The Education Gadfly Weekly

When Mayor Nan Whaley came into office in 2014, she showed great political courage in making education a top priority, something no Dayton mayor in memory had done. To galvanize public support for change, she formed a broadly-representative City of Learners Committee, held “listening sessions” throughout the city, and published two reports updating citizens on the committee’s progress. The committee—and Mayor Whaley—have rightly identified preschool, afterschool and summer learning, business partnerships, mentoring, and (as discussed below) high-quality schools as urgent needs that, if successfully tackled, would definitely improve education in Dayton. That’s something just about everyone living in or near the Gem City recognizes as a grave shortcoming in our community.

For this to happen, more high-quality schools are absolutely essential; but this is where the City of Learners Committee hasn’t gotten it quite right. Its newest report, published earlier this month, uses 2013-14 state data to rank Dayton’s district and charter schools in three categories: high, intermediate, and struggling. Unfortunately, it paints a rosier-than-reality picture of actual school performance, thus giving a misleading impression of the depth of today’s school-quality problem.

Last year (2014-15), the Dayton Public Schools were the lowest performing of 610 Ohio school districts on the Ohio Department of Education’s performance index, a measure of student proficiency. Indeed, the district’s report card (as conferred by ODE) shows that in grades 3-8, not even 35 percent of students were proficient in mathematics.

Given the high level of poverty in the district, it’s not surprising that DPS schools struggle with the performance index, a measure of achievement that is considerably affected by students’ socioeconomic circumstances. That is one reason why Ohio also calculates schools’ value added, i.e., the extent to which students’ performance at year’s end surpasses their performance at the end of the previous year. That’s a reasonable way to compensate for background factors in kids’ lives. Yet DPS’s value added isn’t any better than its performance index. In no primary or secondary grade did the district make even a year of growth, and in some grades, the lack of student learning was staggering. In total, more than 9,500 students attended a district school last year that was rated D or F on both the state’s performance index and its value added measures. Put another way, 88 percent of district students were enrolled in a poorly performing school. And lest anyone think that 2014-15 was an aberration due to the use of new tests, consider this: For the last three years in a row, two DPS schools – Wogaman and Westwood – have been rated F for both performance index and value added.

Deepening the challenge, Dayton’s weak academic performance isn’t limited to district schools. Though our analysis shows that charter schools fared slightly better than DPS schools in 2014-15, the sector has far too many low-performers of its own. Last year, more than 3,500 Dayton charter pupils—almost three-quarters of the total—were enrolled in poorly rated schools. While no charter school received all Fs the past three years straight, two of them (Imagine Woodbury Academy and Klepinger) did so on the newest report card.

Not all is bleak, of course. The city is rightfully proud of a handful of outstanding public schools, including Dayton Early College Academy (DECA), Stivers School for the Arts, and the David H. Ponitz Career Technology Center. In addition, three charter schools—Dayton Leadership Academies – Dayton View Campus and two of the Richard Allen Academies—deserve commendations for their A rating on value added in 2014-15. Sadly, however, schools such as these educate only around one in ten of Dayton’s public-school students.

The remedies devised by the City of Learners Committee and Dayton’s civic leadership are well intended but insufficient, and they are unlikely to have any substantial impact on the quality of schools in Dayton. The committee identified boosting teacher talent as the primary strategy to address the issue of school quality, and three area universities – the University of Dayton, Wright State, and Miami University – will commit to expanding or creating urban teacher academies. This is a fine idea, but it will have scant near-term impact by itself: There are, after all, fifty-three district and charter buildings in the city, and the need is urgent. Getting all children kindergarten-ready via good preschool programs is also an excellent idea, but it amounts to little if children are well prepared for kindergarten only to be routed into dire district and charter schools.

Such grim facts call for a bold strategy of transformation: The community needs to expand or replicate high-quality schools in both sectors and also to demand more aggressive intervention in the worst schools.

Dayton’s outstanding schools need to be provided the support, buildings, training, and development to grow and educate more kids. (DECA will have elementary, middle and high school campuses this fall.) These schools are unmatched community assets and must be challenged—and assisted—to do even more for more children. They should serve more children across more grade levels at more locations throughout the city.

Just as important as expansion of the strong is closure of the weak. And we mean closure, not tepid intervention; research is clear that school turnarounds almost never succeed. We need to shut down the city’s worst performers – district and charter alike – while making room for their students in strong schools. As a charter authorizer, we at Fordham have closed schools; we know firsthand how painful that is. Yet dooming generations of children to classrooms that we all know will not put them on a solid track for either college or career—and will likely land them squarely back in the cycle of poverty, if not worse—is simply unacceptable. In School Closures and Student Achievement: An Analysis of Ohio’s Urban District and Charter Schools, we directly examined the question of what happens to children in failing schools when those buildings close. The researchers found that displaced students make significant gains in math and reading after enrolling in different and superior schools.

Dayton today seems to lack the fortitude to deal forcefully with the wretched achievement of far too many of its young people—and to take the drastic actions needed to overhaul both DPS and the city’s charter sector. Yet our inaction relegates further generations of promising young minds to failure and poverty. In the end, that’s our fault, not theirs. Without significant and far-reaching change, it is unrealistic for us to expect that anything other than the status quo will continue. Mayor Whaley’s educational priorities and those of her committee are fine as far as they go, but they don’t go nearly far enough.  A stronger education vision and policy is needed. We must grow what’s working and close what’s not—and do so quickly. The children of Dayton do not have time to wait. 

If you follow Ohio education news, you’ve likely seen coverage of the breakout success of College Credit Plus (CCP). Local papers have called the program a “big hit” after participation numbers in the fall reached nearly thirty-two thousand students. Anecdotes abound from students and families who say the program saves them time and money and provides valuable experience. But what exactly is it? And is it better than the dual enrollment models of the past? Let’s take a look.

Dual enrollment of yesteryear

Prior to CCP, Ohio’s Post-Secondary Enrollment Options Program (PSEOP) was the primary way for high schoolers to earn college and high school credit simultaneously. PSEOP was established in 1989 by the General Assembly for students in grades eleven and twelve, expanded in 1997 to grades nine and ten, and then restricted in 1999 to students with a GPA of 3.0 or higher. Despite the program’s potential, a report available through the Education Resources Information Center (ERIC) labeled PSEOP “under-utilized” because of low participation numbers. In its first year, only 630 students participated; that number increased tenfold by 1997–98, but still only reflected a 2.5 percent participation rate. Reports of 2010–11 numbers show only 11,342 participating students. The ERIC report also found that districts were reluctant to promote the program because it was funded by transferring money away from the district to post-secondary institutions. In addition, many educators “resent[ed] the loss of their strongest students.” A 2005 brief from the Ohio Association for Gifted Children contended that some districts even discouraged participation in PSEOP by making it “difficult or impossible for students to participate in extracurricular functions such as sports or clubs.” In short, the program had some serious flaws holding it back.

Enter College Credit Plus

CCP was created via a state budget bill and officially began in the 2015–16 school year. Just like PSEOP, it offers students the chance to earn high school and college credit at the same time, but legislators addressed many of the issues that had limited previous participation. For instance, students are eligible to take part in CCP beginning in seventh grade rather than having to wait for high school. All students in Ohio—including those who attend private schools or are homeschooled—are eligible to participate.[1] CCP offers students three ways to earn college credit: by taking a course on a college campus; through a college course delivered at the student’s high school by a credentialed teacher; or via an online course. To participate, students must declare their intent to their school counselor by April 1. Before registering, students must be admitted to the college based on college readiness—a decision that’s determined by GPA, end-of-course (EOC) exam scores, and other available student data. Once admitted to a college, students can register for any course the school offers (except for those that are considered remedial or religious) as long as they are deemed college-ready in the subject.

In keeping with the purpose of dual enrollment, a student’s successful completion of a three-credit-hour college course counts for one Carnegie unit of high school credit. While earned credits can be applied toward high school graduation requirements, CCP does not replace all state requirements for earning a diploma—including requirements related to graduation tests. All CCP courses are factored into a student’s high school GPA and weighted the same as AP and IB courses of the same subject in their district. This means that if a student fails a CCP course, they receive an F grade on their high school and college transcripts, and the F is calculated into the student’s GPA at both institutions.[2]

Students who choose to seek credits through a public college aren’t charged for tuition, textbooks, or fees; students who opt for a private college may be charged, though there is a maximum charge amount. Funding is determined by the Ohio Revised Code, which mandates that the state pay the cost of CCP for public school students by withholding a specified amount of the district’s per-pupil funding (which is the same mechanism used by PSEOP). For the 2016–17 school year, districts will be charged up to $166 per credit hour for a student to attend a course at a college or online; $83 for a student to complete a course in a high school that’s taught by college faculty; and $41.50 for a student to complete a course in a high school that’s taught by a high school teacher who meets credential requirements.[3]

CCP: The benefits

Many of CCP’s benefits are direct responses to the weaknesses of PSEOP. For instance, districts are required by law to provide program information and counseling services to all students in grades 6–11 prior to March 1, and they must allow any student in grades 7–12 who qualifies for college admission to participate. For students who suffer from Ohio's course access problem, CCP offers a chance to take classes that aren’t offered by their school without paying out of pocket or searching for a new school to transfer to. For families with gifted or advanced students, CCP is a chance for acceleration even as early as seventh grade (though very few middle schoolers will be mature enough to take advantage). While some folks may accurately argue that AP and IB are great programs that already fulfill this need, the fact remains that many high schools in the Buckeye State don’t offer IB and only offer a small (or even nonexistent) slate of AP courses. For students in high-poverty rural and urban areas, CCP may be the only way to take high-level courses in basic subjects, let alone electives.

Furthermore, beginning this year, students will be permitted to participate in CCP during the summer. The privilege of extending education into the summer months has long been limited to affluent families, thereby widening the opportunity gap. CCP is a chance for low-income families to seize academic opportunities during the summer months. It’s also a chance for all families to combat “summer slide.” The ability of students to opt for an online course or for districts to house college courses on high school campuses means that even students without reliable transportation can take part. Enrollment in CCP doesn’t affect a student’s athletic eligibility (though OHSAA eligibility rules based on grades still apply), so student-athletes can also enjoy CCP’s benefits. Perhaps the greatest benefit is that in the midst of rising college costs and student debt, CCP offers Ohio students a chance to earn college credit, explore possible majors, and get a taste for higher education without taking on massive financial responsibilities.

A potentially controversial but important component of the program can also be found in CCP’s eligibility requirements, which permit only college-ready students to enroll. This restriction is critical for two reasons. First, it ensures that only students who are academically prepared for the rigors of college are able to participate—a safeguard that prevents students from the double-whammy of a failing grade on both their high school and college transcripts. Second, a student who is ineligible for CCP one year can still become eligible the following year if they are able to demonstrate college readiness; this could provide students with more motivation to work hard to reach the college readiness bar. A college freshman who isn’t college-ready, on the other hand, has no options except expensive, non-credit-bearing remedial courses.

As with anything in education these days, CCP has its naysayers. Many of the complaints are put forth by districts that dislike the way the program is funded. But in the age of school choice, districts may need to ask themselves if the cost of CCP is less than the cost of students transferring elsewhere—whether to a homeschool environment or to a private, charter, or open-enrollment school—in order to find courses that their home district doesn’t offer. Districts should also note that the “prepared for success” component (which goes into effect in 2015–16) on Ohio's school report cards provides an incentive for districts to support CCP: Districts are given additional points toward their grade for each student that earns CCP credits.

Overall, CCP is a far better dual enrollment program than its predecessors. It offers free college credit to Ohio students while maintaining important safeguards for academically unprepared students. The provisions in state law requiring that students be given program information and counseling are a step up from days past, when many students were unaware of post-secondary opportunities. Ohio policy makers deserve kudos for making CCP a reality.

A new publication by Tim Sass and colleagues examines the effect of charter high schools on long-term attainment and earnings. The study builds on others by the same authors, as well as a working paper of the study released over two years ago.

The authors focus on charter high schools in Florida, where they can access a wealth of data from the state department of education’s longitudinal database. That information includes various demographic and achievement data for K–12 students, as well as data on students enrolled in community colleges and four-year universities inside and outside of Florida. (The latter info was gleaned from the National Student Clearinghouse and other sources, and employment outcomes and earnings are merged from another state database.)

The sample includes four cohorts of eighth-grade students; the first cohort enrolled in 1997–98, the last in 2000–01. They are able to observe labor outcomes for students up to twelve years removed from their eighth-grade year.

Before we get to the results, let’s address the biggest analytic hurdle to be overcome: selection bias—meaning that charter school students, by the very act of choosing an educational alternative, may be different in unobservable ways from those who attend traditional public schools (TPS). Indeed, the vast majority of the paper discusses not the findings but the various attempts to address this inherent issue in virtually all choice impact studies. Absent randomized lottery data, the authors limit their sample to students who were enrolled in charter schools in eighth grade, positing that they all possess similar unobserved characteristics. They then divide them into two groups: treatment students who enrolled in charter schools again in ninth grade and control students who switched to a TPS. The analysts also match students on observable baseline characteristics such as family income and eighth-grade test scores.

This is a very reasonable approach. But it is not without its flaws, as the analysts readily admit—especially since “back-end selection bias could occur through the comparison students’ choice to exit the charter sector after eighth grade.” By targeting a “typical transition year,” however, they reason that this bias is less significant than initial selection into the charter sector because nearly all are enrolling in a new school regardless of whether they are changing sectors.

And now for those results.

First, charter high school enrollment is positively linked to educational attainment. Specifically, there is a six-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of earning a high school diploma within five years and a nine-percentage-point increase in the likelihood of attending college. There is also a positive relationship between charter high school attendance and college persistence (defined as attending college at least one semester in consecutive years), with roughly a twelve-percentage-point boost for charter high school students. The latter also see the equivalent of a 12 percent increase in maximum earnings from age twenty-three to twenty-five (again, compared to students who attended charter middle school but transferred to a traditional high school).

The paper notes (as have others) that these results are particularly intriguing because prior studies have shown that charter schools in Florida have not impacted student test scores much. So, the logic goes, perhaps we shouldn’t pay much heed to test scores. Yet the literature is not clear on that point. (Even the study cited in the report as showing poor charter results finds that by year five, charters are on par with TPS in math and produce better reading achievement. Plus, that study does not target charter high schools, much less these charter high schools.)

Besides that, we can’t directly apply findings from one state to different charter schools in different states with different kids and different policies. (And quasi-experimental studies, especially, can’t remove every shred of bias due to unmeasured characteristics between treatment and control groups.)

Also remember that these are findings based on averages; yet kids attend specific charter schools. We simply don’t know if there are actual high schools that produce lackluster test scores but get impressive graduation, college completion, and earnings bumps.

So what’s the takeaway? First, there’s a growing body of evidence indicating that charter schools, along with Catholic schools, produce very strong real-world outcomes. Second, despite what others might imply, we should continue to judge high schools in part by their test scores—and shouldn’t shy away from shutting down the ones that, year after year, post dismal results for entire groups of kids.

SOURCE: Tim R. Sass, Ron W. Zimmer, Brian P. Gill, and T. Kevin Booker, “Charter High Schools’ Effects on Long-Term Attainment and Earnings,” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (April 2016).

Is career and technical education (CTE) a path into the middle class for today’s high school students? It’s certainly the goal as modern day CTE attempts to give students the skills and training required for long-term success in today’s high-growth industries.

Unfortunately, little is known about whether “new vocationalism” improves student outcomes. In an effort to shed some more light on the topic, Fordham partnered with Shaun M. Dougherty of the University of Connecticut to study CTE in Arkansas. The new report, Career and Technical Education in High School: Does It Improve Student Outcomes?, uses a rich set of data from the Arkansas Research Center (ARC) to follow three cohorts—more than one hundred thousand students—from eighth grade through college and/or the workforce.

The key findings include:

• Students with greater exposure to CTE are more likely to graduate from high school, enroll in a two-year college, be employed, and earn higher wages.
• CTE is not a path away from college: Students taking more CTE classes are just as likely to pursue a four-year degree as their peers.
• Students who focus their CTE coursework are 21 percent more likely to graduate high school compared to otherwise similar students (and they see a positive impact on other outcomes as well).
• CTE provides the greatest boost to the kids who need it most—boys, and students from low-income families.

We encourage you to take a look at the report by downloading it here. 

Editor’s note: This is the second post in a series about the performance of Ohio’s urban high schoolers. The first post examined graduation rates and ACT scores.

Recognizing that traditional four-year graduation rates send overly encouraging signals about whether students are ready for post-secondary education, Ohio rolled out six “Prepared for Success” measures in 2014 to create a more complete picture of high school success. In this post, I look at two of these metrics, Advanced Placement (participation rates and scores) and dual enrollment (percentage of students earning three or more college credits while in high school).[1] Three findings emerge.

First, while every Ohio Big 8 district fell well below the state averages for graduation rates and ACT scores, the same cannot be said for AP and dual enrollment. A few hold their own on AP participation and scores, and several outperform the state on dual enrollment. This likely reflects urban districts’ earnest attempts to close opportunity gaps for students, as well as their economies of scale and proximity to institutions of higher education, but it may also be caused by low state averages generally. Second, the data itself is worrisome: Much of Cleveland’s AP data appear to be incomplete, as does Toledo’s (according to a quick perusal of both districts’ high schools, it’s very unlikely that they have low or no participation in the program). These data will be rolled up into report card grades for the 2015–16 school year, so it’s imperative that state department of education staff and district leaders ensure data accuracy sooner rather than later. Third, far fewer students enroll in AP or graduate with college credit than appear to be ready for it (with “ready” defined as the percentage of students scoring advanced on Ohio’s Graduation Test). This suggests that Ohio is failing to challenge all of its high-achieving urban students.  

Advanced Placement

Across Ohio, one in five (20.6 percent) students enrolled in at least one AP course. AP enrollment varies widely across the Big 8, with Cincinnati (20 percent) and Columbus (19 percent) coming close to meeting the statewide average (Graph 1). Cincinnati is even piloting an online AP course access program, which should lift its participation rate further. Cleveland reports that just 0.2 percent of students enrolled in one AP course, yet a larger percentage (1.2) scored three or higher on AP exams. In other words, assuming that a student would need to take an AP course in order to pass it, Cleveland’s participation data appear to be underreported. It’s very likely that Toledo’s participation rate of zero is misreported as well. (A Google search of the districts’ high schools shows that AP is offered, and one assumes that at least a small number of students would take advantage of such offerings.) The lesson from Cleveland’s and Toledo’s suspect data—and an urgent one at that, given that report card grades will be affected by these data in just four months[2]—is that AP course enrollment must be reported and compiled accurately. Misreported data can lead to widespread data appeals and reporting delays and ultimately erode confidence in Ohio’s report cards. It also obscures vital information about schools’ offerings and student opportunities.

It’s interesting to compare participation in AP with the percentage of students scoring 3 or higher on an AP exam. Ideally, there would not be a cavernous gap between the two statistics. For instance, an encouraging three out of four Cincinnati students enrolled in AP scored a 3 or higher. While the participation rates were relatively high in Columbus and Dayton, however, few students passed their AP exams. This could be because more students are enrolled in AP courses than are academically ready for them. The discrepancy could also be due to the fact that students have to pay to take the AP exam. Low-income students may be eligible for exam fee reimbursement made possible through a federal grant, but the up-front financial costs might still act as a deterrent. 

Graph 1: Percent of class of 2014 enrolled in at least one AP course, and percent receiving an AP score of 3 or higher (on at least one exam) – Ohio’s Big 8 districts

[[{"fid":"115944","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"591","width":"1066","style":"font-size: 13.008px; line-height: 1.538em; width: 500px; height: 277px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

Dual enrollment

When it comes to students earning college credit while still in college through Ohio’s dual enrollment program, three Big 8 districts beat the state average of 10.7, with Youngstown leading the way (driven by the results of its early college high school). In comparing the two programs—AP versus dual enrollment—Youngstown strongly favors dual enrollment, Akron has nearly identical participation rates, and AP participation is more common in the other five cities. Districts may see the merits of one program over another and may not push students toward both, but encouraging participation in at least one program is important.[3]

Graph 2: Percent of class of 2014 earning three or more post-secondary credits

[[{"fid":"115945","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"549","width":"916","style":"width: 500px; height: 300px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

*As with AP participation, Toledo’s zero dual enrollment rate appears to be a reporting issue.

As graphs 1 and 2 indicate, most Big 8 districts have significant room to improve in their provision of both programs. Are schools failing to provide rigorous content to students who are likely ready for it? Or is low engagement driven by the fact that so many students in Ohio’s urban communities are ill-prepared academically?

To explore this question, I contrasted AP and dual enrollment data with Ohio Graduation Test data—specifically, the percentage of students in the class of 2014 scoring advanced (the state’s highest achievement level) in either reading or math on the OGT during their sophomore year. Theoretically, such students should be on track for rigorous coursework in high school. Some students, of course, may have switched schools between 2012 and 2014, so we’re not comparing the exact same group of students. It’s also unclear that testing at the advanced level on the OGT would predict success in AP or dual enrollment. But given the data, this is a fair starting point to begin examining opportunity gaps in urban high schools.

Table 1 suggests that at least half of Ohio’s Big 8 districts are under-providing (and/or possibly under-reporting, in the case of Cleveland and Toledo) AP and dual enrollment. In Akron, for instance, as many as 24 percent of students tested advanced in math as sophomores, but only half that many participated in AP or earned post-secondary credit by the time they graduated. On the other hand, Columbus and Dayton have a higher percentage of students enrolled in AP than what OGT advanced scores might have predicted. Are these districts somewhat “over-providing” AP and dual enrollment opportunities to students who may not be adequately prepared? In looking at building-level data, several high schools in both districts might be considered “over-providers”—the percentage of students scoring advanced on the state exam is far lower than those in the same class who go on to take AP or earn college credit via dual enrollment (Table 2).

Table 1: Percent of students (class of 2014) participating and earning college credit versus percent scoring advanced on Ohio Graduation Test, Ohio’s Big 8 districts

[[{"fid":"115946","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"458","width":"1217","style":"width: 500px; height: 188px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

*Cleveland’s and Toledo’s AP participation rates are likely underreported, as is Toledo’s dual enrollment numbers.

An even starker opportunity gap appears at the building level. Many urban high schools appear to offer neither program (one-third of those I looked at), whether due to an actual absence of provision or simply lack of reporting. Many others (one in five) had lower percentages of students taking AP or using the dual enrollment program than what their OGT scores would predict.

Table 2 lists those schools that were among the top quartile in AP participation and/or dual enrollment. These schools deserve credit for connecting significant percentages of students to college coursework or AP. Still, some high schools ranking in the top quartile of Big 8 high schools have room to provide even more, given what their OGT scores predict about students’ readiness for more advanced coursework. (Schools with higher percentages of students scoring advanced than those participating in AP or dual enrollment are highlighted in green.)

Table 2: Top-providing high schools for AP and/or dual enrollment in Ohio’s Big 8 districts

[[{"fid":"115948","view_mode":"default","fields":{"format":"default"},"type":"media","link_text":null,"attributes":{"height":"850","width":"588","style":"width: 500px; height: 723px;","class":"media-element file-default"}}]]

*Any of these schools could suffer from the same underreporting we observed in Cleveland and Toledo.
*Charter schools are italicized. In bold are percentages that earned a school placement in the top quartile for AP participation and/or enrollment among Ohio’s Big 8.

Ohio’s high school “Prepared for Success” report card measures add valuable information about whether students are truly college- and career-ready. However, readers should apply caution when interpreting this data. It appears that some districts—Cleveland and Toledo especially—may need to iron out reporting issues as soon as possible. Under-reporting appears at the building level as well, both for district and charter schools. Cincinnati leads the way on AP, and Youngstown has done a decent job connecting students to dual enrollment. But at least half of Ohio’s Big 8 districts appear to under-provide one or both programs, and even among the top-providing urban high schools, there appear to be more students ready for advanced content than are being provided access to it.

In a new policy proposal from Brookings, researchers suggest a straightforward way to help the thousands of students who fall behind each year to catch up: individualized tutorials. The proposal is based on a model developed in 2004 by Match Education at its high school. Match—a highly respected charter network with four campuses that span grades pre-K–12—implements a high-dosage tutoring program at all of its schools.

In 2014, Match formed SAGA Innovations as a vehicle to extend its model into traditional public school systems. It works like this: Two students who have fallen behind in math are paired with a single tutor. Tutorials occur every school day, in addition to regular math classes. The small tutor-to-student ratio allows for individualized instruction and meaningful relationships. Students begin at the lowest math skill they have yet to master and then progress into more advanced work as their proficiency improves. Frequent assessments measure progress and pinpoint new areas for growth.

To test how this program would fare in traditional public schools, researchers conducted a large-scale, randomized controlled trial during the 2013–14 school year in twelve disadvantaged Chicago high schools. With the help of Chicago Public Schools (CPS), researchers identified over 2,700 incoming male ninth and tenth graders who were at an elevated risk of dropping out. Approximately six hundred students were randomly assigned tutorial intervention, while the control group continued to receive the usual services provided by CPS. Ninety-five percent of participants in the study were either black or Hispanic, 90 percent were eligible for free or reduced-price lunch, and 49 percent had failed at least one course the prior year. Participants had also missed about a month of school on average and carried a 2.2 GPA.

Results from the trial are impressive. Researchers estimate that the program helped students gain between one and two extra years of math above what is normally learned in a single year. Students who participated in the tutorials also saw substantial gains in math test scores compared to the control group (as measured by ACT’s Explore and Plan tests and additional math achievement tests administered to a randomly selected sub-sample). Participating students improved their math grades, and the chances that they would fail their math courses were cut in half. Students improved in other subjects as well: Their chances of failing a non-math course were reduced by 25 percent. Finally, researchers found that the program narrowed the black/white test score gap by almost one-third in one year (though they also point out that this intervention would not cut the test score gap by that much every year).

Of course, no policy proposal would be complete without a discussion of costs. The researchers note that the program spends about $3,800 annually per student, but they estimate that this amount could be lowered to $2,500 per student if the program were delivered on a large scale. The authors suggest that districts use Title I funds or take advantage of ESSA’s new provision allowing states to reserve up to 3 percent of funding for “direct student services” such as tutoring. (In most places, though, federal funds won’t be nearly sufficient.) Finding enough tutors is another important question, though the researchers have a clear answer for that as well. Match currently operates their program with thousands of students in several cities but continues to receive approximately 5–20 applications for every opening. Overall, despite the high cost, Match’s individualized tutorial program is a promising idea—one that struggling districts would be wise to consider.

SOURCE: Roseanna Ander, Jonathan Guryan, and Jens Ludwig, “Improving Academic Outcomes for Disadvantaged Students: Scaling Up Individualized Tutorials,” Brookings Institution, (March 2016).