Editor’s note: This was first published by The 74.

Education in the United States remains incredibly partisan, and the presidential race offers no relief. Red states want less exposure to race and gender in schools; blue states want more. Red states expand school choice laws; blue states shrink them. Players on all sides pitch education as a zero-sum game. Even research is weaponized to demonstrate the superiority—or inferiority—of different types of schools, whether district, charter or private. Social cohesion across differences? In many quarters, this feels like a bridge too far.

That’s the bad news. The good news is that it doesn’t have to be this way. In fact, for most places in the world, it isn’t. That’s because most countries fund a wide variety of schools and hold them all accountable for academic results. This approach is called educational pluralism, and it animates school systems from Europe to Asia, from Canada to Australia and across southern Africa. The Netherlands funds thirty-six kinds of schools equally; the government of Indonesia supports secular and religious schools alike; the Australian federal government is the top funder of independent schools in the country because of their ability to close achievement gaps for low-income students. In fact, 171 of the 204 school systems tracked by UNESCO rely on public-private partnerships, the volunteer sector, and community organizations to deliver education for all.

In U.S. terms, educational pluralism means school choice and accountability by design. It acknowledges that schools that reflect distinctive norms and values often bring real benefits to students—so these governments fund a variety of school types. It also assumes that education is not merely a private good, but also a common project whose outcomes affect society as a whole; therefore, public concern and oversight of academic content is appropriate.

Educational pluralism is not perfect, but if implemented with care, it can function as an escape valve against constant conflict; while it deliberately honors families’ diverse values, it also builds social cohesion by insisting that everyone share a broad base of knowledge, such as capital cities of the world, twentieth-century poetry, the history and impact of the American Revolution, or the tenets of major religions. This common content would include, as a matter of course, exposure to a variety of viewpoints and beliefs without indoctrinating students as to their merits. For instance, the English government has funded religious schools since 1834 and secular schools since 1870, but all students in all schools learn about diverse religions and philosophies.

Here are three practical steps toward the pluralist ideal that elected officials and candidates alike in the U.S. could get behind.

The first step: Find a cross-partisan message that invites rather than condemns. This means putting down rhetorical weapons and eschewing charged terms such as “educational marketplace” (on the right) or “privatization” (on the left).

Second, focus on initiatives that welcome all schools. High-quality curriculum and instruction is a good place to start. Teachers in every school need access to rigorous materials that challenge students’ minds and enliven their hearts. They also need time to learn what the materials require in the classroom. This is exactly what a state department of education can provide across the board, and many—including Louisiana, Delaware, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin—already do, though only for those who work in district schools. Why not teachers in any type of school?

Third, build the infrastructure to support both choice and quality. A great example is Indianapolis’s The Mind Trust, a nonprofit that, since 2006, has recruited teachers into the state, launched four dozen charter schools and partnered with the city’s public school district to design schools that by design meet their communities’ specific needs. They don’t pit schools against each other; rather, they help all schools in Indianapolis grow stronger. Since 2021, the organization has partnered with the Indiana General Assembly and the state Department of Education to accelerate students’ academic recovery, in two ways. Indiana Learns gives eligible students access to math and reading tutoring, and Summer Learning Labs offer a rigorous, five-week, free or low-cost summer academic and enrichment program. The nation needs more of such thoughtful approaches that champion instead of demeaning teachers and set a high bar for academic success.

Policies that fund a variety of schools with distinctive world views, while incentivizing the use of curricula that build robust knowledge across the major subjects, would constitute an unfamiliar “both/and” to an American audience. This approach asks a lot of teachers, parents, and young people. But if Belgium, South Africa, and many Canadian provinces can lean into productive pluralism, so can the United States.

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

1. Our own Aaron Churchill discusses chronic absenteeism data from the most recent state report cards with Eileen McClory in this piece. Some interesting info here (including the fact that online charter schools reported pretty low absenteeism rates, but Aaron is not convinced those numbers are entirely accurate), but it’s the district leaders’ responses that carry the most import for me. David Jackson, superintendent of Northridge Local School, notes that his district saw some good improvements in various report card measures, but that the super high absenteeism rate (48.3 percent) means the good stuff going on in his district isn’t reaching everyone. “If kids aren’t here,” he asks, “how can you teach them?” (Dayton Daily News, 9/23/24)
   
   

2. Speaking of students who are having trouble getting to school to learn (were we, really?), another lawsuit has been filed against Columbus City Schools—this time by a charter school family) for denying their child transportation. It may not be the last. (CW Columbus, 9/20/24)
   
   

3. And what about the original transportation lawsuit against Columbus? The one filed by the Attorney General at the start of the school year? We don’t really get an update here because that legal action doesn’t really impact northeast Ohio districts…yet. Aaron Churchill (him again!) thinks that part of the issue in the lawsuit is that payment from districts to families in lieu of transportation is meant to be a last resort, not a magic wand to “fix” broken bus systems. Not to mention the question of timing of notification. And we do learn here that the busing situation in some NEO districts is similar to that in Columbus, just without the pursuant legal action. Here’s hoping that at least one outcome of these legal challenges is more clarity around that payment in lieu point. Also of interest in this piece: We learn that both Youngstown and Lorain City Schools last year transported almost the same number of district-attending students as choice-attending students. Important info, I reckon. (Ideastream Public Media, 9/23/24)
   
   

4. Finally today, one of the hallmarks of Ohio’s mandated switch to the Science of Reading is the willingness of the state to put its money where it matters: Paying for districts to adopt new curricula (if they needed to) and paying to train tens of thousands of teachers in what is likely a brand new way of doing their business. Thus, amid this detailed discussion of SoR implementation in northeast Ohio districts, I was surprised to hear the retired curriculum director of Wadsworth City Schools pooh-pooh the amount of (free of charge) training being required of many of her teachers as “too much”. I feel she may be unique in that assessment. (Cleveland.com, 9/22/24)

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

Modern States Education Alliance is a non-profit that makes college-level courses and college credit free to any learner anywhere, including high school students interested in advanced coursework. It offers thirty-two online courses free of charge at www.modernstates.org, including all the necessary textbooks and readings. Each is designed to help participants learn the content tested on the corresponding College Level Examination Program (CLEP) exams and earn a passing score, which would be recognized for credit at almost 3,000 college and universities around the country. I spoke with Jefferson Pestronk to learn more about the organization, how its offerings differ from Advanced Placement and dual enrollment, and more.

Why is advanced coursework, like what you offer, important to offer our students? And how do you address opportunity gaps—students from marginalized backgrounds participating much less in advance coursework than their more advantaged peers?

Access to advanced coursework is critically important. Learners who take college-level courses and earn college credits before reaching college save time and money on their path to a degree, and are more likely to actually earn a degree.

Beyond that simple value proposition, there is extensive research documenting the benefits of advanced coursework. Learners who take advanced courses in high school are more engaged while in high school; are likelier to graduate, go to college, and earn a degree; and gain confidence from taking advanced courses. Adult learners who enter college with credit end up taking more courses while enrolled, meaning that higher education institutions also benefit from learner access to advanced coursework.

But there are also well-documented gaps in access to advanced courses, even for students who could succeed in them. This is doubly true for students after they leave high school; while many schools and districts have programs like Advanced Placement or dual enrollment that help students take college-level courses for free, there are many fewer such programs for college-age and adult learners.

We believe that all learners should have the opportunity to excel, and that with currently-existing approaches and technology, it’s possible to live up to that goal. We partner with high schools, two- and four-year colleges, and community organizations to provide targeted support and resources to underrepresented students. We have active programs and partnerships in place throughout the U.S., including in New York City, Tennessee, and Ohio; through universities like Purdue University and Norfolk State University; and with nonprofits including TheDream.US.

By breaking down accessibility and funding barriers, we are helping create a more equitable educational landscape where every individual has the chance to thrive in advanced coursework. This is especially important as college costs continue to rise and as college seems out of reach for too many Americans. One of the reasons our founder and CEO, Steve Klinsky, created Modern States seven years ago was to push back on these trends and keep college within reach of anyone who wanted to attend. We believe our program is a game-changer for school districts, colleges, and individual learners across the country, and we are proud to play a role in opening the door to higher education for all students.

How is Modern States different from other approaches, like Advanced Placement or dual enrollment?

Most importantly, Modern States is available to any learner anywhere, when they want to engage. Unlike programs like AP or dual enrollment that traditionally require learners to engage through their schools, and that are limited to certain learners, Modern States provides a direct on-ramp to college and reduces educational costs for all. This is particularly valuable for learners who have left high school, or who aren’t enrolled in traditional high schools like homeschooled students, and don’t have access to Advanced Placement or dual enrollment or other early college options that high school students often access for free.

Our approach also is very flexible, allowing learners to study at their own pace and on their own schedule. This flexibility is particularly beneficial for adults with varying life circumstances who might not be able to commit to being on campus or logging into a class at a certain time.

What effect has being free had on uptake both at the family and school level?

We often hear from learners that Modern States put college within their reach, even after they had thought it had passed them by. We don’t confer degrees ourselves, so learners who use our courses still need to attend college to earn their degree, but by using Modern States they end up enrolling in college having already made very substantial progress towards a degree. Depending where they ultimately enroll, they can save thousands of dollars and many hours of course time.

We’re also increasingly hearing from school administrators and teachers that are using our courses in creative ways. At a minimum, they save schools a lot of money and help ensure they can offer advanced coursework to any student who is interested. But as anyone who has worked with schools and educators knows, they are enormously creative. For example, we’ve heard from a number of schools that they align Modern States content with classes they’re already offering. And some students in their classes will do both the high school work and the Modern States college work, so that, by the end of a term, they have basically bootstrapped a dual enrollment course and earned both high school and college credit with no additional costs, teachers, classrooms, and so on.

What is next for Modern States?

We are focused on a few big priorities. First, we’re working on building out partnerships that can help us expand the number of learners we serve and improve the quality of support that learners receive. This means newly working with leaders in states like Ohio, where there is widespread CLEP acceptance along with some local funding and support. It also means working to deepen existing partnerships, like the ones we have with universities such as Purdue and Norfolk State University, both of which use Modern States to streamline admissions.

We’re also excited to explore how to integrate emerging technologies like generative AI into our model. We have a particularly interesting use case because so many of our learners are engaging on their own or in contexts where they can’t get direct academic support. AI-powered tools like integrated tutors can help explain instruction differently, plug gaps in prior knowledge, and improve assessment at scale. They’re not perfect solutions, but they’re getting better, and they can offer really valuable complements to other support.

Last, as we grow, it becomes increasingly important for us to find partners and supporters who can help us keep the program free to learners. Several states, like Ohio, Michigan, and West Virginia, and some institutions like the U.S. military, make CLEP exams free or low cost for learners because they have recognized how powerful they can be. We’re looking to work with more public institutions—in addition to private funders—who want to do similar things.

Ohio has a lot to be proud of when it comes to the post-pandemic academic recovery—but also much work left to do. That’s the message that comes out of my recent analysis of spring 2024 state assessment data released earlier this month.

Given our natural inclination to focus on the negative, it is important to start with the good news. In English language arts (ELA), our state has demonstrated tremendous success remediating the learning disruptions we saw emerge in the first year of the pandemic. Indeed, with the exception of eighth graders, Ohio students appear to have completely reversed the large initial achievement declines. And in a number of grades, students performed better last spring than their counterparts before the pandemic. The recovery has been broad-based, benefiting every type of school district and every student subgroup, helping reverse some of the worrying racial- and economically-based achievement gaps we saw grow in the immediate aftermath of the pandemic learning disruptions.

Ohio’s progress on ELA is particularly noteworthy when compared to the broader national landscape. Recently released reports from private assessment companies have painted a bleak picture of stagnation, and on some assessments, students falling further behind. Although it’s not clear why Ohio has bucked this depressing national trend, our state’s concerted focus on improving reading instruction and professional development focused on the latest scientific insights on how students learn how to read may have helped.

Unfortunately, when it comes to math, Ohio’s recovery remains incomplete. Part of this is because the initial achievement declines in math were just much larger, in absolute terms, than in ELA. Even given the same learning gains, it would have taken Ohio students more time to climb back to pre-pandemic levels. And indeed, we did see considerable progress several years ago, with accelerated achievement growth beginning to offset a meaningful share of the pandemic-era losses.

But this progress appears to have stalled out last year, with little evidence of continued math recovery between spring 2023 and 2024 in most grades. As a result, elementary school students remain about a month behind pre-pandemic cohorts in math, with the gap rising to between one-third and one-half of a school year in middle school grades.

Figure 1: Post-pandemic academic recovery by grade in ELA (top) and math (bottom)

The latest numbers point to several important lessons for Ohio policymakers, particularly as they continue to focus on addressing the math achievement shortfall. One is the importance—and limitations—of funding and the other relates to timely data.

On the funding side, the federal government provided school districts across the country more than $200 billion in pandemic-era aid, an unprecedented investment with the stated intent of helping support learning recovery. Ohio schools received more than $6 billion of this funding, and my analyses suggest the money played a role in the partial math rebound: Districts that received more aid, a function of a fixed federal allocation formula, saw their math achievement recover faster in recent years. The magnitude of this effect, however, was fairly modest, with a $1,000 increase in per-student funding raising math achievement by about 0.02 standard deviations. To put that number in context, it would take at least an additional $5,000 for every student in the state to close the remaining math gap at this rate—more than the total amount of federal pandemic aid in Ohio. It seems highly unlikely such a level of investment will be available, especially since the deadline for spending down the remaining federal aid is this year.

Fortunately, the recent improvements in ELA suggests that further progress is possible even in the absence of significant new resources. Unlike in math, where district-level growth depended on the available federal funding, differences in ELA gains across districts were not related to the amount of federal aid that local communities received. The statewide success in addressing the ELA shortfalls show what can be accomplished with sustained focus and attention.

The second lesson is about the importance of timely, accurate data to guide policy. After the cancellation of state tests in spring 2020 at the height of the pandemic, some school employee interest groups saw an opportunity and tried to rally lawmakers to permanently eliminate state testing and accountability linked to it. Wisely, our state leaders resisted these efforts. To the credit of Governor DeWine and top leaders at the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, Ohio has been a national leader in working with independent researchers like myself to evaluate state and local recovery efforts and making these results public, even when they didn’t always paint a flattering picture.

This has not been the case in some other states. California, for example, threatened to sue a Stanford researcher whose data portrayed the state’s ham-fisted school reopening and recovery efforts in a negative light. But here in Ohio, we’ve had quality data that have allowed policymakers to clearly understand the magnitude of the academic setbacks, identify school districts and student subgroups most affected, and track progress over time.

Ohio continues to show the country what can be accomplished when we make student achievement a priority. We have made tremendous progress, but it is also clear that the job is not yet complete. It is essential that that academic considerations—as opposed to various education culture wars—remain at the top of our agenda.

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

State report cards released

Ohio released school and district report cards for the 2023-2024 school year late last week. As ever, there is a mix of good news and bad news for almost everyone. Cleveland.com was first out of the gate with specific coverage of charter school performance, although this piece is mainly a chart of schools searchable by various report card component grades. Fordham’s Aaron Churchill published a comparison between charter and district performance in Ohio’s eight largest cities. He sees “promising signs of quality” for students in our urban areas, “particularly in the charter sector”. Nice!

Singled out

One of those high-performing urban charter schools is Toledo Preparatory and Fitness Academy, and it was lauded for its excellence—along with similarly-high-quality district schools—in a piece from The Blade’s Editorial Board earlier this week. However, the bulk of the piece is a call for more state support for those schools—way too many of them in northwest Ohio—that fall short of providing a great education for their students.

Research findings under the microscope

The latest edition of the podcast Education Exchange with Paul E. Peterson features researcher Sarah Cohodes discussing the fascinating findings from her recent Massachusetts study showing that urban charter schools raise student test scores (compared to districts) while non-urban charters do not provide such a boost. However, charter schools in both settings increase students’ college graduation rates.

Relief in Chicago

Chicago Public Schools officials this week unveiled their new five-year strategic plan. While they stayed true to their promise to improve education for city students, the plan appears to back off a previous board resolution to make changes that were said to favor district schools over charters. Charter school families were understandably concerned by the potential for harm to their schools, and CPS officials confirmed that strong parent response played a role in shaping their final decisions.

You’re invited to a Charter Chat

The National Charter Schools Institute is hosting a virtual event on Tuesday, September 24, at 3:00 pm ET. “From Belief to Achievement” will feature a panel of charter experts discussing how they cultivate an atmosphere and community-wide belief system that all students can succeed. You can learn more about the event and the participants, as well as register to attend, at this link.

*****

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

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

1. Fordham’s Chad Aldis discusses state report cards in this piece, joining others in cautious optimism around reading achievement post-pandemic but also now raising alarm about troublesome math achievement data. (Cleveland.com, 9/19/24) Speaking of report cards, Dayton City Schools’ superintendent discusses his district’s results in this brief piece. Despite an overall poor showing (again), he expressed confidence that changes he has made since starting in the job will eventually show up as higher ratings. This includes the elimination of the two-teachers-in-one-classroom model, which bossman says “negatively impacted” their report card despite being implemented to do the opposite. But then again, dude also says “school is simple” and that school works best when it’s “fun”. So for now you can color me skeptical of his assessment. (Dayton 24/7 Now, 9/19/24)
   
   

2. All of my loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers (Happy Friday to all 9 of you!) will find this profile of Toledo Early College High School sounding very familiar. Accelerated high school courses, admission open to a wide geographic are, juniors and seniors taking college courses on a university campus, etc. Sounds like an independent STEM school, right? Of the type that your humble clips compiler has not been able to shut up about been lauding for more than ten years. But don’t be fooled, y’all. This is the oldest of old-school early college models in Ohio—not an independent entity, but a “program” run by Toledo City Schools with all the rules/regs/limitations that imposes. It’s better than nothing, don’t get me wrong. Probably a bright shining light for the district and extremely helpful for the students who choose it, but it could be more. I’m sure I can guess why Toledo Early College HS has not yet become an independent STEM school, but here’s hoping that they someday overcome the obstacles to break free and grow as big and as awesome as they possibly can. (Toledo Blade, 9/19/24)
   
   

3. Here is interesting coverage of a big-time Catholic education event held earlier this month in Columbus and including a papal nuncio direct from the Vatican among its more prosaic, homegrown panelists. This is probably more of a weekend read, so in-depth and erudite as it is, but it’s a good preamble for what comes next. (Columbus Catholic Times, 9/19/24) To wit: There is an undercurrent of negativity/skepticism in this piece which indicates that expanded vouchers and other private education support programs in states—including Ohio—are starting to result in more private schools opening their doors. (Umm… Yay!) The concern arises from the fact that these are largely going to be religiously-affiliated private schools. To which I say three things: a) Just wait; the non-religious schools are coming, b) Even if they don’t, religious schools have been the primary providers of private education in states like Ohio for many decades, and c) The deep calling among religious groups to improve education for students reverberates through this piece (kudos at least to the AP for making that shine through) and in the earlier Catholic education piece. I don’t see the problem, y’all. But do please alert me if it ever actually shows up. (AP, 9/20/24)

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

Last week, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) released updated school report cards that offer a plethora of data from the 2023–24 school year. My colleague Aaron Churchill did a deep dive into achievement and growth indicators. But state report cards also present data on “non-academic indicators,” including chronic absenteeism, which is defined as missing at least 10 percent of instructional time for any reason.

Chronic absenteeism has been a hot topic over the last few years. That’s largely because, during the pandemic, the number of students who were chronically absent nationwide shot through the roof—and then stayed there. But it’s also because we have a lot of data indicating that regular school attendance is good for kids and chronic absenteeism is not. Students who have never been chronically absent are six times more likely to read on grade level by the end of third grade and nine times more likely to graduate from high school on time. On the flip side, being chronically absent can negatively impact both academic and social-emotional development.

Given these data, many hoped that Ohio’s latest round of school report cards would show a big drop in chronic absenteeism rates. Unfortunately, that’s not the case. Figure 1 below displays Ohio’s statewide chronic absenteeism rate for the most recent years. In 2018–19, the rate was just under 17 percent. By 2021–22, that number had jumped to 30 percent, meaning nearly a third of Ohio students were missing significant class time. Though still too high, the statewide rate ticked down to 26 percent the following year and seemed to promise the start of a downward trend. But the 2023–24 school year produced a rather disappointing rate of 25 percent. The trend is still technically downward. But a decline of 1 percentage point isn’t nearly enough.

Figure 1. Statewide chronic absenteeism rate, 2018–2024

There hasn’t been much improvement in high-poverty districts, either. The table below provides the pre- and post-pandemic chronic absenteeism rates in the Ohio Eight, the state’s major urban districts. On the one hand, their progress in cutting chronic absenteeism outpaces the state. But no district registered a drop of more than 5 percentage points. And in at least three districts—Cleveland, Columbus, and Youngstown—the chronic absenteeism rate remains above 50 percent. That’s a full-blown attendance crisis, as a majority of students enrolled in these districts are missing significant amounts of school. Given that most students in the Ohio Eight are already behind academically, all that lost instructional time is particularly worrisome.

Table 1. Pre- and post-pandemic chronic absenteeism percentages in the Ohio Eight districts

The good news is that state leaders have already signaled that addressing chronic absenteeism is a top priority. Ohio recently joined more than a dozen other states in pledging to cut chronic absenteeism by half over a five-year period. Most of this work will occur at the local level, where it will take a team effort from teachers, principals, community members, and families to move the needle. But there are some things that state policymakers can do to support them.

First, leaders must use their platform to emphasize the importance of attendance. One way to do so would be to launch a statewide public relations campaign that communicates the importance of consistent attendance. A recent report from the Ad Council Research Institute found that successful messaging must have a positive tone and “communicate the opportunities associated with in-person learning” rather than the consequences of absenteeism. That kind of messaging is exactly what schools in northeast and central Ohio (and a few other places, as well) have already experienced via the Stay In The Game! Attendance Network. Ohio leaders could build on those efforts with a statewide campaign that reaches every community. The Ad Council report also found that teachers are the messengers whom parents trust the most when it comes to attendance. A positive statewide messaging campaign (or something like this effort in Massachusetts) that reinforces what families are hearing from their students’ teachers could help immensely.

Second, state lawmakers should commit to maintaining accurate attendance data tracking. Over the last year, there have been attempts to water down data accuracy and transparency by making it easier for students to miss school for “legitimate” absences. While there are plenty of valid reasons for students to miss school, Ohio can’t afford to alter how it tracks those absences. Doing so would only make it look like chronic absenteeism rates have improved when they actually haven’t.

Third, policymakers should use the upcoming budget to direct DEW to take data transparency a step further. Rhode Island is an excellent model, as leaders there have created several publicly available, interactive tools. The state’s real-time attendance dashboards update daily, and show daily, weekly, and monthly attendance trends in individual schools, along with data on early dismissals and tardies (both of which can have a sneakily big impact on chronic absenteeism). The daily chronic absenteeism update allows users to track the percentage of students, by district and grade span, who are already chronically absent, as well as how many of those students reached that threshold during the previous year. The historical absences dashboard does exactly what its name suggests and provides historical data going back to 2017. And the chronic absenteeism and achievement dashboard outlines the importance of attendance by tracking its impact on state assessments. Ohio should create its own version of these dashboards, so that local officials, district and school leaders, and families have detailed and timely data that emphasize the importance of regular attendance and pinpoint where intervention efforts are most needed.

Last fall, the Ohio Attendance Taskforce emphasized that effectively addressing chronic absenteeism would take a team effort. One year later, in the wake of report card data showing minimal progress, the need for urgent action remains. Much of the heavy lifting will fall on the shoulders of local schools and community leaders, as they’re the ones who are most trusted by parents and regularly interact with kids. But state leaders play an important role, too, and implementing the ideas outlined above would be a great place for them to start.

Last Friday, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce released the state’s annual school report cards for the 2023–24 school year. As usual, they reveal areas of progress and challenges requiring attention. This year, we see encouraging upticks in statewide proficiency in third grade reading and high school algebra. But math achievement overall remains a sore spot—still well below pre-pandemic levels—and chronic absenteeism continues to be widespread.

Beyond these high-level results, we at Fordham have regularly taken deeper dives into the report cards from the Ohio Eight cities (listed below in table 1). The quality of these schools matters greatly, as they are more likely to serve disadvantaged students who most need an excellent education to reach their potential. Their districts and charter schools serve disproportionate numbers of low-income[1] and Black students (57 percent in the Ohio Eight versus 10 percent in non-Ohio Eight districts). Highly effective schools can and do help students make up significant ground, while low-performing schools allow students to fall even further behind. It’s also true that most of Ohio’s public charter schools are located in these cities, and given our commitment to quality charters, we’ve long sought to gauge their performance by comparing their results to nearby district schools. 

What does this year’s report card tell us about the Ohio Eight? In a nutshell, we continue to find troubling achievement gaps that require urgent attention and a strong focus on academics. But there’s positive news, too: Urban charter schools are posting stronger pupil academic growth numbers than their district counterparts, suggesting that charter quality continues to improve.

Student achievement

Reflecting persistent achievement gaps, table 1 shows that just one in three Ohio Eight students achieve proficiency on all state exams[2]—a rate that lags far behind the statewide proficiency rate of 58 percent. Relative to the Ohio Eight districts, charters have a slight edge in terms of proficiency (34 to 32 percent), with Columbus charters registering the highest proficiency rates on the charter school side. Among the Ohio Eight districts, proficiency rates are highest in Cincinnati but fall below 30 percent in five other districts. Less than a quarter of students are proficient in Dayton and Youngstown school districts, as well as in Akron’s charter schools.

Table 1: Proficiency rates (all tests) in the Ohio Eight cities, district and charter, 2023–24

Another way of looking at achievement is through the performance index, a measure that awards additional credit to schools when students score at higher levels on state exams. In contrast to proficiency rates, which focus more narrowly on clearing the proficiency bar, the performance index provides a broader picture of pupil achievement across the entire spectrum. Consistent with the proficiency data, we see that Ohio Eight districts and charters lag significantly behind the state average on the performance index, yet charters again outperform their urban district counterparts (with a weighted average index score of 62.3 versus 59.1). As for changes in scores year over year, both Ohio Eight charters and districts register improvements of similar magnitudes (+1.2 and +1.3 points, respectively).

Figure 1: Performance index scores in the Ohio Eight cities, district and charter, 2022–23 and 2023–24

Value-added progress ratings

Proficiency rates and performance index scores shine much-needed light on achievement gaps and help the public understand where students currently stand academically. But out-of-school factors also influence these results. To provide a clearer picture of schools’ contributions to student learning separate from demographics, Ohio and other states have implemented growth measures that track learning trajectories over time. Ohio relies on a value-added methodology that controls for students’ prior achievement on state exams. This allows for a more poverty-neutral look at performance and serves as evidence about the educational effectiveness of districts and schools. District- and school-wide value-added results are the basis of Ohio’s Progress ratings, one of five rated components of the report card.[3]

Figure 2 shows the distribution of Progress ratings both statewide and in the Ohio Eight. On this measure, Ohio Eight charter schools outperform their Ohio Eight district counterparts: 38 percent of urban charters receive four- or five-star ratings, while just 30 percent of urban district schools do so. Conversely, fewer urban charters receive poor ratings compared to their district counterparts.[4] Ohio Eight charters also perform favorably compared to public schools statewide (38 versus 34 percent rated four or five stars on Progress).

Figure 2: Progress ratings of Ohio Eight district and charter schools, 2023–24

Figure 3 displays a breakdown of Progress ratings in four of the Ohio Eight cities where charters have a larger presence. In Cleveland, charter and district school ratings are nearly identical, but in the other three cities, a higher percentage of charters receive four- and five-star Progress ratings. Dayton charters are noticeably ahead of the city’s district schools, while Cincinnati and Columbus charters hold a more modest edge over district schools. Charters shine particularly brightly when it comes to the proportion of schools receiving five stars for Progress.

Figure 3: Progress ratings of district and charter schools in four of the Ohio Eight cities, 2023–24

We last present the Progress ratings from the past two years. The rating distributions are consistent statewide and for the Ohio Eight district schools. But—as indicated by the red box—Ohio Eight charters improved on this rating, moving from 31 to 38 percent of schools rated four or five stars on Progress between 2022–23 and 2023–24. Conversely, a smaller percentage of Ohio Eight charters received low ratings last year compared to the year prior.

Figure 4: Progress ratings of Ohio Eight district and charter schools, 2022–23 and 2023–24

* * *

Urban education in Ohio and elsewhere continues to be a complicated and oftentimes discouraging story. With this year’s report cards, we are once again reminded of the urgent work needed to prepare more of Ohio’s urban students for success. No one should be satisfied when two in three students from these communities fall short of grade-level standards.

Yet we also see promising signs of quality, particularly in the charter sector. Report card results suggest that charter performance is on the rise—just as it was prior to Covid—after slumping during and right after the pandemic. Though more analysis is needed, these results may also be an early indication that recent funding improvements are helping to boost charter performance across the board. Of course, more needs to be done to improve charters, and two years of data do not make for a long-term trend. But if Ohio can continue to make headway toward equitable charter funding and maintain strong charter accountability, more students from our urban communities will finally get the education they need to succeed in school and life.

The New York Times ran a guest column last week by a prep school English teacher calling for high school students to “do less so they can do better”:

We have pushed high school students into maximizing every part of their days and nights. Those who take the bait are remarkably compliant, diluting themselves between their internships and Canva presentations. We condition students to do a so-so job and then move on to the next thing. We need to let them slow down. Critical cognition, by definition, takes time.

The essay is well-written, well-intended, and in line with similar articles over the years, all of them concerned about stressed-out teenagers attending high-octane “hothouse” public and private high schools.

But I hope America’s school leaders think twice before easing academic expectations at their schools.

The first reason is that campuses where the pressure on kids is arguably too high are by far the exception, not the rule. The much bigger problem for most American high schools is the lack of rigor and low academic expectations—a zombie-like approach to schooling marked by boredom, easy A’s, and going through the motions.

It’s been this way for decades, certainly as far back as the 1980s, when the nation was deemed “at risk” and Ted Sizer described what he called “Horace’s Compromise.” His archetypical teacher, dubbed Horace, wouldn’t make his students work very hard as long as they agreed not to give him much grief in class. There are lots of Horaces out there today.

We can glimpse this reality by reviewing recent studies asking teenagers how they spend their time. According to a 2023 Gallup survey, for example, teens waste almost five hours a day on social media. And a 2019 Pew Research study found that teens spend just an hour a day doing homework. That’s not a portrait of a country stressing out its teenagers with academic demands.

But what about the high schools where lots of students are gunning for selective colleges? Should these institutions take it down a notch or two?

This is personal for me, as my oldest son attends one such campus, Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Maryland. It’s not uncommon for students at Whitman to rack up ten or even fifteen Advanced Placement courses on their transcripts, on top of participating in sports and extracurriculars. At least a handful of them gain admission to Ivy League and similar universities every year, sending the signal that the effort might just be worth it if you scramble hard enough to near the top of the heap.

Parents understandably worry about the mental health implications. Whitman has even been a subject of a bestselling book-length treatment of stressed-out “Overachievers.”

Here’s the thing: Even at the Whitmans of the world, not everyone is playing the highly-selective-college-admissions game. In fact, the majority of Whitman students opt out of the rat race, more than happy to attend one of Maryland’s minimally selective public colleges or other public or private schools in the mid-Atlantic or beyond. (SEC schools are increasingly popular, too.)

And this is what teenagers and their parents should keep in mind: It’s up to you to decide whether to opt in or opt out of the selective-admissions insanity. It’s often said, but also turns out to be true, that this country contains hundreds of solid colleges and universities, and students can get a great education even if they don’t attend a super-selective brand-name school.

It’s akin to the phenomenon of travel sports teams. Here, too, there’s pressure in some communities to have kids pick one sport at an early age and spend enormous amounts of time and money traveling to tournaments every weekend in order to gain a shot at a spot on a varsity high school team and maybe a college scholarship.

Some of these travel sports kids and their families must be enjoying the experience. But for those of us who look at this way of life and want to throw up, there’s good news: Just don’t do it. It’s a free country. Spend your time, energy, and money on something else.

So here’s the message to stressed-out teens and their families: Ask yourself whether you have made a conscious decision to engage in the academic Olympics or whether you have fallen into that lifestyle by accident. If it’s not working for you, take the next exit. Downshift to on-level courses, at least in some subjects. Only sign up for clubs or activities you actually enjoy. Forget about gaining admission to a highly-selected college and focus instead on finding one that’s a great fit for you personally. Be assured that, given enrollment trends, plenty will be glad to receive you.

Alternatively, decide to make an affirmative choice to play the selective-admissions game and give it your best shot.

And for school administrators, let’s be sure that all kids have the opportunity to choose whichever path makes sense for them.

Editor’s note: This was first published on Forbes.

As a candidate for president in 2020, Kamala Harris introduced a plan to raise teacher salaries by $13,500.

Why that specific dollar amount? Harris was thinking along economic lines, and she sold the policy as one that would erase the teacher wage gap, as documented over the years by the Economic Policy Institute. As of the most recent report, with data through 2022, the institute estimated that educators earn 26 percent less in weekly wages than other workers with similar academic credentials.

Never mind some of the flaws with the institute’s calculations, like the fact that it uses weekly wages and teachers don’t work the same number of weeks as other employees. Is the economic argument for raising teacher salaries a good one?

It’s not as iron-clad as you might think.

Consider a recent policy change in Arkansas. In 2023, the state raised the minimum teacher salary from $36,000 to $50,000 and guaranteed raises of at least $2,000.

According to a preliminary analysis from researchers at the University of Arkansas, the average teacher saw a salary increase of 6.5 percent. This cost the state $183 million, and much of the money flowed to poor, rural parts of the state that previously offered the lowest pay.

What happened to teacher behavior? The researchers found decidedly mixed results. They found that the additional money reduced the rate at which teachers left the profession overall—but those who got bigger raises became more likely to leave. There were also no clear patterns by experience level and no statistically significant changes in movement toward places with teacher shortages, despite the large financial investment in those areas.

The researchers offered several potential explanations for the negative results. It’s possible the law, which was passed in March, took effect too late in the academic calendar to influence teacher behavior in the subsequent school year, and that the money will have a bigger impact going forward. Or perhaps the salary increases just weren’t large enough.

But maybe the Arkansas results shouldn’t come as a surprise. After all, when the National Center for Education Statistics asked teachers their most important reason for leaving, only 9 percent said they wanted or needed a higher salary. Pay trailed retirement, other life reasons (such as personal health or caring for a loved one), and the pursuit of other career options (many of which were other roles within education).

In other words, the economic argument around the teacher pay gap has some holes. It also assumes that teachers could close the financial gap if they left the classroom and pursued another job, but that’s not the choice most educators actually face.

In fact, two recent studies looked into this question and concluded that most former teachers don’t earn as much as they did while they were in the classroom. Some do, especially the most highly rated educators and those working in STEM subjects, so there’s an economic argument for paying more money to the best teachers to get them to stay, and to help fill particular shortage areas. But the majority of people who leave teaching end up doing worse, financially speaking.

On the flip side, people who enter teaching tend to see salary increases over whatever they were earning the year before—think of teaching assistants or substitutes moving into full-time positions, or the large number of people who return to the profession after some time away. For them, a full-time teaching job offers a big step up in pay. 

Salary is perhaps the easiest lever for policymakers to pull to influence teacher recruitment and retention decisions, but there are others. For example, educators are also looking for opportunities for professional advancement, autonomy, control over their work, and the ability to balance their work and personal lives. A recent study out of Illinois found that teachers there continue to report problems with working conditions, defined in terms of classroom disruptions, student responsibility, and safety; improving such non-financial aspects of the job could be another way to make teaching more attractive.

Ironically, the political and media attention focused on teacher wage gaps may also be contributing to a sense that teachers are paid less than they actually are. People tend to underestimate how much teachers actually earn, and that could discourage would-be educators from considering the profession in the first place. Simple, clear messages about the financial benefits of teaching may help recruit more people, as it did in the case of a recent experiment around tutors.

As a reminder, the most recent data shows that the average public school teacher earned $66,397, and those in California, Massachusetts, and New York routinely made $90,000 or more.

There might be moral or political reasons to support raising salaries for all teachers, but in strictly economic terms, the strongest arguments revolve around raising pay for highly effective teachers in STEM subjects, and as an incentive to fill particular shortage areas.

Editor’s note: This was first published by The 74.