Aaron Churchill
9.22.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

In 2023, we at Fordham released a publication titled Will Ohio’s Covid Generation Get Back on Track? The report documented the pandemic-era plunge in academic performance reflected in the 2021–22 state test scores and urged an all-hands-on-deck recovery effort. With four Covid-free years now on the books and billions upon billions spent, one might think that Ohio has surely recovered from the pandemic wreckage.

But has it recovered? Based on the just-released assessment results from 2025–26, the answer regrettably remains “no” (it was “nein” last year, too). It’s true: Ohio students still have not caught up to the achievement marks of their pre-pandemic peers.

Here are the unsettling data. Figure 1 begins with a basic comparison of statewide math and reading proficiency rates in 2018–19—the pre-pandemic baseline—and 2025–26. Just prior to the pandemic, 61 and 65 percent of Ohio students achieved proficiency in math and reading, respectively. Last year’s proficiency rates fell short of that benchmark, in math by a sizable margin of 4.6 percentage points and 2.4 percentage points in reading.

Figure 1. Statewide math and reading proficiency rates (all tested grades), 2018–19 versus 2025–26

Ohio academic recovery blog figure 1

One major concern in the wake of the pandemic was that disadvantaged students would have the hardest time catching up—what some dubbed the “K-shaped” recovery. The next figure explores whether this has materialized in Ohio. Figure 2 shows statewide proficiency rates (math and reading combined)[1] and indicates sluggish recovery across the board. Virtually all student groups continue to fall short of their respective pre-pandemic benchmarks, though students with disabilities have struggled noticeably more than others to meet their pre-pandemic benchmark. In contrast, Black students have demonstrated somewhat stronger recovery and their 2025–26 proficiency rates slightly top their respective pre-pandemic rates. Economically disadvantaged students’ proficiency also exceeds their pre-pandemic target, though that result is highly suspect due to the rapid compositional change within that group (see note below the figure).

Figure 2. Proficiency rates by student group on all state exams, 2019 and 2026

Ohio academic recovery blog figure 2
Note: (*) Due to the Community Eligibility Provision, many schools may report higher-income students as “economically disadvantaged,” which has in turn inflated these rates. In 2019, Ohio reported 50 percent of students as economically disadvantaged, while in 2026, Ohio reported 63 percent of students as disadvantaged (many of whom were not actually low-income). 

Figure 3 displays statewide proficiency rates (all tests) from 2019 to 2026 as well as projections based on the current rate of improvement. After significant jumps in proficiency shortly after scores bottomed out in 2020–21, the rate of improvement slowed, with a gain of just 2.1 percentage points over the past four years. At this rate of improvement, Ohio won’t return to the pre-pandemic mark until 2028–29—a full decade after the pandemic struck. If Ohio can step up the rate of improvement (double it), students would make it back to square one a year earlier.  

Figure 3. Trend in statewide proficiency rates, all state exams

Ohio academic recovery blog figure 3
Note: The blue dotted line displays projected proficiency rates if Ohio maintained its current rate of improvement (based on the average annual rate of improvement over the past three years, or 0.67 percentage points). The orange dotted line displays the trajectory if Ohio doubled its current rate of improvement.

Finally, Figure 4 shows proficiency rates by grade level, an important aspect of tracking recovery. Students in the early elementary grades during 2025–26 were infants and toddlers during Covid, and one would expect “post-Covid generation” scores to more closely track with the 2018–19 benchmarks. But as the figure indicates, third and fourth grade proficiency rates sank noticeably below pre-pandemic standards. Meanwhile, the higher grades represent students who were directly impacted by school disruptions during the pandemic. Here, we see recovery in fifth, sixth, and eighth grade reading as well as algebra I, but proficiency rates still lag for seven other grade-subject assessments. Overall, these data indicate significant work still ahead to help both the post-Covid and Covid generations catch up to Ohio’s historical achievement marks.    

Figure 4. Statewide proficiency rates by grade and subject, 2019 and 2026

Ohio academic recovery blog figure 4

* * *

Outwardly, schools have returned to normalcy. But the long shadow of Covid continues to be felt inside of Ohio classrooms. Students today—due to the closures and the anemic recovery—are still behind in comparison to where their peers stood six years ago. Can Ohio make a full academic recovery? When will it finally happen—and for all student groups, in both math and reading, and across all grades?

To their credit, Ohio policymakers have established critical academic initiatives that, if rigorously implemented, should move the needle faster for students. It’ll take continuing resolve from state and local leaders to put the pandemic—and all its ill effects—behind us once and for all.

[1] It also includes grade 5 and 8 science and the biology, U.S. government, and American history end-of-course exams.

Policy Priority:
Standards & Accountability
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Jeff Murray
9.22.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

A defining feature of charter schools is the oversight structure provided by the authorizer. It is an authorizer’s job to determine whether schools are fulfilling the terms of their charters across numerous areas, not least of which is student outcomes. Contract renewal time is when those determinations matter most. Has a school earned the right to continue operating and for how long? While the typical charter renewal term is five years, most states give authorizers the discretion to offer longer or shorter terms if circumstances warrant. A new report looks at renewal term length decisions in four of those states, aiming to see how authorizers use that discretion and what impacts they associate with different term lengths.

The National Association of Charter School Authorizers (NACSA) surveyed 39 authorizers across Colorado, Florida, Indiana, and Michigan, all of whom had at least five charter schools in their portfolios. The survey asked respondents about all the renewal term lengths they grant and the reasons for granting different lengths. Twenty-six of those authorizers also agreed to participate in focus groups which delved into more depth on their survey responses and added an additional dimension: What effects—intended and unobserved—do authorizers associate with different term lengths.

Across all four states, five years was the most common renewal length. Respondents said that a five-year term provides them with enough data to make sound decisions and provides schools sufficient time to achieve any needed operational stability required by authorizers.

Longer-term renewals (anything more than five years) were rare, respondents said—typically reserved for schools with sustained strong performance across academics, finances, and governance. But they do have their upsides when granted, including reduced administrative burden for both authorizers and school staff, as well as incentivizing more favorable facility financing opportunities for schools with longer-term charters. On the downside, however, respondents reported that some schools declined in performance after receiving long-term renewals, with fewer intervention tools then available to authorizers.

Shorter-term renewals (anything less than five years) were most commonly reported in response to academic underperformance, financial distress, or governance problems. Authorizers intend them as leverage—a way to force change with new contract/accountability requirements or to signal that a school’s continued operation is conditional upon specific improvements. However, respondents provided little evidence that short-term renewals actually improved school performance. Repeated short-term renewals, respondents said, could also accelerate staff turnover, hasten enrollment declines, and do reputational harm to schools.

Interestingly, while five-year terms continue to function as the sector default and are deemed appropriate for most schools that are meeting expectations, they still generated concerns from some respondents. Having all or even most schools in a portfolio on similar terms creates clusters of renewals every year, resulting in a significant and ongoing administrative burden for authorizers that staggered/non-standard terms could alleviate. Additionally, any states that don’t allow shorter renewal terms lump both adequate and problematic charter schools into the same category; and any states that don’t allow longer renewal terms lump both adequate and exceptional schools together. Both situations, authorizers say, remove the quality signals that varying term lengths are meant to convey.

While these findings come from a limited, nonrepresentative sample of authorizers—those willing to speak on the subject—NACSA’s recommendations on renewal term length nonetheless reflect much of the insight they provide. To wit: The length of charter renewal terms should be determined through a deliberate, performance-based process, and not by default or tradition.

Long-term renewals should be reserved for schools demonstrating sustained excellence across all performance areas, and their contracts should include robust monitoring systems to detect declines in performance as well as actionable accountability structures if a decline occurs mid-cycle. Short-term renewals should be used sparingly—with “clear conditions and consequences”—and never as cover to kick painful closure decisions down the road a year or two. Finally, the report encourages charter supporters to band together to support state policies (or support implementation of new policies if they don’t already exist) that minimize “authorizer shopping,” the process whereby schools can easily switch authorizers if they don’t like, for example, the term length being offered.

SOURCE: National Association of Charter School Authorizers, “Charter Renewal Term Length Project” (August 2026).

Policy Priority:
School Choice
Topics:
Charter Schools
Jessica Poiner
9.21.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Three years ago, Ohio policymakers established a statewide science of reading initiative aimed at boosting reading achievement. The sweeping effort requires public schools to use state-approved high-quality instructional materials (HQIM), expects teachers and administrators to complete professional development, provides reading coaches for school-based support, and audits educator preparation programs to ensure future teachers are well-trained. To bolster implementation, regionally based instructional implementation teams will soon conduct mandatory reviews of low-performing schools and offer their services to any school seeking an independent review.

Consistent, rigorous implementation of these policies should produce reading achievement gains. State report cards for the 2025–26 school year, which were released last week, offer the latest look at Ohio’s progress. The results reveal both good and bad news.

First, the good news: Statewide proficiency numbers are creeping upward. Table 1 shows the number of students who scored proficient or above on the state’s English language arts (ELA) exams during the last four school years. The final column identifies the difference between 2025 and 2026 results, with green shading indicating improvement and red indicating a decline. In most grade levels, proficiency rose by roughly 2 percentage points. The improvement in third grade is noteworthy, as those students have been at the center of Ohio’s science of reading effort. Eighth grade saw the highest jump, with an increase of almost 4 percentage points. Meanwhile, although fourth and seventh grade results both inched backward, the decline was small.  

Table 1. Percentage of students scoring at least proficient on English language arts state tests

Early literacy progress on report cards blog Table 1

The overall state report card trumpets similar progress. Proficiency numbers in ELA were up in every single demographic, including economically disadvantaged students (+2.7), students with disabilities (+1.2), English learners (+1.2), Black students (+3.4), and Hispanic students (+3.5). These aren’t monstrous gains, but they do reflect improvement. Remember, Rome wasn’t built in a day. Two years into full implementation of a complex statewide effort, these scores are a positive sign. If Ohio schools continue faithfully implementing the science of reading, we should continue to see higher achievement.

Unfortunately, there’s also some bad news. Although more students reached proficiency in 2026, at least one-fifth of students in nearly every grade level scored in the lowest category, or “limited.” Moreover, in three grades, the percentage of students who scored limited actually went up from last year. 

Table 2 identifies the percentage of students in grades 3–8 and high school who scored limited during the last four school years. The final column identifies the difference between 2025 and 2026 results, with green shading indicating improvement (fewer students scoring limited) and red shading indicating a regression (more students scoring limited).

Table 2. Percentage of students scoring limited on English language arts state tests

Early literacy progress on report cards blog Table 2

An increase in the number of “limited” students is never good, as scoring in the lowest category is a clear sign that students are falling behind. But it’s worrisome that two of the three grades that saw increases are third and fourth—students at the tail end of elementary school, where most of Ohio’s reading improvement efforts are focused. It’s especially worrisome that the jump in fourth grade is nearly 5 percentage points. That increase brings the number of Ohio fourth graders scoring limited to nearly 24 percent, or one-fourth. In raw numbers, that’s over 29,000 fourth graders who scored at the lowest level.

What makes these results particularly disheartening is the fact that they could have been avoided. Under the Third Grade Reading Guarantee, Ohio schools were required (with limited exceptions) to hold back third graders who fell short of a state-defined “promotional score” on the state’s reading exam or an alternative test. Students who were retained under this provision were required to receive intensive intervention from their schools to help them catch up to their peers. Between 2016 and 2019, when the retention provision of the Guarantee was in place, the percentage of students who scored “limited” declined from 27 percent to 14 percent. According to my colleague Aaron Churchill, this “substantial decline in struggling readers suggests that retention—and the accountability it provided—increased schools’ sense of urgency and obligation to help children meet state reading targets to avoid holding them back.” Moreover, a rigorous analysis from the Ohio Education Research Center showed that retained students scored significantly higher on state exams into middle school than their peers who narrowly met the state’s promotional threshold in third grade.

The upshot? Retention decreased the percentage of students who scored limited and benefited retained students in the long run. However, despite this evidence—and additional proof showing that retention worked in other states, too—Ohio lawmakers gutted the policy in 2023. Three years later, despite concentrated efforts to boost early literacy outcomes, the share of students scoring limited among third and fourth graders is rising.   

The latest round of state report cards indicates that Ohio is making progress with the science of reading. But there are also warning signs that must be heeded if we’re going to move the needle. We have clear evidence that students performed better when Ohio had a retention policy in place. If state leaders truly believe that boosting reading achievement is imperative, then it’s time to bring back retention.

Policy Priority:
Standards & Accountability
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Jeff Murray
9.21.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. You have been warned.

  1. Many thanks to the good folks at State Affairs (FKA Gongwer Ohio) for this precise restatement of the arguments for and against third grade retention—particularly germane in the wake of the latest wave of report card data. While Fordham provides the only support for reinstating mandatory retention for students who don’t pass the third grade reading test included here, we have written and researched and analyzed so thoroughly on the topic that a) our “support” feels more like a bedrock foundation, and b) the handful of other lightweight protests against retention in the piece sound unserious by comparison. (State Affairs, 9/19/26)

  2. Fordham’s fingerprints are all over this piece too, even if we don’t get any actual credit. It’s a look at how Columbus City Schools students have fared after graduation, as reveled by Ohio’s new postsecondary attainment database. Fordham has advocated (and analyzed and researched and blogged) about the need for Ohio to have this data compiled and available for years. The data are ugly (just 12 percent of 2018 grads had earned a bachelor’s degree after six years, and six district high schools did not produce a single college graduate in that time). But Fordham’s senior research fellow Vlad Kogan (again?!) is even more concerned by the 24 percent of grads who had started college only to drop out without a degree. “One thing worse than not getting college education is going out, taking on a lot of debts and not finishing,” he says. “Then you’re kind of in a worse-case-scenario where you don’t have the benefit of the degree but you have all the costs of attending”. Problematic indeed. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/19/26)

  3. Finally today: This piece is an update of a two-week-old story about state testing anomalies in Dayton area charter schools. The update includes responses from two of the schools. “We are eager to assess the anomalies and resolve any concerns in full cooperation with the Department,” says Middletown Preparatory & Fitness Academy. “Student achievement and integrity are core tenets of our educational mission and testing protocols, and we have full confidence in the veracity of our quality student achievement results.” Meanwhile, Klepinger Community School says it has been asked “to provide additional information regarding its assessment procedures to address these anomalies, and we will cooperate fully with the Department throughout this process” and that it has “full confidence that its statewide assessment results accurately reflect its students’ achievement and are a product of its high standards for honesty and integrity.” (Dayton Daily News, 9/19/26)

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

Policy Priority:
School Funding
Topics:
Governance
Jeff Murray
9.18.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

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

Now the actual news

Last week, we were anticipating announcement of the winners of federal charter school grant funds here in Ohio. Today, we have the actual winners! Congratulations to all 9 schools that will receive Charter School Facilities Incentive grants and all 4 schools that will receive 2026 Charter Schools Program (CSP) grants.

Philanthropy

Here’s a look at the Haslam family—owners of the Cleveland Browns, among other enterprises—focusing on their extensive philanthropic contributions to K-12 education in Ohio and beyond. These include a huge gift to the Breakthrough Network of charter schools and creation of the statewide Stay in the Game student attendance initiative.

Focusing on Focus

With the inclusion of Columbus charter school Focus Academy on the list of those whose state testing results showed “anomalies” that the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) is currently investigating, media attention has been directed anew at Focus founder and current leader Abdirizak Farah. With a criminal case against him long-since settled, no state law requiring him to be removed despite the conviction, and Focus’ sponsor saying that the school is “running pretty well” under him, Farah remains at the helm. It is possible that a negative finding from the DEW investigation could change that calculus, but Focus’ sponsor seems to be in “watch and see” mode for now. Meanwhile, however, retired school administrator and school choice skeptic Denis Smith uses the Focus story as springboard from which to opine once again that charters “are underregulated and largely immune to transparency and accountability requirements.”

A tentative step forward in West Virginia

A public meeting is scheduled regarding a proposed new charter school in Huntington, West Virginia, intended to open in fall of 2027. This step forward is a tentative one, however, because the constitutionality of specific aspects of West Virginia’s charter law is still facing a state Supreme Court hearing. A moratorium on new charters is on hold until the court rules, but approval of the Huntington school still likely faces an uphill battle.

Upheaval in Indy

Last Friday, Indianapolis Public Schools announced that it was leaving Enroll Indy, the central enrollment platform that allowed parents to apply to both district and charter schools via a single website. Superintendent Aleesia Johnson said IPS would move all “application, lottery, and registration into PowerSchool — an existing platform our parents already know and use.” Enroll Indy’s board immediately condemned the move as “creat[ing] confusion and instability during a major transition for education in our city.” IPS cited significant cost savings as the main motivator of the move. However, Chalkbeat Indiana reported this week that Enroll Indy offered to drop its fees to zero for next year in order to keep the district onboard. That was not enough to change their minds. In a statement, IPS said, “Our decision…has always been driven by multiple factors, including cost-savings, operational improvements, and a commitment to providing a better experience for families and staff.” Thus it seems that harmony will remain elusive in Indianapolis when enrollment for the 2027-28 school year begins in earnest in November.

Upbeat in New Orleans

New data from Leaders for a Better Louisiana touts huge wins for schools and students in New Orleans, 20 years after the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina. Before the hurricane, more than 60 percent of city schools were considered “academically unacceptable” and the district ranked 67th out of 68 in the state. Now, New Orleans schools—almost all charters—rank in 39th place. Additionally, the city’s students are actually leading the nation in academic growth today–registering in the 99th percentile in reading and 98th for math improvement—and learning almost 34 percent more in a school year than the national average. A hard fought effort to benefit all students.

*****

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
Jeff Murray
9.18.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

News stories featured in Gadfly Bites may require a paid subscription to read in full. You have been warned.

  1. More report card analysis today, focusing generally on big picture stats including chronic absenteeism. Coverage includes our own Aaron Churchill’s downbeat assessment that “At its current rate of improvement, Ohio will return to pre-pandemic chronic absenteeism rates sometime during the 2030s.” Yowza. The OCJ also highlights a couple of below-the-line stats, including numbers of students experiencing homelessness and numbers of students using voucher programs in various districts. (Ohio Capital Journal, 9/17/26) This piece is specific to Cincinnati City Schools, whose overall district grade jumped from 2.5 to 3 stars this year. Aaron is on hand to remind us, however, that there are numerous components to the overall rating and that many of the district’s stats still lag pre-pandemic numbers. (Spectrum News 1, Ohio, 9/17/26)

  2. This Dayton Daily News coverage focuses on literacy gains and science of reading implementation statewide. Once again, Aaron’s (and everyone else’s) message is the same: Progress is good; but getting back to pre-pandemic levels is still a long way away. (Dayton Daily News, 9/18/26) Here’s a more detailed look at the same topic, courtesy of Patrick O’Donnell at The 74. Despite everyone’s positive assessment of progress made so far using science of reading in Ohio (“I think [the progress] is real,” says Elyria-based literacy specialist Andrea McKenzie. “We’re not seeing a setback… It’s really sticking in fourth grade right now too.” How nice.), O’Donnell writes that “there are still reasons to be unsure if the science of reading shift is bringing sustainable results.” Specifically, he points to the increase in the number of third graders scoring as “limited”, the state’s lowest rating, in proficiency this year. Luckily for him and all other SoR skeptics, Aaron has just the fix for that little issue locked and loaded: bring back mandatory retention. (The 74, 9/18/26)

  3. OSU prof and Fordham senior research fellow Vlad Kogan is back on the opinion pages of the Dispatch this morning, issuing a crushing demolition of the latest upbeat report on (and media coverage of) the impact of the Columbus Promise community college scholarship program. “Hasn’t he already done this before, and thoroughly so?” I hear all 11 of my loyal Gadfly Bites subscribers asking. (Why yes, we have had a small uptick in subscribers recently. Thank you for noticing!) He has indeed, but this go-round is extra devastating because he doesn’t even have to use his own words to do it. The sunny optimism being reported is belied by the researchers’ own findings…even if the truth is buried deep in Appendix F. (Columbus Dispatch, 9/18/26)

  4. Here’s a look at the Cleveland-Browns-owning Haslam family—recently ranked as the 33rd-richest family in America by Forbes—and their extensive philanthropic contributions to K-12 education in Ohio and beyond. These include support for the Breakthrough Network of charter schools, the statewide Stay in the Game student attendance initiative, and (delightful news to me) my beloved Metro STEM schools here in Columbus. (Signal Cleveland, 9/14/26)
     
  5. Speaking of school choice (were we…?), here’s a national story about voucher programs for students with disabilities with a key Ohio focus. It’s ultimately even-handed, I would say, although the reportage leans negative/anti-voucher to my ears. But things even out, I think, when you look at the important details provided by the two profiled families. As I saw it, they dealt with lots of changes in services—and service needs—for their children over several years. That is typical of school choice generally in my experience, and probably even more so for students with special needs. The parents were able to find multiple schools/settings/services for their children via public and private schools—even if no single setting or set of services worked all the time. And while they received information and support (and, most critically, had access to more than just one educational option thanks to vouchers—hallelujah) along the way, they could clearly have used even more of both. And indeed I can almost guarantee they will need still more information and support going forward, because my professional and personal experience indicates that where these families are at the end of this profile piece—acceptable school placement or not at that moment—will not be working the same way in two or three years from now. The school choice journey is hardly ever one-and-done, and that’s a positive lesson to take from this piece….even if it’s not the lesson intended. (Hechinger, 9/14/26)

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

Policy Priority:
School Funding
Topics:
Governance
The Education Gadfly
9.18.2026
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

WHAT WE’RE READING

Alec Thompson looks at how Scotland abandoned its Great Tradition, a curriculum centered on content knowledge within a common core of subjects. Writing before the latest PISA scores showed Scotland tanking across the board compared to England, Alec discusses how abandoning a common course of rigorous study in favor of skills-based learning led to declining student achievement. It’s a fascinating history lesson on Scottish schools and another sign that England was right to embrace a content-rich curriculum.

EXTRA CREDIT:

Jennifer C. Berkshire, “Americans Are Turning Against School Vouchers”

Allysia Finley, “Yes, Children Really Are Getting Dumber”

Mike Goldstein and Jenny Anderson, “Natalie’s HS volleyball team cut 40 girls during tryouts. They didn’t find another sport: they found their phones”

Emily Hamilton and Yonah Freemark, “One big reason nobody’s walking to school anymore”

Rick Hess, “Schools of Distraction”

Joanne Jacobs, “NY regent: Testing students is like asking a fish to climb a tree”

Liam Julian, “Students are self-censoring in civics class”

Pat O’Donnell, “We’ve been treating college as a career plan, but it’s failing too many students”

Kathleen Porter-Magee, “The quickest way to expand school choice is to fill empty private school seats”

Jason Riley, “The SAT Didn’t Create the Education Gap”

Alex Wolf, “What is happening with the Texas Education Freedom Accounts?”

Editor's note: This was first published on Mike Petrilli's Substack, SCHOOLED, a free Substack and email newsletter restarting the education-reform conversation. Click here to subscribe for sharp analysis of the week’s biggest K–12 debates, curated commentary from across the ed-policy world, and lively discussion—including reader reactions and pushback.