Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

Michael J. Petrilli
8.18.2025
Oklahoma town
Getty Images/Richard D. Affolder
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

First a bit of history: Before he got canceled during the #Me-Too Movement, Garrison Keillor headlined a very popular public radio variety show called “A Prairie Home Companion.” Most weeks, he regaled listeners with stories from the fictional Lake Wobegon, Minnesota; I remember listening to recordings of Lake Wobegon stories on a cassette tape player in my bedroom as a 12-year-old back in the 1980s. Like I said, history!

What does this have to do with education? Let me let Checker take it from here:

It's not easy today even to recall the stir created in 1987 when an obscure West Virginia physician and his never-heard-from-before one-man advocacy organization called “Friends for Education” released a little study titled “Nationally Normed Elementary Achievement Testing in America's Public Schools: How All 50 States Are Above the National Average.” Swiftly dubbed the “Lake Wobegon report” after Garrison Keillor's mythical Minnesota hometown where “all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking, and all the children are above average,” it rocked the testing and education policy worlds, which were still reeling from A Nation at Risk just four years earlier.

As Education Week's Bob Rothman reported at the time, “The overwhelming majority of elementary-school pupils nationwide score above the average on normed achievement tests, results from a controversial new 50-state survey indicate.... Based on the most recent results available, 90 percent of school districts and 70 percent of students tested performed above the average on nationally normed tests, the report estimates. Those scores are inflated because testing companies set norms that are artificially low, Dr. Cannell charged. Test publishers ‘want to have good news to sell to superintendents,’ he said in an interview.”

Let me repeat that: “Test publishers ‘want to have good news to sell to superintendents.’”

Fast forward to 2025, and Oklahoma State Superintendent Ryan Walters wants to take us all back to Lake Wobegon. That’s the best way to interpret his announcement that Oklahoma will no longer implement statewide testing and instead will return to letting local superintendents pick their own off-the-shelf diagnostic tests instead.

This would be a flagrant violation of federal law, which is why he is also developing a waiver request for the Trump Administration to consider (more on that below).

Those of us who think standards, testing, and accountability are important and have done a lot of good for American kids worry that this could open the floodgates to more states backing away from statewide testing—at least if the Trump folks allow them to do so.

As decisions go, this one should be easy. Secretary McMahon: Just say no!

(So far, her team has at least said “not yet.”)

Even the staff of Oklahoma’s governor, Kevin Stitt, thinks this idea is “short sighted.”

Plus, it would be an enormous gift to the teachers unions, who have been trying to kill statewide standardized testing—and results-driven accountability—forever. Which makes it all the more ironic that Superintendent Walters claims that testing is a “teachers-union approach.” Yeah, right.

There are plenty of other reasons that this would be huge setback:

  • As in the 1980s, letting districts choose their own adventure when it comes to testing would allow them to hire vendors that make them look better than they really are. That’s a good deal for superintendents, teachers unions, and other parts of the education establishment, but a raw deal for kids and parents, who will be told that all is well even if they are far from on track for success, and will lose the ability to compare schools to one another.  
  • Diagnostic (and “norm-referenced”) tests have several important purposes, but they aren’t necessarily aligned to state standards—what all students in a state are expected to know and be able to do to be successful in the job market and engaged in our democracy. Especially if tests don’t go through “peer review”—the main mission of which is to ensure alignment with standards—than ditching statewide tests amounts to ditching state standards, too. That turns back the clock at least thirty years! Yet waiving peer review is among the items that Walters is requesting.  
  • A key reason we need statewide tests, rather than a district-by-district patchwork, is to ensure that all students in a given state are held to the same high standards. Otherwise, we’ll return to a time when kids in the affluent suburbs were expected to meet challenging standards that prepared them for top-tier colleges—and kids in low-income rural and urban areas were told to make dioramas all day.

Superintendent Walters has a history of making splashy (and questionable) announcements that end up going nowhere. Nowhere—rather than back to the 1980s—is the right place for his testing idea to go, too.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Governance
Standards
Jeff Murray
8.18.2025
Private school expansion blog image
Getty Images/Rawpixel
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

This fall marks the third year that the EdChoice Scholarship program has been universally available to all families to cover private school tuition, regardless of family income. Initially, the universal expansion attracted mostly families whose children already attended private schools. After all, these families already had seats in the school they wanted and were well acquainted with renewal paperwork, uniform requirements, the tuition-payment grind, and other details. This was a reasonable and expected initial response to increased voucher eligibility.

However, voucher expansion is also intended to attract new students from families who have wanted a private option but who simply couldn’t afford it. This is a harder lift given all the hoops involved in applying to a private school and registering for the state voucher. For some families, it was likely complicated further by a dearth of schools or the lack of available seats in extant schools or in desired grade levels. If the voucher expansion is going to have a significant impact, it will require previously-non-participating schools to begin accepting vouchers, participating schools to expand their capacity, and the establishment of new private schools. Anecdotal evidence suggests that all three of these things are underway in the Buckeye State.

During the 2011–12 school year, the list of private schools accepting EdChoice Scholarship funds across the state comprised 322 buildings from kindergarten to twelfth grade. In 2023–24, that number was 450. This year, the final number will be above 500. Of all the private schools my wife and I considered for our children in Franklin County in 2011, none of them accepted the EdChoice voucher. By 2023, all but one had changed course. This is game changing for many Columbus-area families, and newsworthy all by itself. But wait. There’s more!

News reports show a slew of expansion activity at existing private schools across the state over the last few years. Schools are renovating to add more classroom and lab space, constructing whole new wings for things like grade level expansion and enhanced gym and arts programming, and even purchasing closed district or private school buildings to expand their space in one fell swoop. Controversially, the state is even helping to pay part of the cost of some of these expansions, using a tiny fraction of the funding provided in the state capital budget that nonprofits and traditional school districts use to build their playgrounds and science labs and other community-improving facilities. There is little doubt, however, that private schools are as integral to their neighborhoods and communities as many of these other recipients and funding such projects extends benefits far beyond school walls, whoever receives it.

The final piece of good news: New schools are also sprouting. It takes a lot to start a school from scratch, so this would be a lagging indicator of the impact of EdChoice expansion. But it’s clearly happening. A quick comparison of the rosters of private schools from 2022 to 2024 shows more than two dozen new schools established in the last two years. Not all of them accept vouchers, but most do; and more are coming. The newcomers run the gamut from church-based schools of many faiths to classical academies to nonsectarian schools. Most appear small and community-centric and seem to be focusing on younger grades to start.

News coverage of these start up efforts reveals dedicated educators embracing creative learning models aimed at specific populations of students whose families are likely looking for something different than a one-size-fits-all district school. And at least one is swinging for the fences in terms of the difference it aims to make in the lives of long-underserved students in Fordham’s home town of Dayton. Kudos to venture philanthropists like The Drexel Fund, whose support allowed the opening of Dreams Academy in Akron this year—a school for Black boys in grades K–2 intended to start them early on a positive and productive life path. Thanks to them, Dreams Academy is opening this month as a new voucher-accepting private school option for these families instead of the charter school model originally envisioned which, the founder says, would have taken several more years to launch. Drexel Fund’s Ohio portfolio includes half a dozen other schools, including the expansion of a longstanding Catholic program in northeast Ohio focused on serving students with special needs.

As good as all this news is, it does not represent the end of the story. That one private school my wife and I considered back in the day that still doesn’t take vouchers now? It is one of the most prestigious schools in the area, as well as a rare and sought-after non-religious one. Their reasoning for not participating in EdChoice is likely the same now as it was back then: that voucher amounts are not high enough to make a difference between families affording and not affording to attend. And they are not alone. But how do they know it won’t make a difference until they change their policies and see who shows up? And how can they be convinced to give it a try? A conundrum indeed, but universal voucher eligibility is a key starting point.

There are also many rural areas of the state with few or no private school options. These will be the slowest to experience the positive impacts of voucher expansion. But small schools are more likely to appear there now than ever before, thanks to universal vouchers, and hopefully other education catalyzers will—like the Drexel Fund—recognize the new opportunities across all parts of the state. Additionally, looming over all of this potential is the specter of student transportation—a longstanding horror for school-choice-using families in Ohio who must depend on districts to deliver their kids to and from school even though districts don’t want to and often aren’t very good at it even for their own students.

There is plenty of evidence that private school capacity has grown in Ohio in the wake of universal voucher eligibility. The next big leap forward for private school growth will begin as soon as the General Assembly finally takes the necessary steps to make transportation student- and choice-centric and allocate resources to the schools families really want and are actually attending. Our school choice ecosystem is blossoming, with more promise just ahead.

Policy Priority:
School Choice
Topics:
Private School Choice
Jeff Murray
8.18.2025
Gadfly Bites logo
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. Just sayin’.

  1. Let’s start with a story of charter, private, and STEM school student transportation troubles…but probably not the one you were expecting. On Friday Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost renewed his legal action against Columbus City Schools, noting that a) last year’s case against the district’s large scale determination of choice-using students as “impractical to transport” just sort of puttered out with no resolution, and b) the district has done the same thing again just ahead of the new school year. Like the worst imaginable sequel to “Groundhog Day”. (Gongwer Ohio, 8/15/25) Relatedly, Columbus City Schools is eyeing a deficit of $50 million on the horizon (I mean, 2029) if they don’t cut some costs. Lots of potential for reductio ad absurdum options I reckon, but here are two things not discussed in any detail that I would like to offer, both of which I would put in the category of self-inflicted budget wounds. First is that the emergency board meeting at which this impeding deficit was revealed took place in the district’s fully active downtown office complex, which the board back in December voted to close “before the end of the 2024-25 school year” and which could easily have already sold for more than $50 million if they’d actually bothered to do what they said they were going to. Second is that a fraction of their budget allocation of $10 million annually (?!) to pay fines related to improper transportation of charter, private, and STEM school students could be re-deployed to solve that problem permanently. But I guess if they did those two simple things, they wouldn’t have anything to gripe about, and who wants that? (Columbus Dispatch, 8/18/25)

  2. Here at last is the story you came for: An update on how Dayton City Schools families whose students attend district high schools are faring after the first week without any formal busing. It sounds to me like things are calm and orderly, with families and communities stepping up to help get kids to and from school as best they can. Superintendent David Lawrence, however, assures us—with, I reckon, more wishful thinking than actual evidence—such community support is unsustainable. (Is there a specific term for when “wishful” means “wishing for something bad”?) Specifically, he raises concerns about low attendance so far at Belmont High School, which is proven based on evidence about the number of lunches served. Reporter Eileen McClory notes that many many students attend Belmont—by choice—from the other side of town. (Wonder why that is?) And I will note that even with full operation of the high school busing plan the district is suing the state to bring back, the chronic absenteeism rate at Belmont was 65 percent in January 2024. Sounds like more “Groundhog Day” to me. Bossman also repeats his belief that the only way they can get a handle on busing is for the state to eliminate the requirement for transporting charter school students. (Dayton Daily News, 8/15/25) And indeed at least part of that old system is back in place again already because a Franklin County Court late on Friday granted a temporary restraining order against the state law that banned transit pass use by students in Dayton. We learn in this piece that the district is already distributing passes to all eligible students—including those attending charter, private and STEM schools—who want them. The rest of the legal case will follow in due time…probably. (Dayton Daily News, 8/18/25)

  3. Interestingly, in this companion piece from Eileen McClory, looking at how charter and private high schools handled their first week without district transportation, we learn that most have been going it alone for a while now after repeated failures of Dayton City Schools’ capricious and error-prone “plans”. That includes John Carroll Catholic High School (“DPS hasn’t bused students directly to Carroll in several years”) and the Fordham-sponsored Dayton Early College Academy charter school (DECA). CEO Dave Taylor says DECA is projected to spend about $1.3 million in transportation costs this school year. This includes contracting with a private bus company for some students and providing transit passes for others (“The RTA option has worked for our students historically”). About 40 percent of their transpo costs which will be reimbursed by the state. (Dayton Daily News, 8/16/25) As a helpful wrap up to all of this news about districts making the same mistakes over and over again to the detriment of kids and educational achievement, News 5 in Cleveland reminds us of some policy changes recently pitched by Ohio Senate Education Committee Chair Andy Brenner that he believes would at last incentivize districts to find proper solutions to solve the transportation troubles of school-choice-using families (and, I would humbly suggest, district families for whom getting to and from school every day isn’t exactly guaranteed either) once and for all. These include: Tightening the allowed definition of “impractical to transport”, significantly boosting the amount of payment given to parents in lieu of providing transportation to their kids, and giving state transportation funding directly to charter and private schools who take on the job themselves. Sounds like the only way to end our “Groundhog Day” nightmare. (News 5 Cleveland, 8/18/25)

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
The Education Gadfly
8.17.2025
Fordham Gadfly image
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...
  • The Chinese high school leaving exam’s English section is more challenging—in a foreign language—than SAT reading passages. —Yascha Mounk, Substack
  • “A century ago, men stepped up to build spaces for boys and were cheered on for doing so. The need today is just as urgent.” —Robert Putnam and Richard Reeves, The New York Times
The Education Gadfly
8.17.2025
Fordham Gadfly image
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Cheers

  • Tucson’s teachers led an effort to make testing more efficient, utilizing computer-based, adaptive tests to minimize lost instructional time while still gathering critical data to support student achievement. —Education Week
  • The Trump Department of Education put brakes on Ryan Walters’ plan to drop assessments required under both Oklahoma state law and the federal Every Student Succeeds Act. —KOSU

Jeers

  • Illinois leaders voted this week to lower cut scores so that more students are “proficient” on state tests. —Chalkbeat Chicago
  • Not to be outdone, the low expectations expand into North Carolina, where public schools can no longer fail students who fail to show up for class. —The News & Observer
Jeff Murray
8.15.2025
Ohio charter news logo
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.

School transportation in Ohio – Columbus’ checkered history

Following on from last week’s huge news that the Fordham-sponsored United School Schools Network will be taking over transporting their own students this school year, the Columbus Dispatch took a deeper look at the issue of charter (and private and STEM) school busing in central Ohio. Among those quoted anew were Fordham’s Aaron Churchill, who opined that “Districts have traditionally treated [choice students] as second-class citizens. And I think that’s really unfortunate that they don’t see them as residents of the district, whose parents are paying property taxes to the schools.” And while the Ohio School Boards Association’s transportation guru was newly quoted as saying “The sentiment that it’s ‘them versus us’ is not that way in the transportation department of districts,” he also opined that “If parents choose to send their kid to a private or nonpublic school, in my mind, the parent should accept some of the responsibility to get them there.” Among the classic quotes included in the mix was an elected school board member who once quipped during a previous tough year full of busing fails: “If you’re a charter school parent and your child can’t get to school, Columbus City Schools is a great option for your family. Our staff is better trained, it’s not located in a strip mall… Choose Columbus City Schools.”

School transportation in Ohio – losing the thread in Dayton

Two weeks ago, we discussed the fact that Dayton City Schools cancelled all transportation services for high school students for this school year rather than cobble together a last-minute plan destined to put school choice students second and likely to be another expensive, inefficient mess for everyone. However, the district also sued the state for outlawing the use of RTA transit passes for high schoolers, one of the reasons they say they were unable to offer transportation this year. While superintendent David Lawrence said that community members were the catalyst for the new legal action (“they want us to be a bit more aggressive”), it feels much more like an attempt to stick it to the General Assembly for a perceived slight. Meanwhile, state Senator Andy Brenner, Education Committee Chair, listed out some changes he might like to make to transportation law statewide. To wit: Tightening the allowed definition of “impractical to transport”, significantly boosting the amount of payment given to parents in lieu of providing transportation to their kids, and giving state transportation funding directly to charter and private schools who take on the job themselves. Any of these would be better than whatever will result from Dayton’s lawsuit. Guaranteed.

Are charters overregulated?

Education Next recently published an opinion piece which argued, among other things, that charter schools today are facing “regulatory creep” from state education agencies, authorizers, and other entities. Authors Robert Enlow and Michael McShane of the nonprofit education organization EdChoice said that further growth, innovation, and excellence in the sector will be stifled if regulation isn’t curtailed. “Broader, innovative, decentralized school options may be the road less traveled,” they concluded, “but it is the one that we should take.” In response, Fordham’s Mike Petrilli argued in a blog post that charter regulations arise from hard-won experience of “waste, fraud, abuse, bad ideas, poor execution, and all the rest that comes along with human imperfection,” especially from the perspective of authorizers like Fordham. The push for innovation and autonomy, he says, cannot be prized above commonsense regulation enacted with the best interests of students at heart.

Speaking of innovation…

Two interesting stories of innovative charter schools from across the country this week; one good, one less so. First up is the approval of a new skilled-trades focused charter high school coming to Ridgeway, South Carolina. The model will ensure that graduates leave school with both a diploma and a certification that could land them a good-paying job the day after commencement if they want to join the workforce right away. The Academy for Skilled Technologies is scheduled to open in fall 2027. Second, San Francisco Unified School District leaders recently proposed creating a Mandarin-immersion school—reportedly because district families were asking for it, but more likely in order to short circuit a citizen initiative to found a charter school on that model in the city, a move vocally opposed by the teachers union. This is an ongoing story with many twists and turns.

Good things (sometimes) come to those who wait

In a rare moment of serendipity, something good seems to have arisen from bureaucratic roadblocks designed to delay the expansion of a charter school in Miami. We talked several weeks ago about the Sports Leadership and Management (SLAM) network’s effort to take over a historic theater in downtown Miami—with the blessing of city council—to expand its arts and technology offerings and to steward the venerable Olympia into its second century. The haters were victorious in stalling what appeared to be a win-win deal for several months, but the delay has happily resulted in an even stronger plan that includes a new supporter (Miami Dade College) and a new dual enrollment pathway for SLAM students to access college credits. Amazing. There’s still another month until what should be the final council vote on the matter and anything can happen of course, but the momentum for a win-win-win seems strong right now.

*****

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
8.15.2025
Gadfly Bites logo
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. Just sayin’.

  1. This story devolves a bit at the end into some weird Monday morning quarterbacking on state budget initiatives, but the basic plot—how Lakewood City Schools in northeast Ohio has implemented the science of reading—is sound enough. In fact, superintendent Steven Ast recounts some new points in the saga that I haven’t previously heard. Such as: Having long-tenured teachers (those who remember when phonemic awareness/decoding/vocabulary previously ruled the land) made the transition less scary for their newer, three-cueing-aficionado colleagues. That even though he still has a “good bit of respect” for balanced literacy, once he realized it “wasn’t doing what it needed to do” for his students, he could kick it to the curb with a clear conscience. And because SoR works efficiently, his teachers still have time for “all those extra things” that also help kids love reading. I love a story with a happy ending. Don’t you? (The Land, 8/12/25)

  2. Here’s another saga with a happy ending—albeit an inexplicable one. Brandy Vickers, CEO of a new-ish student transportation company in Akron, recently won an award from the National Urban League in its Business Pitch Competition. Not only because she created her business from thin air, but also because that business won a contract with Akron City Schools to transport homeless and special needs students in the district. Nowhere does it mention that Vickers’ company came in fifth in the initial bidding and that it was only because the district changed the criteria after the fact that she could get the gig. Now she’s apparently being recruited by other school districts to serve them as well. That certainly does sound happy, but I have to say that the moral of this story escapes me (think about what you’re clapping for, people). But perhaps I’m just missing some Rubber City nuance unknown to folks outside the proper circles. (Akron Beacon Journal, 8/13/25)

  3. Finally though, here’s a story that I can almost guarantee will not have a happy ending, no matter how it turns out. As you recall from Wednesday, Dayton City Schools has sued the state over the budget language that forbids them from using RTA transit passes as part of their high school busing plan. (Dayton Daily News, 8/12/25) Despite the fact that the first day of school seemed to actually go pretty well without them from this district parent’s perspective… (Dayton Daily News, 8/13/25) …district supe David Lawrence insists that the community wants him to “be a bit more aggressive” in fighting to, I guess, get those RTA passes back again. Because of course that is one of the only two potential outcomes of the suit; the other being the current status quo. The first hearing was yesterday, with no decision made public as of this publication, but I hope everyone rooting for a win here (including the ridiculously-misinformed British press we lambasted on Wednesday) understands that any transportation eventually offered to district high school students must still also be offered to charter, private, and STEM school students. At least for now… (WHIO-TV, Dayton, 8/14/25)

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
Michael J. Petrilli
8.14.2025
Red tape
Getty Images/sirandel
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

Earlier this summer, Education Next published a post by EdChoice’s Robert Enlow and Michael Q. McShane, “School Choice Should Take the Road Less Traveled.” It was not my favorite take, to say the least.

The problem wasn’t so much their argument that private-school choice should be regulated differently than charter schooling. While I would quibble (and quarrel) on some specifics, I can appreciate that the rules for private-school choice should be different from those for charter schools. Otherwise we’d “de-privatize” private schools, and what would be the point of that?

No, what really bothered me was their claim—one I’ve seen many others make—that the charter sector once had great potential for innovation, but because of those dastardly authorizers and other red-tape-loving bureaucrats, charters instead became overly cautious, impeding innovation in a way that has hamstrung and limited the entire charter school movement. Here’s how Enlow and McShane put it:

Charter schools have been a school choice success but a limited one, facing increasing challenges through the years with overregulation and limited growth. Hailed initially as a way to dramatically remake education, particularly urban education, charter schools have been stymied in their impact by an authorizing and regulatory framework that has buried potential operators in the very bureaucratic structures charter schools were created to avoid. The sector has empowered a limited set of unelected functionaries to say no for arbitrary and capricious reasons. And, it has curtailed ways in which schools can experiment and try to educate children differently.

They go on to write that there should be lots more kinds of charter schools, and lots more charter schools overall, but that, by choosing overregulation instead, the charter sector committed “ an own goal, kicked into the wrong net by the very reformers that passionately advocate for charters..”

Jed Wallace, in a great piece for Charter Folk, admits that there is overregulation of charter schools in some states but also argues that that wasn’t an “own goal.” Those regulations were foisted upon the charter sector by opponents bent on containing or killing the sector. In deep-blue states like Wallace’s California, opponents really did insert poison pills into laws and regulations. A major goal of charter advocacy today is rolling back the rising tide of red tape.

But what about states where we see charter schools continuing to grow and succeed—those where policymakers are trying to help, rather than hurt, charters? Are their sectors overregulated, too? And is it true, as Enlow and McShane say, that a set of “unelected functionaries” has been empowered to say no to charter applicants for arbitrary and capricious reasons?

Those are fighting words—a direct attack on charter authorizers of which Fordham is proud to be one: We oversee about a dozen schools on 20 Ohio campuses, all high poverty, mostly urban, with one in the Appalachian region. We get proposals every year for new charter schools, and we have said yes to some and no to many. We’ve also worked to close schools that weren’t performing. Were we doing all of this for arbitrary and capricious reasons? Hardly!

We say no when we make a professional determination that the people proposing a new charter don’t have the expertise or experience to run good schools. The world is full of people with good hearts who have dreams for schools that they want to create, but they don’t have the know-how to do it well. For example, they don’t have a staffer or board member who understands finances. They don’t have a solid strategy for overcoming challenges related to facilities. Maybe they want to start a wonderful elementary school yet have never heard of the science of reading. Those are huge red flags.

We try to stay open-minded. For example, a few years ago, we approved a school that was focused on attracting a socioeconomically and racially diverse population in one of Ohio’s big urban areas. We thought the proposed curriculum was a little too loosey-goosey, but we understood from the founders that they wouldn’t be able to recruit upper-middle-class and White families into their school if they offered a “no excuses” type program. We were willing to give it a try. It didn’t work. It struggled to get enough enrollment, and eventually, they just didn’t have enough students to make the finances work. The school had to close.

Taking some risks is important. And I can imagine that some authorizers have opted to be very risk averse. Maybe they started a few bad schools or faced a scandal and responded by rejecting everything but sure bets. 

But is it also true, as Enlow and McShane imply, that there were scads of wonderful (potential) schools out there that authorizers rejected? That, were it not for the regulations (and regulators), the charter sector would be bigger and more innovative today? That does not line up with my experience, nor have I seen any evidence to back that claim.

And as for closing schools, maybe some libertarians think we authorizers are just looking at Excel spreadsheets and pushing a “close” button from far away. That’s not how it works. We know these schools intimately. Our teams spend time in them. We go to their board meetings. We work with their staffs. We interview their students. We know their parents. And guess what? Some schools just aren’t very good. It’s actually really hard to run an effective school. It’s difficult to run a multimillion-dollar nonprofit organization, which is what charter schools are. Some people turn out to be ineffective at managing these complicated enterprises, and some schools just turn out to be bad at teaching children what they need to learn. As an authorizer, we work hard to offer help, advice, and sometimes extra resources, but closure is occasionally the least-bad option.

To repeat: Private-school choice programs and the schools that participate in them should be regulated differently than charter schools. But differently does not mean “not at all.” Let’s embrace the potential for innovation but not be Pollyanna about the potential for waste, fraud, abuse, bad ideas, poor execution, and all the rest that comes along with human imperfection. In the meantime, let’s celebrate the very real success of the charter movement, and all of the people and institutions—authorizers included—that continue to make it possible.

Policy Priority:
Quality Choices
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Charter Schools
Governance
Private School Choice
Nick Gibb
8.14.2025
Student reading in class
Getty Images/AnnaStills
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

One could argue that the University of Virginia cognitive psychologist Daniel Willingham is one of the most influential Americans of the 21st century. Willingham has observed that we have learned more about how people learn in the last 25 years than in the previous 2,500 combined. His book Why Don’t Students Like School? examines how that recently acquired understanding can be used to accelerate learning.

Yet, however great his influence has been in the United States, it has been far greater in my own country, England. In fact, while the U.S. is perhaps the world’s largest exporter of educational ideas, it is an “equal opportunity exporter”—pushing out transformative ideas both powerful and catastrophically misinformed. Our efforts in England across a decade to understand the difference between good and bad ideas in education has led to a transformation of our schools from moribund to global leadership at exactly the time the U.S. has continued to struggle.

Many “progressivist” ideas that came to dominate teaching emanated from Teachers College Columbia in New York in the 1920s under such luminaries as William Heard Kilpatrick and John Dewey, based on the ideas of the 18th century Romantic philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. He thought that a rigorous academic education stifled the natural creativity and goodness of children; better to have them learn through “self-discovery” or projects than by teacher-led instruction, with less emphasis on the importance of knowledge and more on a set of amorphous skills such as learning how to learn and critical thinking.

These ideas carry different names and have different emphases. But whether it’s “constructivist,” “child-centered,” or “progressivist,” the results wherever they are tried are the same: a weaker education system where children’s life chances, particular those from poorer families, suffer.

Over time in Britain this ideology was increasingly absorbed by our schools, from the 1970s to its peak in the 2000s, and it did enormous damage to our education system. The U.K. plummeted down the OECD rankings of nations’ education standards, as measured by the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). In reading, the U.K. fell from seventh in the year 2000 to 25th by 2009 and in math from 8th to 27th over that period.

When the Conservative Party came into Government in the U.K. in 2010, the newly appointed Education Secretary, Michael Gove, and I were determined to reverse this decline, and to do this we knew we had to challenge the child-centered, progressivist ideology that we believed had been its cause.

In setting about our reforms, we were greatly influenced by the writings of another University of Virginia academic, E.D. Hirsch, Jr., whose book, The Schools We Need and Why We Don’t Have Them, challenged the progressivists who said what matters was not knowledge but skills such as critical thinking and problem solving. He pointed out that these skills (important though they are) come from having deep and broad knowledge and that schools that focused on these skills at the expense of knowledge would, counter-intuitively, fail to instill these very skills in their pupils. Only a knowledge-rich curriculum, properly taught, can help develop a student’s ability to think and to be creative.

Daniel Willingham’s research into cognitive science explained that higher-order thinking skills take place in the working memory, which is small—only able to handle half a dozen new pieces of information. Try asking someone to recite ten phone numbers you’ve just read to them. But, of course, all intellectual activity requires more than six bits of information. For Willingham, education is about ensuring students have access to vast amounts of knowledge, secure and understood, in long term memory.

The work of Hirsch and Willingham informed our far-reaching education reform program in England between 2010 and 2024, which has helped drive wholesale change to the quality of the curriculum, to teaching methods, and in the reading ability and math attainment of young people emerging from our schools. I believe it played a significant role in in England rising from 27th in math in 2009 to 11th in 2022 (the U.S. is 33rd).

In reading, we required schools to teach children to read using phonics, with them learning the 44 sounds of our 26-letter alphabet and how to blend those sounds into words. The alternative method, which swept the world from the 1960s, encouraged children to intuit a new word from the context of the story or the grammar rather than by sounding out the letters. Teaching reading using phonics has helped take England to fourth in the world for the reading ability of nine- and ten-year-olds (the PIRLS study).

Phonics is gradually being re-introduced around the world. In the U.S., broadcast journalist Emily Hanford, with her exposé of the scandal of the widespread use of failed methods for teaching children to read in American schools, is having an impact in many U.S. States through the science-of-reading movement.

And this is happening not only in the U.S., but in Australia, New Zealand, and parts of Europe, too. Six Australian States have introduced England’s Phonics Screening Check—a test for six-year-olds we pioneered in 2011 to ensure schools were teaching children to decode words using phonics. New Zealand is doing the same this year, and their Education Minister, Erica Stanford, has abolished their failed skills-based curriculum and replaced it with one based on a rich content of knowledge, as has Flanders in Belgium.

The insurgency has begun. Across the world, the failed progressivist agenda is being challenged and overturned. American thinkers and educationalists—such as Doug Lemov, who wrote the best-selling guide, Teach Like a Champion, as well as Willingham and Hirsch—are at the center of this movement. Is it too much to hope that their ideas will have even more impact in the United States?

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Accountability & Testing
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Emily Freitag
8.14.2025
Teachers in a school
Getty Images/DGLimages
Listen to this article
Loading the Elevenlabs Text to Speech AudioNative Player...

States can play a powerful role in improving student learning by improving instruction. I know this from my experience working at a state agency and from observing how the districts and schools that partner with my organization, Instruction Partners, orient to the expectations and initiatives of their state agencies.

I also know from those experiences that states can inadvertently hinder the very changes they seek to make. Ask the people who work with them most closely—district leaders—what they think of their state agency, and I bet you’ll hear things like, “too many requirements,” “lots of things to track,” and “not sure how the pieces fit together.” And if you press further into the details of the instructional moves being implemented in schools “because the state told us to,” you’ll find a myriad of disjointed approaches.

Three years ago, after noticing a pattern of our school and district partners being pulled in competing directions by the instructional requirements issued by their states, my team and I began working with state education agencies (SEAs) to take stock of and strengthen coherence across their instructional guidance, support, and accountability measures. Across five states, we reviewed hundreds of guidance documents and worked with leadership teams to (1) get clear on their core instructional strategies and (2) review how aligned the messages they sent to schools and districts were to those core strategies. 

Last month, we released a report, “The State of Instructional (In)Coherence,” based on our findings. 

Bottom line, we found that:

  • States send voluminous and conflicting messages about what instructional strategies schools and systems should pursue to improve student outcomes.

  • The burden adds up. In one state, we reviewed 74 guidance documents that detailed 21 required school- and system-level teams, 11 site visits per year, 16 needs assessments, 19 initiatives that provide technical assistance to leaders, and three sets of state coaches.

  • School and system leaders believe they have to do everything the state asks them to do at the same time to be in compliance and do right by students—even when trying to do all those things sets them up to do none of them well.

We found that SEAs can take productive steps to improve the coherence of their instructional guidance. And when they do, schools and systems (1) appreciate the flexibility and time back it gives them and (2) take better action, aligned to the state’s guidance.

We had four takeaways about how states can help create more instructional coherence.

1. Leadership has to make it a priority. Few things can make change faster than a chief who is willing to demand action and make hard calls. That said, the source of incoherence is rarely a chief—or any individual. Rather, it is the cumulative effect of unintended mixed signals from offices across the agency, which build up over time. Leadership has to be willing both to set expectations for coherent messaging and to get into the weeds to ensure the details of implementation match the vision.

2. The (productive) team fights come out when discussing money and measurement. Teams can agree on a shared vision and still have very different ideas about what the implementation of that vision will mean in practice. The conversations about what will get funded (and what will not) and what will get measured (and what will not) are the discussions that surface disagreements. For example, many states have multiple rubrics for instruction or needs assessments that school leaders have to complete. When states look to streamline those processes for school leaders, they have to engage with questions like, “if we could only look for ten things, what would we choose?” In our experience, such questions lead to disagreements between teams (and individuals), but negotiating those disagreements is a powerful mechanism to create a clear focus on what the agency is prioritizing as most important.

3. The P’s and Q’s matter. State teams are used to discussing the big ideas together but typically work out the details in silos—and that’s where incoherence comes home to roost. For example, if guidance on multi-tiered systems of support requires an assessment that meets certain criteria and the school improvement guidance requires an assessment that meets different criteria, then schools will end up purchasing and administering two assessments to address those two sets of state requirements. Negotiating the details together or creating processes that give other teams lines of sight and feedback loops on the details of rubrics, reporting requirements, or training materials is not common practice for most teams. When leaders insist that review processes for rubrics and needs assessments includes cross-team review—or even norming to a common glossary to ensure terms are being used consistently across the SEA—it typically involves significant change in how business is done.

4. Articulating what a team is not going to do is as important as articulating what it is going to do. Traditional state strategic planning processes are forward facing. They rarely involve looking back to eliminate old guidance, initiatives, and practices that aren’t aligned with new strategic goals. These forward-facing visioning and planning processes are good at surfacing everything teams want to be happening that’s not currently happening, but they don’t tend to account for what is currently happening. That is, the planning processes teams engage in almost never attend to what could be taken off leaders’ plates. Sometimes budget cuts force resource prioritization, but even then, the spirit of old guidance tends to live on because it’s rare for states to clearly articulate “this can be retired or updated.” In the teams that have done the most to help districts get really clear, we observed that they spent time and effort articulating what they don’t want to see in action or in funding requests and managing implementation of that change.

Unclear and incoherent state instructional guidance has a real cost for system leaders, teachers, and students. Every school and district leader can tell you—with conviction—how wide-ranging state requirements make an already hard job harder; how teachers grappling with ways to make it all work feel the burn, even if they don’t directly trace it back to state guidance; and how students feel it in their classrooms when they get disconnected interventions.

SEAs come by incoherence honestly. As someone who led a fair share of incoherent initiatives in my own state office, I can attest that state leaders themselves are pulled in many directions—from federal requirements to legislative mandates, from research trends to funding restrictions. But because of the unique role that states have in setting their own educational policies and practices, they are the only actors in the American education system with the power to manage and reconcile competing tensions. Because it is time-intensive and counter-culture to the way states traditionally organize efforts, most state leadership teams rarely choose to exercise that power. They may layer on initiatives, but they pass the tensions on to districts and schools. But, if they choose to step into a more active role in driving coherence, they can make an enormous difference for their systems, schools, teachers, and, ultimately, students.

Author’s note: “The State of Instructional (In)Coherence” details how SEA-issued guidance often advances incongruent, competing theories of instructional improvement, creating problems for educators and students. It also outlines steps state leadership teams can take to improve the coherence of the guidance and messages they send to schools and systems.

Policy Priority:
High Expectations
Topics:
Curriculum & Instruction
Governance
Teachers & School Leaders

Pagination

  • First page « First
  • Previous page ‹ Previous
  • Page 90
  • Page 91
  • Page 92
  • Page 93
  • Current page 94
  • Page 95
  • Page 96
  • Page 97
  • Page 98
  • Next page Next ›
  • Last page Last »
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]