide chronic absenteeism rate of 52.6 percent (for all K–12).

Figure 1: Chronic absenteeism rates at Columbus City Schools’ high schools, 2024–25

CCS transportation blog figure 1 — Source: Ohio Department of Education and Workforce. Note: The orange line represents the statewide average chronic absenteeism rate of 25.1 percent across all grades. Students are deemed “chronically absent” when they are absent at least 10 percent of the school year—equivalent to missing almost four weeks of school.

Chronic absenteeism is linked to academic problems, which also happen to be widespread in Columbus high schools. Last year, only 22 percent of district students achieved proficiency on the state Algebra I exam, and even fewer did so in geometry (13 percent). Just one in three scored proficient on the state’s high school English exam. Less than one in ten Columbus students met Ohio’s college remediation-free benchmarks on the ACT or SAT.

District leadership has argued that cutting bus routes would allow it to devote more funds towards classroom instruction. That’s a nice thought, and Columbus should be exploring ways to drive dollars into classrooms, including pay raises for its most effective teachers. But it’s also hard to move the achievement needle when students are MIA. Even the best teacher, with a world-class curriculum in hand, will struggle to deliver solid outcomes when attendance is poor. Worsening attendance might also require more high-cost remediation and intervention programs, additional expenses that could easily swamp the savings associated with cutting bus routes.

There are surely other expenditures more deserving of cuts than transportation. That might include an afterschool or tutoring program that is poorly attended or ineffectual. Professional development that does little to sharpen teachers’ skills. Overly generous benefits. Closing half-empty schools. Or cutting administrative fluff. (Columbus had 388 administrators in 2024—25 percent more than a decade ago—even though district enrollment declined by 15 percent over this period.) Meanwhile, district officials should also consider discontinuing programs paid for by its roughly $500 million in federal emergency Covid funds. The expiration of these one-time dollars is likely contributing to its current budget woes.[1] Transportation shouldn’t be a casualty in efforts to revert to pre-pandemic budgetary norms.

Providing reliable transportation is one tool in the ongoing battle against chronic absenteeism—and its harmful impacts on academic performance. Families and students, including high schoolers, count on school districts for busing. When that doesn’t happen, it’s too easy for students to give up on getting to school and stay home instead. Lack of school-provided busing also raises questions about safety getting to and from school (will students have to walk through dangerous neighborhoods or resort to risky ridesharing?). It could also increase students’ commute times and cause headaches for public transit systems, if Columbus decides to rely on COTA for transportation.

Transportation should be a priority in school budgets, not just in Columbus, but other districts, as well. Ohio sends hundreds of millions to districts to help cover the expense, as do local funds in our shared funding model. Columbus should do the right thing and ensure that all students receive busing service. If it doesn’t, lawmakers should consider adding a requirement for high school transportation (at least in districts with high absenteeism). When students aren’t in school, they won’t learn much. Let’s make sure every student who needs a ride gets one.

[1] Columbus City Schools’ local funding increased by $82 million from FY22 to FY25, and its state revenues increased by $12 million during this same period.

Policy Priority:

School Funding

Topics:

Governance

Dan Lips

11.24.2025

Listen to this article

Recent national test scores show historic declines in American students’ academic achievement in reading and mathematics. While Secretary Linda McMahon may be working to shut down the Department of Education (including by transferring programs and authorities to other federal departments through agency agreements last week), the Trump administration has an opportunity in the meantime: to leverage a decade-old law to, once and for all, establish real transparency about public schools’ performance in the United States.

Ten years ago, Congress enacted the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This law relaxed federally mandated testing and school reform rules that Congress had established under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and had prevailed during most of the Bush and Obama administrations. While ESSA freed states and school districts from requirements to show annual improvement on state tests, the law maintained requirements that states publish information about public schools’ performance on annual school report cards. Critically, the law also required states for the first time in history to annually report other information, including per-pupil spending data for each public school.

The federal requirement to establish transparency about public schools’ test scores and spending creates an opportunity to assess the return on investment (ROI) in terms of student learning gains across the nation’s 99,000 public schools. In other words, school-by-school spending and test score data can provide insights into how expenditure levels affect schools’ test scores, which can provide meaningful information to parents about school quality and value.

It turns out that states and school districts’ willingness to comply with these transparency requirements—surprise, surprise—has been reluctant, at best.

In 2024, the Center for Reinventing Public Education at Arizona State University reviewed states’ school report cards to assess the difficulty of comparing student performance before and after the pandemic. The center’s report revealed “that most states are failing to provide accessible, transparent longitudinal performance data—at a time when parents, advocates, and the general public need it most to address continued pandemic learning loss.”

Two years earlier, the Data Quality Campaign had noted that school report cards “remain difficult to find, use, and understand.” Past reviews have found that states often release statewide school report cards with academic achievement data after the school year has already begun.

State compliance with the federal mandate to provide per-pupil expenditure data for all public schools has also been lacking. States publish their datasets in different formats, making it difficult for the public to access the information.

Georgetown University’s Edunomics team, with a grant from the Department of Education and the Gates Foundation, has been working to collect, organize, and publish states’ expenditure data for several years. This is a valuable service. But it should not require a federal grant and a team of economists to analyze these data and assess public schools’ performance.

Unfortunately, the Department of Education itself has been slow to collect and publish data in a uniform format through the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). According to Mark Schneider, former director of the Institute of Education Sciences, “Much of the problem is that NCES uses an antiquated approach to data collection, issuing a uniform survey that doesn’t match up to different state systems and then waiting for all submissions before releasing datasets.” In August 2025, the Department of Education finally released a comprehensive dataset of public school finance data reported during the 2021–2022 school year, three years after that year concluded.

The Trump administration has an opportunity to improve public transparency about public schools’ spending and performance. First, the department can require states to provide and publish data in a timely and accessible manner. Second, McMahon and her team could require the NCES to prioritize the creation of a public dashboard showing public school spending and performance by state, school district, and schools, and to partner with researchers to create an ROI index using this data to help parents and the public understand how public schools are performing.

Establishing prompt reporting of federally mandated data and starting an ROI dashboard would be useful for several reasons. For starters, more than two dozen states have now enacted education choice programs such as education savings accounts, which give parents the option to choose alternative learning environments to traditional public schools. An ROI dashboard could help them make informed decisions about their best schooling options.

Second, the nation’s public education sector faces significant headwinds. Public school enrollments are projected to drop by three million students, or roughly 5 percent, over the next six years from pre-pandemic highs. The Brookings Institution recently projected that traditional public school enrollment could plummet to between 35 million and 41 million by 2050. The public education sector also faces real fiscal challenges in the coming decades, particularly given the federal government’s unsustainable fiscal path and the country’s demographic trends, which indicate an aging population that may put greater pressure on school budgets. Moving forward, public schools will likely need to do more with less, which will put a greater emphasis on identifying schools that are providing the highest return on investment.

The Trump administration is currently considering a redesign of the Institute of Education Sciences, which is the main R & D and statistical arm of the Department of Education and houses the NCES. While this unfolds, McMahon and Congress should require the Department of Education to set mandated reporting requirements for states to provide school report cards and spending data in a timely manner. Moreover, the Department of Education should direct NCES to establish an ROI dashboard so the public will understand how public schools are performing and so parents can choose the right learning environment for their children.

Policy Priority:

High Expectations

Topics:

Accountability & Testing

Governance

Teachers & School Leaders

Jeff Murray

11.24.2025

Listen to this article

Author's Note: This is a special edition of Ohio Charter News, posted on a Monday to catch up on some important news stories from the last 10 days. We will not publish on Friday of this week due to the Thanksgiving holiday and will return on Friday, December 5 with all the charter news you can use!

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

Helping build connections

Students at South Side Academy recently hosted a group of firefighters and other first responders for a s’mores cookout at their Youngstown charter school. The purpose was two-fold: To celebrate these local heroes for their service and to build a connection between students and those folks to whom they might need to turn for help sometime. “These safety providers are here to help us. We can go to them if you’re lost, if you’re hurt, if something happens,” said dean of students Marquita Dixson, “and not having that fear is huge.” Nice.

The wheels on the bus of educational choice

In our last edition, we covered an op-ed by Fordham’s Aaron Churchill, which laid out data describing how Ohio’s “impractical to transport” rules have been overwhelmingly used to deny busing to charter and private school students, rather than to students attending a given district’s own schools. Today, we look at a response editorial, authored by Columbus City Schools’ transportation guru. His version of the story minimizes the issue and points fingers at the longstanding state requirement for transporting charter and private school students. Relatedly, here’s a news story from Dayton—a region whose transportation travails go back many years—the details of which illustrate with on-the-ground detail the same concerns as Aaron showed with data. Even more important, it sounds like the troubles district families are experiencing today are very similar in both urban and suburban districts.

The view from around Indiana

Transportation is just one issue on which charter schools across Indiana are hoping to work in partnership with districts, given a raft of new laws requiring such cooperation passed this year. School facilities and local funding are also on the list. And they are looking closely at what is happening in Indianapolis—through the new Local Education Alliance there—to see whether such cooperation is possible. The jury is still out at this time, with many longstanding points of friction between districts and schools of choice under discussion at various levels of civility.

Different schools, the same success

Journalist Alina Adams takes a look at the top-performing elementary schools in New York City, as rated by U.S. News & World Report recently, and says that all of them have one vital thing in common: An unwavering expectation that all of their students can succeed. And succeed they have, whether their schools are the traditional exclusive, test-only-admissions, gifted and talented schools run by the NY Public Schools or open-admissions charter schools run by Success Academy. There’s a lesson in there for sure.

Invaluable data resource

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools’ Charter School Data Digest is now fully updated for 2025. You can find this comprehensive, nationwide compendium of charter data here. NAPCS aims to provide answers to your most pressing questions and deliver important facts and figures for further analysis. Don’t miss it!

*****

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