The Education Gadfly Weekly

Setting a high standard and then backing away from it the way Ohio policymakers have done repeatedly over the last few years is not wise governance. It leaves schools and students in a constant state of flux, makes it difficult for schools and parents to evaluate progress, and communicates a lack of faith in the state’s students, teachers, and schools.

The development of a strategic plan for education offered policymakers a clear opportunity to get something right after years of getting it wrong—a chance to propose rigorous and data-driven academic goals and then actually stick to them. Unfortunately, that opportunity passed by unseized. Rather than propose an ambitious goal, the plan does the opposite. It proposes something so vague and easily achievable that policymakers won’t need to back down because schools and students won’t have any trouble achieving it. Take a look:

Ohio will increase annually the percentage of its high school graduates who, one year after graduation, are:

• Enrolled and succeeding in a post-high school learning experience, including an adult career-technical education program, an apprenticeship and/or a two-year or four-year college program;
• Serving in a military branch;
• Earning a living wage; or
• Engaged in a meaningful, self-sustaining vocation.

To understand why this goal is so weak, let’s take it apart piece by piece. The first thing to know is that Ohio currently doesn’t have data on how many of its graduates meet these conditions, meaning that there is no baseline against which to measure progress. There is also no clear statement in the plan on how the state would actually collect these data moving forward, other than a note that the department will “pursue data sources and data-sharing agreements.” Another aspect that sticks out is the vagueness of “increase annually the percentage.” There’s no mention of how much of an annual increase is expected. As a result, it’s possible that the percentage of graduates who meet the goal could increase by a miniscule half percent and the state would be able to declare success.

The phrase “one year after graduation” is also problematic. Considering most students graduate in May, would Ohio track postsecondary enrollment the next May—when most students are finishing up their first year in college—or in August, when their second year officially starts? That’s an important question because  statistics show that 30 percent of college freshmen drop out after their first year of college (possibly inflating post-secondary “success” rates), and because an increasing number of students are taking gap years (deflating success rates).

Regardless, the one-year timeframe is still way too short to measure outcomes and declare success or lack thereof. Just because students are enrolled in an educational program one year after high school graduation doesn’t mean they will persist in the program. In fact, data show that many students who initially enroll in college never earn a degree. The most recent report on college completion rates from the National Student Clearinghouse found that, within six years of starting college, 12 percent of students had not earned a degree or certificate but were still enrolled, and another 31 percent had dropped out entirely.[1] A good chunk of those dropouts are students who had to take remedial courses—data show that most remedial students never go on to graduate—and millions of them are saddled with hefty student loan debts after they leave campus. Quite a few of them are first-generation college students. Based on Ohio’s strategic plan goal, though, none of that matters: As long as students are enrolled in any program one year after they graduate, who cares if they ever go on to earn a diploma?

To be fair, Ohio’s K–12 system doesn’t bear sole responsibility for college completion or degree attainment. Much of that responsibility also falls on the higher education system. But the preparation students receive during their secondary years is instrumental to their success in postsecondary programs. The K–12 system should bear at least some of the responsibility for outcomes, and completion and attainment—not just one year of enrollment—should be the goal.

The bullet-point list for how students can meet the goal is also problematic. The first requires a student to be “enrolled and succeeding in a post-high school learning experience.” The plan is right to acknowledge that college is not the only post-secondary option; career-technical programs and apprenticeships are important pathways that are also worth measuring. But there is no explanation of what “succeeding” means. Does it refer to grades or GPA? If so, what’s the standard? Does it refer to credits earned? And—perhaps most importantly—is a student who had to enroll in one or more remedial courses considered “succeeding?” Ohio’s most recent remediation numbers show that 30 percent of first-time Ohio public college students from the class of 2016 required remediation in either math or English. That means thousands of students wasted money and time re-learning what they were supposed to learn in high school. These students may earn good grades and go on to earn a diploma, but they should not be considered evidence of K–12 success. True evidence of success would be readiness, not remediation.

The most worrisome option is the last one, which aims to count students who are “engaged in a meaningful, self-sustaining vocation.” There is no explanation of what constitutes a self-sustaining vocation—the previous option mentions earning a living wage, so readers are left to wonder whether “self-sustaining” means earning less or more than a living wage. It’s also unclear who, exactly, will determine whether a vocation is meaningful. Considering the lack of detail, this option seems to be a catch-all: Even if a student is not enrolled in an education program, isn’t serving in the military, and doesn’t make a living wage, they can still be counted amongst the percentage of graduates who have met the goal as long as they have a job that is meaningful (to whom, we’re not sure) and self-sustaining (in what way, we’re also not sure). 

What’s left out of the goal also matters. In discussing the plan, State Superintendent DeMaria noted: “The goal statement shies away from the traditional academic measures that we are using and says what we’re trying to do is prepare students for success, and let’s think about what those students are doing one year out from graduation.” And indeed, the plan doesn’t mention any grade except twelfth and includes nothing about academic mastery.

It’s true that outcomes for twelfth graders are reflective of the entire K–12 experience. And the plan does say that the department will “establish intermediate progress indicators” to gauge whether students are on track to meet the goal as they progress through the system. But that’s going to be close to impossible to do since the goal explicitly “shies away” from academics. Other than making sure that students continue to move from one grade to the next, how could the state possibly measure whether students are on track to earn a living wage or serve in the military?

Moving away from academic competency in the name of vague measures of “success” is a terrible precedent. The ultimate goal of any K–12 system is to teach students academic content and skills. Sure, there are non-academic competencies that matter. And kids are more than grades and test scores. But academic learning should be the core of schooling—and it should concern parents that the state’s strategic plan has all but dismissed it in favor of undefined and potentially-gameable measurements.

It should also concern folks that the plan ignores goals set by other Ohio initiatives—goals that are far more ambitious, specific, and focused on academics. The state’s ESSA plan, for instance, contains achievement and growth targets for each grade level and various subgroups of students. Attainment Goal 2025, an initiative of the Ohio Department of Higher Education, aims to increase the percentage of Ohioans who have a degree, certificate, or workforce credential—a measure of actual attainment, not just enrollment. Given that the strategic plan is supposed to “guide development of state-level education policies and promote high-quality educational practices” for the next five years, it seems strangely out of line with the goals championed by other important statewide priorities.

When done correctly, goal-setting can help identify priorities, motivate the right behaviors, and hold people accountable for progress and achievement. Good goals are SMART: specific, measurable, achievable, relevant, and time-bound. Close investigation of Ohio’s strategic plan goal shows that it does not reflect many of these descriptors—and that’s not just a missed opportunity, it’s a shame.

Last Thursday, Ohio released annual school report cards that offer parents and communities an objective review of the academic performance of its roughly 600 districts and 3,500 public schools. Much of the focus has understandably been on the “bottom line,” as this year’s reports included for the first time overall A through F grades that combine the many separate elements of the report card, much like GPAs do for students. In cities like Dayton and Columbus, the bottom-line F’s assigned to their school systems naturally made for depressing headlines.

Nobody should ignore or excuse the district-level results, as they speak volumes about the leadership and governance of those school systems—and about the often-challenging demographics of the children who fill them. But it’s also important to dive deeper and look at campus-level data. After all, children attend schools where education is actually delivered. It’s doubly important in Ohio’s major cities, as children have many school options—including public charters and district-operated schools—that vary widely in their report-card ratings. These differences are important for families to see and understand, as they should influence parents’ decisions about where to enroll their children. They’re also critical for civic and philanthropic leaders wishing to expand excellent high-poverty schools that narrow achievement gaps.

Let us, therefore, review the performance of district and public charter schools in Ohio’s “Big Eight” cities of Akron, Canton, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Toledo, and Youngstown. Of the 260 charter schools that received A–F ratings, 197 were located in the Big Eight.[1] (This analysis excludes dropout-recovery charters which receive alternative report cards.)

When it comes to overall grades, the first thing to notice is that a number of individual schools in the Big Eight did much better than their districts. Although six of those districts earned F’s (Cincinnati and Akron were the exceptions with D’s), 26 percent of their schools earned a respectable C or above, and a handful received A’s and B’s. A similar story emerges for charter schools located in the Big Eight: 32 percent earned C’s or better. Among them are consistently high-performing elementary and middle charters, such as Columbus Collegiate Academy, as well as top-flight high schools like Dayton Early College Academy. (Both are authorized by the Fordham Foundation.) Considering that the average grade for a school in Ohio this year was a C, it means that these high-poverty schools are doing better than average, despite their more challenging demographics.

So there are bright spots, urban schools producing a solid education. But they are in the minority. What’s not as good is that about 70 percent of Big Eight schools received overall D’s or F’s (including a few that Fordham sponsors, as well).

Figure 1: Overall ratings for Big Eight district and charter schools

We can gain additional insight by turning to two key components of the Ohio report-card system: the overall value-added (VA) measure and the performance index (PI). For more than a decade, Ohio has used value-added statistical methods to gauge the impact that districts and schools have on student achievement when it’s tracked over time. This is what many refer to as “student growth.” Because value-added controls for students’ baseline achievement, the results on this measure are less correlated with poverty than measures of proficiency or graduation rates, so it’s key to understanding the effectiveness of individual schools and districts. Meanwhile, PI has long been used as a measure of overall student proficiency in a school, with greater credit being given when students reach higher achievement levels. The metric is essentially a weighted proficiency rate.

Figure 2: Overall value added ratings for Big Eight district and charter schools

As Figure 2 illustrates, 20 percent of Big Eight charters received an A on VA, as did 13 percent of district schools. The slight charter school advantage on VA ratings mirrors the results from the prior two years.

Although they are by no means conclusive, these encouraging results—sustained over multiple years—suggest that brick-and-mortar Big Eight charters may be moving the achievement needle a little faster than their district counterparts. But on a more sobering note, a majority of both district and charter schools received F’s on VA, indicating that many thousands of students are not making the growth needed to reach high achievement standards.

Figure 3: Performance index ratings for Big Eight charters and districts

Finally, let’s consider the PI ratings. Similar to years past Ohio’s urban schools perform poorly on this report-card indicator. Across the Big Eight, 92 percent of charters received a D or F, as did 90 percent of district schools. These ratings reveal again the achievement struggles of urban students who often come from less advantaged backgrounds and are falling short of performance benchmarks that, to Ohio’s credit, are more stringent than in years past. Yet these PI ratings still remain important to our understanding of urban school quality. All students, no matter their circumstances, should be expected to meet high academic standards, and should be provided with the supports necessary to do so. It’s critical to weaken the link between poverty and achievement—and this should remain one of the principal goals of education reform.

In summary, the results from the Big Eight are bleak. Seventy percent of urban schools received D’s and F’s as their overall grades. Roughly 90 percent are underperforming on the state’s performance index. And perhaps most distressingly, about 60 percent receive low value added ratings. Taken together, these figures indicate that lessening the challenges of poverty is hugely challenging. But it’s not impossible, as a few schools are beating the odds and helping students make the progress needed to reach high achievement levels. Those schools, both district and charter, are worth studying, emulating, and embracing.

***

Every year, Ohio’s school report cards elicit different responses—sometimes positive and sometimes negative. As we consider the results, it’s important to remember that the core idea behind report cards isn’t to cheerlead or denigrate schools. Rather, it’s to offer parents and communities objective reviews on the academic health of their local schools so that they can make better informed decisions and engage in productive ways. District-level ratings are a great place to start, but they don’t tell the whole story about education in a city or community. For that picture, we need to examine school ratings—and this year’s results show that, in the Big Eight cities, there are bright spots, but also many more areas for improvement within both the district and charter school sectors.

As part of the XQ Institute’s continued efforts to reinvent American high schools to better align with the modern world, it recently released High School and the Future of Work, a guide for state policymakers that outlines how they can encourage meaningful change in their states.

The bulk of the guide is devoted to outlining specific recommendations for encouraging innovation. These recommendations fall into three major categories: empowering local communities, making diplomas meaningful, and getting teachers the tools they need. Although Ohio has already implemented a few of the recommended strategies, there are others that policymakers have not yet advocated for but should. Let’s take a look.

Empowering local communities

In order for real innovation to occur, policymakers can’t just foist changes onto local schools. Reform must either be led by local communities or done in collaboration with them. That’s why XQ recommends that states use pilot programs to test out innovative new approaches in schools that are ready and willing to participate. In Ohio, one such example is the competency-based education pilot, which was created as part of a previous state budget. Five sites were chosen to implement the pilot for three academic years, with annual reports accompanying each. (2018–19 is the final implementation year.) Going forward, Ohio should invest in more pilot programs like this—especially at the high school level, where innovation could revolutionize not just readiness and achievement but student engagement. It’s also important for state leaders to widely disseminate the results of such pilots, so that other schools can learn from positive experiences and steer clear of those that didn’t work effectively.

Making diplomas meaningful

According to XQ, high school diplomas lack meaning for students in two ways. First, the route to earning one is often unengaging, uninspiring, and unchallenging; students are bored and going through the motions instead of engaged and inspired. Second, earning a diploma doesn’t guarantee that the student has mastered essential knowledge, skills, and competencies. Significant majorities of college instructors and employers have reported that recent high school graduates arrive at college or the workplace with gaps in their preparation.

XQ offers eight steps for how state policymakers can make diplomas more meaningful. One of these strategies—challenging students to take college-level courses—is already underway in Ohio thanks to the statewide College Credit Plus (CCP) program, which offers students the chance to earn high school and college credit at the same time. Districts are required by law to provide program information and counseling services to all students in grades six through eleven, and they must allow any student in grades seven through twelve who qualifies for college admission to participate. The program is limited to students who have demonstrated college readiness, and stark participation gaps based on race and economic status deserve close scrutiny. But overall, the breadth of available courses and the various ways to participate have allowed far more students to access challenging courses than in previous years.[1]

Another important step is for state leaders to support high-quality career and technical education (CTE) programs. This is another area where Ohio excels, especially given its recent partnership with New Skills for Youth (NSFY). State leaders are using communications strategies to increase student enrollment in programs that align with employer needs, and have prioritized making connections between K–12 and postsecondary education and employers. The state’s most recent budget bill required the Ohio Department of Education to develop a framework for schools to use to grant high school credit to students who demonstrate subject competency through work-based learning programs. And members of the Ohio NSFY team are in the midst of working to develop criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of various career pathways. To take these efforts to the next level, state policymakers should advocate for increased data gathering and research within the CTE sector. For instance, developing a data system that links K–12 and workforce data would allow leaders to expand approaches that are particularly effective and eliminate those that aren’t working.

Getting teachers the tools they need

If state leaders are interested in providing high schoolers with new ways to learn, they must also provide teachers with the time, support, and resources to make it happen. Teachers may have thousands of instructional materials to choose from, but they have very little time to study them closely, compare them, and make informed decisions. XQ suggests that Ohio policymakers fill this gap the same way Louisiana did—by setting up independent quality reviews of instructional materials and creating incentives to use higher-quality materials. Officials could also invest in open educational resources (Ohio used to have an online clearinghouse for resources but no longer does), or sponsor competitions and prizes for interdisciplinary teams to develop innovative curricula, interventions, or learning platforms designed specifically for high school students. A good place to start would be a revamped and fully-funded version of the Straight A Fund, which supports ideas from local educators that promote academic achievement and long-term cost savings.

XQ also recommends that states upgrade their educator preparation and certification policies. There are two innovative approaches in particular—teacher residency programs and alternative certification routes—that Ohio should consider. Residency programs would offer prospective teachers a considerable amount of clinical experience, and programs that are embedded in innovative high schools could become laboratories for innovation. Alternative certification, on the other hand, would allow high schools to employ professionals from various industries and fields outside of K–12 to share their expertise with students. It could also help recruit nontraditional candidates and career-changers into schools, especially in hard-to-staff subjects.

***

The policy recommendations outlined above are just a few of the strategies put forth in XQ’s latest guide. Although Ohio has made great strides in some areas, others deserve more immediate attention. Funding and widely disseminating the results of innovative pilots, improving and gathering data on the state’s CTE sector, and supporting teachers through effective preparation and access to high quality, rigorously vetted instructional materials should be important priorities for Ohio policymakers in the coming years.

NOTE: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute occasionally publishes guest commentaries on its blogs. The views expressed by guest authors do not necessarily reflect those of Fordham.

Postsecondary enrollment marks a critical transition point for students after they graduate high school.  It’s important that students enroll in some form of postsecondary education opportunity beyond high school—whether that be college, advanced training, or the military. This is particularly true for low-income students and other underrepresented populations. Unfortunately, a 25-percentage-point difference exists between high- and low-poverty schools (52 percent and 77 percent, respectively) when it comes to enrolling in college in the first fall after high school graduation.

In Ohio, students have a variety of options that can help them transition from high school to college. Most people have heard of College Credit Plus (CCP), but the lesser known early college high schools (ECHS) provide an important pathway to college—particularly for low-income students.

In fact, according to the Ohio Department of Education, ECHS programs must prioritize:

• Students who are underrepresented in regard to completing post-secondary education

• Students who are economically disadvantaged, as defined by the Ohio Department of Education

• Students whose parents did not earn a college degree

ECHS provide mostly low-income students with an academic roadmap that accelerates them through a rigorous high school course of study, helping students earn transferrable college credits while still in high school, at no additional cost to the students or their families. At many schools, students graduate high school with both a diploma and an associate degree. Other benefits for students, families, and the community at large include:

• Creating a seamless transition between high school and college

• Providing dedicated staff to guide and support students throughout their blended high school and college experiences

• Supporting career pathways aligned to the local economy’s needs that can help create a pipeline of future skilled employees for the community

• Benefitting colleges and universities by creating a pipeline of students for their four-year degree programs

While both early college high schools and College Credit Plus are offered free to students across the state, there are some key distinctions, including the number of credits a student can earn per year and the level of student supports offered, as well as populations served. Unlike CCP, early college high schools have formal relationships with higher education institutions, classes are required to be sequenced between college and high school, and students receive supports to acclimate themselves to college-going culture. (A KnowledgeWorks infographic captures many of the similarities and differences.)

In an editorial for The Morning Journal, Cathleen Phillips of Lorain County Early College High School explained the difference succinctly: “College Credit Plus is a way to earn college credits early. Early college students are attending college early.”

As CCP has continued to grow, a few questions have started to arise around how it might impact early college high schools. A recently enacted provision from the Ohio Department of Education provides some clarity by allowing ECHS to request an exemption from the requirements of College Credit Plus, provided the program meets the ECHS standards and is approved by the Superintendent of Public Instruction and the Chancellor of Higher Education. This gives early college high schools the flexibility they need to serve their unique population of students and differentiate themselves from CCP. Importantly, the new, more robust definition of ECHS ensures that these successful schools will be able to do what they do best: provide all students, especially some of our most vulnerable ones, with the support they need to succeed in a rigorous environment.

There are multiple ways that an Ohio high school student can get college credit, but each method has its own strengths and weaknesses. Early college high schools increase access to higher education while also providing the critical support students need to succeed. If we’re going to make progress toward closing the massive 25-percentage-point postsecondary enrollment gap between high- and low-poverty schools, it’s imperative that we empower these schools to continue serving students.

Geoff Zimmerman is Senior Director, Impact and Improvement, for Knowledgeworks

K–12 education in America is making greater and greater use of digital resources. Schools are using them for ease (group collaboration via Google Docs), expense (electronic textbooks and curricular materials are cheap and easily distributed), and convenience (group chats and electronic grade reporting make necessary communication quick and uniform). Additionally, the workplaces into which graduates will emerge run on digital devices—even in more traditional fields such as medicine and manufacturing.

It is easy for those of us old enough to have memories of yesterday’s analogue world to minimize this evolution. We adapted to email easily enough and were quick to trade our pagers for flip phones, after all. But the more that non-electronic alternatives bow out and the more our world is run by digital natives, we ignore inequitable access to technology at the peril of our young people. A new brief from ACT, Inc. shines some interesting light on the status of technology access among today’s students.

A group of ACT researchers surveyed a random sample of 7,233 American students who took the ACT as part of its national administration in April 2017. Students were asked a series of questions about the availability and use of electronics at home, including the number and kinds of electronic devices they had access to, the type and reliability of the internet connections available to them, and how often they needed to use their home devices and internet access for various school-related activities. The good news is that 85 percent of respondents reported having access to between two and five devices. The bad news is that 14 percent of respondents reported having access to just one device.

That wouldn’t be such bad news if it was the right device—such as an internet-connected computer. Unfortunately, for the majority of these students, their sole device is a smartphone. Despite advances over the last ten years, smartphones are of course poorly adapted for writing papers, doing research, and completing typical homework assignments. Additionally, nearly half of these single-device students (47 percent) have access to the internet only via a monthly cellular data plan. While unlimited data plans are more readily available and cheaper than in the past, they are not universally available and often lack strong coverage even in urban areas. To say nothing of rural dead zones. These less-than-reliable connections can further limit the usefulness of any given device, especially in regard to unplanned work or long-form assignments. This may be foreign for those of us with unlimited broadband access, but anyone counting minutes of data (perhaps sharing them with other family members, including other students) or struggling with signal strength will at one time or another have to sacrifice today’s thorough work for the sake of tomorrow’s access. Although the most-reported school activity engaged in via electronic devices by all students was checking grades (kudos on the diligence!), the next five were variations of homework, research, writing papers, and student/teacher communication. Across the board, students with access to a single device reported engaging in all these activities less than students with access to two or more devices, with smartphone-only students engaging in them less than all other students in the survey.

Those of us with ready and automatic access to powerful technology and the breadth of the internet cannot dismiss the “digital divide.” Technology use in the work world, in college, and in the military is on an unrelenting advance. We cannot accept such a divide in K–12 education. Students trying to research and write papers on a phone with a monthly data plan is tantamount to malpractice. However, the complete solution to this problem does not rest on the education system. Universal broadband access, called for in ACT’s recommendations, is a civic responsibility. Those efforts can be aided by private enterprise, as can the expansion of access to fully functional digital devices—laptops with word and data processing software built in, educational apps, and search engines—for students. These devices, especially for high schoolers readying for the leap to college, should be required school supplies, and every effort should be made to ensure they have them.

SOURCE: Raeal Moore, PhD, Dan Vitale, and Nycole Stawinoga, “The Digital Divide and Educational Equity: A Look at Students with Very Limited Access to Electronic Devices at Home,” ACT, Inc. (August, 2018).

Editor’s Note: As Ohioans prepare to elect a new governor this November, and as state leaders look to build upon past education successes, we at the Fordham Institute are developing a set of policy proposals that we believe can lead to increased achievement and greater opportunities for Ohio students. This is the second in our series, under the umbrella of ensuring seamless transitions to college or career. You can access all of the entries in the series to date here.



Proposal: State agencies should connect, or allow a research university to connect, students’ K–12 and higher-education records with workforce data, such as wages, career fields, or unemployment records. This proposal may not require legislation but would require state leadership to coordinate between agencies and ensure a secure IT system that protects sensitive personal information. With an integrated information system, the state could then begin reporting (though not necessarily use for formal accountability purposes) workforce outcomes by high school or college and university. 

Background: For more than a decade, Ohio has reported extensive data on K–12 student outcomes on its school report cards and in publicly accessible databases. These data systems are integral to transparently reporting proficiency and growth on state exams, graduation rates, and ACT and SAT scores—at a state, district, and school level (individual student data are protected under federal and state law). More recently, the state has also reported how many of a high school’s graduates go on to attend college or earn degrees. Taken together, these data on student outcomes—from state test scores to college completion rates—are essential to helping educational leaders and the public understand how students fare on key indicators of success. But there remain information gaps, most notably in the realm of workforce outcomes. Without links between K–12 and workforce data, we don’t know how many non-college-bound students land good paying jobs after exiting high school, nor do we have a strong grasp of the labor outcomes of those who do pursue higher education. Because of these blind spots, Ohio continues to miss key pieces of the puzzle—how students’ educational experiences translate into career outcomes. A 2017 policy brief by the Education Commission of the States highlights how Connecticut and Rhode Island have created integrated systems that connect K–12, higher education, and workforce data. Similarly, researchers have used linked data from Texas and Arkansas to study the impact of charter schools and career and technical education on workforce outcomes. 

Proposal rationale: A central goal of K–12 and postsecondary education is to prepare young people to lead successful and productive lives. But without data that connect education to the workforce, policy makers know little about how educational institutions are meeting that objective. Linking disparate data systems would also help state leaders better understand gaps in career preparation, while promoting cutting-edge research that examines the effectiveness of various approaches to work readiness. 

Cost: The exact cost is indeterminate but likely requires administrative expenses to create a secure, unified educational and workforce data system.
 

Resources: For more on the state’s initiative to link K–12 and college data, see ODE’s “2016–17 College Graduation Within Six Years.” For examples of state initiatives to connect information systems, see Zeke Perez Jr.’s 2017 article “Examining SLDS Development and Utility,” published by the Education Commission of the States. For research linking K–12 and workforce data, see “The Long-Term Impacts of Teachers,” in which Raj Chetty and colleagues connect New York City data with tax records; a 2016 paper “Charter Schools and Labor Market Outcomes” by Will Dobbie and Roland Fryer that connects Texas K–12 and workforce data; and a 2016 Fordham Institute report Career and Technical Education in High School by Shaun Dougherty that links Arkansas K–12 and workforce data.