Gadfly Bites 7/8/26—So many moving parts

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

Post-vacation edition covering 6/24 – 7/6/26.

1. Let’s start our recap with a few follow-up items from our last regular news clips/snarking service. First up is another look at SB 19, signed into law by Gov. DeWine on June 24. Fordham’s own Chad Aldis is quoted extolling the virtues of the math instruction provisions of the bill. The final version included a number of other education law changes not commented upon by Chad in this piece. But if you run into him on Capitol Square, feel free to ask him about it. I’m sure he’ll be willing to share. (Cleveland.com, 6/25/26)
   
   

2. Next we have Fordham senior research fellow Vlad Kogan continuing his efforts to draw attention to the weak outcomes and enormous price tag of the Columbus Promise program in this Dispatch op-ed. He reiterates the points he made in his initial Ohio Gadfly blog post and comments on some critical responses published in its wake. “To the extent that my critics disagree with me,” he writes, “it seems to be on whether we should evaluate Columbus Promise based purely on the number of students who begin community college – regardless of how well they do – rather than the much smaller number who actually earn a credential.” Those defenders, Kogan says, describe the purpose of the program as “dramatically expand[ing] the pipeline of students from Columbus City Schools who have the opportunity to go on to post-secondary education.” But true pipelines, he reminds us, must actually lead somewhere: “A program that gets many students in the door only to see the vast majority fail and leave is not a pipeline,” he concludes, “it is a road to nowhere.” Brutal…and true. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/26/26)
   
   

3. Back in mid-June, tiny Jefferson Township Local Schools made headlines when they fired all of their school principals (all 2 of them) and all their cafeteria workers to try and stave off a giant budget deficit. If you were concerned that the district’s 250-ish students would be leaderless and lunchless come the fall, fear not. Somewhere, the elected board found $225K to hire a catering company and an undisclosed amount of money (?!) to hire two new administrators whose job duties include principal-ish stuff amid a long list of other responsibilities. Bound to be a banner year out there, amiright? (Dayton Daily News, 6/29/26)
   
   

4. Speaking of money (seriously: when aren’t we talking about that filthy green stuff?), here’s a piece that baffles me somewhat. It covers the findings of a committee convened by Columbus City Schools, analyzing individual school buildings’ academic returns on investment. Specifically: This is how much money goes into a given building, and this is how the students perform academically. I get the impression they were aiming to answer the question of “how much does it really cost to educate a student?”—which is laudable and important—but man did they open (in my opinion) a can of worms. The first two examples—presented at a meeting of the elected school board and covered in this piece—used the district’s two single-gender academies, likely because it was easiest for them to compute (small student body, unique specialty services, probably siloed expenditures). They found that the district spends a whopping $450,000 per math-proficient student at the boys-only academy and $180,000 per English language arts-proficient student. And while things are quite a bit better in the girls-only school—population 200—at $78,000 per math-proficient student and $35,000 per ELA-proficient student, this all just sounds really bad to me. Part of the issue is undoubtedly the very small number of students in the school (just 100 kids in a building equipped for hundreds more), and I have no doubt that district leaders will respond to these findings by saying, “See, we’re right: Expenses don’t decline commensurate with smaller enrollment,” and “See, we’re right: We need more money to educate our students.” But there’s another, bigger problem: The percentage of students reaching proficiency is just a fraction of the tiny whole. The committee also reported the average cost of educating a middle school student in the district overall and at each of the two academies, resulting in a much more reasonable range (from $13,000 to $35,000). But if I’m reading this correctly, those costs must be understood as not educating students to proficiency, but simply to successful promotion to high school. There is no further discussion of this latter point—as I’m sure the elected school board doesn’t have any idea how to message about it if they indeed even understand what their own report has found—but it seems really important to me to reiterate. Bottom line for me: Any school that can educate students to proficiency for less money (and $450K seems a pretty easy bar to clear in that regard) should be seen as a better option than Columbus City Schools. (Columbus Dispatch, 6/25/26)
   
   

5. Meanwhile… We can forget the investment part and just focus on the return part with this piece, in which we learn that Columbus City Schools is under investigation by the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce for undefined “testing anomalies” at two high schools. No matter what is ultimately found to have happened, the fact is that all test scores for all students in all grades in those schools have been invalidated and efforts are ongoing over the summer to get as many students as possible to retake those tests—including a handful of kids who graduated in May with what could be an invalid diploma. A huge and costly mess, for which only students will likely experience consequences. (Columbus Dispatch, 7/2/26)
   
   

6. This op-ed urges the elected board members running Cincinnati City Schools to consider the impacts of a cancellation or scaling back of the EdChoice Scholarship program (as the result of a putative voucher groucher lawsuit win) on the district’s enrollment and finances before deciding whether to ask voters for new levy funds. “This is not an argument for or against EdChoice. Nor is it an argument for or against a levy,” writes Dennis Doyle, who is a member of the “Enquirer Board of Contributors” (whatever that is) but does not appear to have any special interest in education. “It is,” he avers, “an argument for informed decision-making.” Personally, I think Mr. Doyle is selling the elected board members short. Despite whatever money they are flushing down the toilet paying the various law firms involved in their voucher suit, these politicians remain clear-eyed on the potential for a payoff: Winning is a longshot; only a fraction of voucherless families would consider attending the district even if that longshot comes true; and a final decision either way is still several red-ink-stained budgets away. And they are using their actual knowledge in this regard to guide their decision making. (Cincinnati Enquirer, 7/5/26)
   
   

7. While I was out, Ohio apparently received a scarlet letter clickbait grade of F (38th worst in the nation!!!!!) in a report by some group called “Network for Public Education”. Cleveland.com’s Laura Hancock reports that Ohio was “dinged” because of its “charter and private school voucher policies”. That is: Because we have such policies at all, which is of course Very Bad, thanks for asking. Stop the presses indeed. (Cleveland.com, 7/1/26)
   
   

8. Finally for our June/July catch up edition: Jason Segedy, identified here as the former director of urban planning for the City of Akron, opined last week on the topic of Akron City Schools closing more school buildings as a result of years of declining student enrollment. Specifically, he remembers a couple of buildings closed during his tenure which were left by the district to rot unsold and unused. A bad situation in every respect. With many more schools likely to close this time—and Akron already in a “chaotic” state generally from population loss—Segedy argues that such costly blight cannot be allowed to happen again. He urges the city to help with their redevelopment ASAP. Mr. Former Planner does not propose selling Akron’s unused district buildings to charter or private school operators—the simplest possible “redevelopment” scenario for all stakeholders, and indeed prescribed in state law as the proper thing to do in such a situation—but I can’t go so far as to impute any anti-choice motives to that “oversight” within his ABJ op-ed. There were a lot of moving parts to his argument after all. (Akron Beacon Journal, 7/1/26) However, in this news report, we learn that Jason Segedy’s current job is deputy director of administration in the neighboring city of North Canton. He and his fellow civil servants and elected leaders there are working on the many moving parts of a sweetheart deal between the city and the school district to swap a number of properties between them—with no money changing hands, naturally—over the next few years. This includes a public pool that will, for some reason, be owned by the district but operated by the city. One elected city council member calls the twisty mess “absolutely a win/win for the schools and city”, regardless of how ridiculous it sounds (and there are a number of residents raising questions about said twistiness). But North Canton City Schools’ superintendent is even more clear as to who wins…and who loses. The deal, he says, will make certain that the district’s soon-to-close middle school building is quickly demoed and turned over to the city so that the building does not “end up in the possession of a charter school from outside the community.”  Given all this proof that our civil servants are operating according to their own agenda, I’m ready to revise my take on Mr. Segedy’s previous op-ed. Shameless. (Canton Repository, 7/1/26)

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