Cleveland Metropolitan School District’s building closure and consolidation plan will help right the financial ship, but it also provides an opportunity to benefit students and families even more—if leaders will go the extra mile and make all public school options equally accessible.
In December, the school board for the Cleveland Metropolitan School District (CMSD) unanimously approved a building consolidation plan as part of its Building Brighter Futures initiative, which aims to take “bold action to right-size, stabilize, and secure a brighter future for CMSD scholars.” The plan will close 18 buildings, end five leases, and merge dozens of existing schools. Beginning with the 2026–27 school year, the district will operate 29 fewer schools.
Closing and consolidating schools is never easy. It’s understandable that families and community members might have concerns. But district officials are correct when they point out that declining enrollment (CMSD serves roughly 34,000 students today, down from 70,000 in 2004), increasing expenses, the cost of ongoing repairs and building upgrades, and a “looming” $150 million deficit are issues that can’t be ignored.
The consolidation effort—a move that is both courageous and smart—should put CMSD on better financial footing, as it will save an estimated $30 million each year. District officials have also noted that students will benefit. Among those impacted, 96 percent will attend a school with an equal or higher star rating, and 95 percent will attend a school located in a building that’s in equal or better condition.
Putting kids first is always the right move, even when it's difficult. So in that spirit, here’s another idea Cleveland should consider: a unified enrollment system that offers information on all of the public schools available in Cleveland and allows parents to apply with just one application.
To be clear, CMSD already has a unified enrollment system for the schools it operates. Each year, it publishes choice books, one for K–8 schools and another for high schools. These resources outline a set of common data points: school hours, star rating, whether the school offers pre–K and before/after-school care, electives, athletics, and student activities and clubs. Families and students can also use the district’s online School Finder to search for buildings near their home address. Each spring—hopefully after they’ve had a chance to peruse these resources—parents submit their school choices in the district’s School Choice Portal. CMSD’s website notes that the district’s goal is to “assign students based on the school preference” of their parent or guardian.
What CMSD doesn’t have, though, is an enrollment system that includes all of Cleveland’s available public schools, namely charters. Cleveland is home to over 50 charter schools serving more than 15,000 students. It’s a portfolio district, which means it provides families with “the freedom to attend a quality neighborhood school or another school that is a better fit for their child.” CMSD works alongside charters in three ways: as a sponsor (it sponsors six schools), as a partner (it partners with five additional schools to share local tax dollars, data, and best practices), and through the District/Charter Compact.
And yet, none of Cleveland’s charter schools—not even those that are sponsored by the district or are considered partners—appear in the 2026–27 choice books provided to families. Charters aren’t listed in the School Finder, either. In fact, even families who live across the street from a charter school and enter their address into the search tool won’t see the building that’s directly in front of them identified as an option. Cleveland families might live in a portfolio district that allows them to find the best fit, but identifying non-district public schools requires a lot of extra work from parents.
Given how serious Cleveland leaders seem to be about wanting to do what’s best for kids, a unified enrollment system should be their next step. Charter schools should be given the choice to be included in the district’s information distribution efforts, like choice books and the School Finder. They should also have the opportunity to be listed as options in the School Choice Portal when families log in to make their selections each spring.
It’s too late to do all that for the 2026–27 school year. But now is the perfect time to start planning for a system that could launch in 2027. The district’s consolidation plan means that, over the next few years, thousands of students will enroll in a new building or attend a school that’s been merged with another. Hopefully, most families will find that their new school is a good fit. But if it isn’t—or even if it is—CMSD should be providing every family with information about all their options. The district is already doing an admirable job of ensuring that families are well-informed about district choices. Now it’s time to expand those efforts.
For anyone still on the fence, consider the following benefits of a unified enrollment system that includes charter schools:
Plenty of urban districts—including New Orleans, Denver, and Washington, D.C.—provide families with a unified enrollment system that includes all public schools. As part of its effort to better serve families, Cleveland should do the same. CMSD already has an established history of working alongside charters for the benefit of students. Unified enrollment is the next step.
On April 15, Ohio’s brand new attendance dashboard went live. The site, which was first announced by Governor DeWine during his state of the state address in March, allows the public to track statewide attendance trends over time as well as weekly chronic absenteeism rates by district, school building, and grade level.
Given the seriousness of Ohio’s chronic absenteeism problem—and the implications for students if it isn’t addressed—it’s likely that many districts were already closely tracking attendance data. Hopefully, in schools where absenteeism rates have been particularly high, administrators already had systems in place to monitor real-time data, implement solutions, and measure the effectiveness of their efforts. If they weren’t doing so, the new dashboard leaves them with no excuse. Trends over time, numbers disaggregated down to the school and grade level, a closer look at different categories of students—it’s all there. The work has been done for them. School leaders just need to put the data to good use.
But what about districts and schools that were already tracking attendance data? Why should they bother with the statewide attendance dashboard? To answer those questions, let’s take a closer look at Akron Public Schools (APS).
Last year, APS had a chronic absenteeism rate of 43.5 percent. That number was slightly better than its 2023–24 rate of 44.7, but much, much worse than its pre-pandemic rate of 22 percent. According to its website, the district uses family liaisons—APS employees who “help families actively participate in their children’s education”—to do attendance outreach. As far back as 2022, district officials were already aware that attendance struggles were most prominent among high school seniors and kindergarteners, a clear indicator that they were tracking attendance data by grade level (just like the dashboard does). They were also using that data to try to improve: Student Services Coordinator Joshua Allen told the Akron Beacon Journal in 2022 that the district could “still change the outcome of these numbers by what we put into it.”
APS has gradually decreased its chronic absenteeism rate each year since 2022. But its most recent rate of 43.5 percent is still way too high. District officials need to do more to bring that number down. And Ohio’s new dashboard could help in three ways.
First, the dashboard does the work of separating students into attendance categories. At each level—state, district, school, and grade—the dashboard identifies the percentage of students who fall into one of four categories: Satisfactory (those missing less than 5 percent of class time); At risk (missing 5–10 percent); Moderate (10–20 percent); and Severe (more than 20 percent). This breakdown, along with the line graph trendline, reveals that the week of September 22, nearly 3,000 Akron students were already in the severe category. That means within a month of the first day of school (August 21), 16 percent of the district’s total enrollment had already missed 20 percent or more of school. Remember, chronic absenteeism is defined as missing at least 10 percent of instructional time for any reason. And before October hit, Akron already had thousands of kids who were on pace to blow right pass that threshold.
There were still months left in the school year at that point. Kids who got back on track and started showing up regularly could still turn things around, but only if their absences drastically dropped. Communicating the importance of attendance would have been paramount. And the dashboard, had it been live then, would have empowered district officials to do so in both broad and targeted ways.
On a broad scale, the district could have referenced the dashboard in email blasts, phone calls, local news appearances, and social media. Without any extra work on their part, they would have had regularly updated, real-time data that could be accessed anytime, by anyone. No cost, no administrative burden, no responsibility for upkeep, just a ready-made data source as the cornerstone of an all-hands-on-deck communications blitz.
On a more targeted scale, district officials could have met with principals to discuss the percentage of “severe” students in their individual buildings. Principals, in turn, could meet with teachers to discuss grade level percentages. School leaders and teachers could then work together to identify incentives for buildings or grades that showed the most improvement. It’s true they could’ve done all that before the dashboard. But with the dashboard, every school—all its staff, all its kids, and all their families—can track improvement throughout the year without creating a huge administrative or cost burden for the district. Imagine a school building where, on Monday mornings, the big reveal of the dashboard to identify last week’s winner is treated with the same excitement as Selection Sunday or the Oscars. With the right communication and incentives, it’s possible to get kids invested in showing up and ensure they reap the benefits of regular attendance. The dashboard makes it both cheaper and easier to do so.
The second way the dashboard can help is that it allows district and school officials to look beyond their own boundaries. Last year, among the Ohio Eight districts, Canton had the lowest chronic absenteeism rate (33 percent compared to Akron’s 43.5). It also made the most progress from the year prior (an improvement of 5.5 percentage points compared to Akron’s 1.2). The statewide attendance dashboard shows that Canton is once again on pace to do better than Akron. The highest chronic absenteeism rate Canton has hit this year is 28.4 percent during the week of December 15 (the final week before Christmas break). Akron, meanwhile, topped out at 43.4 during the week of March 23 (the week before its spring break).
Most district officials balk at any sort of comparison between their schools and others. But this kind of comparison, where there are no “consequences” attached to the data, should be welcome, because it gives school leaders a chance to learn from each other. Both Akron and Canton are located in urban areas in northeast Ohio and serve students of similar backgrounds. Both hit their highest chronic absenteeism rates just before a scheduled break. But the dashboard reveals some key differences that could help Akron improve.
For example, the number of Akron students who fall into the satisfactory category (those missing less than 5 percent of class time) has gradually declined throughout the year, from 63 percent on September 1 to 30.4 percent on April 20. That kind of decline in that particular category indicates that as the year goes on, more and more students are becoming at-risk of chronic absenteeism. In Canton, however, the number of students who fall into the satisfactory category has remained relatively flat. In fact, it’s never dropped below 68 percent. Another key difference between the two districts is that over the last month, Canton has decreased the number of students in its schools who are chronically absent. Akron’s numbers, meanwhile, have continued to hover around 40 percent.
Before the dashboard, APS officials wouldn’t have known that Canton had better attendance numbers until the state report card release in September. By then, it would’ve been too late. Even with report card data in hand, APS leaders wouldn’t have been able to dig in and identify that Canton seems particularly good at maintaining the number of students who fall into the satisfactory category and decreasing its chronic absenteeism rate in April (the same time period when state tests are administered). With the dashboard, though, that information will be public knowledge throughout the year. At any point, APS officials can check out Canton’s numbers, note their success, and reach out to ask what they’re doing and how they’re doing it. Who better to point them in the right direction than another district in the Ohio Eight that serves a similar population of students?
The attendance dashboard also makes it possible to compare schools in different districts. This, too, yields some crucial comparison data. In Akron, Forest Hill Community Learning Center posted a chronic absenteeism rate of 12.7 percent during the week of April 20. That’s not just better than all the other elementary schools in APS, it’s on par with the rates at some elementary schools in nearby districts that are more affluent and higher performing—places like Stow-Munroe Falls, Twinsburg, Norton, and Wadsworth. Whatever teachers and administrators are doing at Forest Hill to combat absenteeism, it’s clearly working. APS officials should find out.
The third benefit of the dashboard is that it makes it possible for the entire community to get on board. State leaders in Rhode Island, the pioneer of real-time attendance dashboards, leveraged easy access to attendance data to enlist the help of businesses and hospitals. Partnership for Rhode Island, a nonprofit supported by sixteen of the largest companies in the state, funded the production of more than two dozen short videos for the AttendanceMattersRI campaign. The state’s only children’s hospital, meanwhile, added a video on the importance of school attendance to the post-hospitalization care shorts that parents watch before their children are discharged.
Local leaders could follow Rhode Island’s lead on a smaller scale. APS, for example, could work with Akron Children’s to communicate the importance of regular attendance to patients and their families. The RubberDucks, the University of Akron, and the Akron Zoo could host attendance events, or offer tickets and prizes as incentives for improvement. Local businesses and restaurants could sponsor prizes, too. It’s true that all of these partnerships were feasible before the dashboard. It’s possible that some already exist. But a regularly updated, publicly available dashboard will make it a lot easier for district officials to persuade community members, businesses, and organizations that chronic absenteeism is an urgent issue that they can help fix.
Like any data source, Ohio’s statewide attendance dashboard will only have an impact if people actually use it. Districts and schools could ignore it and continue doing whatever it is they’re already doing. Some probably will. But for those who are committed to addressing absenteeism, the dashboard offers plenty of opportunities. Here’s hoping everyone takes advantage.
NOTE: This piece originally appeared at The 74, under a different title.
Delivering high-quality career-technical education has quickly moved up the policy agenda across the country, with many states turning to industry credentials to help build students’ professional skill sets and signal to employers that they are ready for a job. These credentials range from basic job-safety certificates (e.g., the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s 10-hour training) to occupational licenses (e.g., licensed practitioner nurse).
Our home state of Ohio has put substantial energy into actively promoting credentials through various policy levers. For example, high school students can use state-approved credentials to meet certain graduation requirements, and schools receive credit in the state’s accountability system when students attain them. In the most recent state budget, policymakers renewed a funding program that incentivizes those approved credentials that related to state-identified “high-priority” careers such as advanced manufacturing and construction. With these incentives in place, attainment in Ohio has soared from 53,000 credentials earned by the class of 2019 to 170,000 by the class of 2024.
But which of these credentials truly add value for students?
A new Fordham Institute study examined the labor-market value that various credentials have for Ohio students. In general, credentials are associated with substantial expected wage increases in the early years after high school (almost $2,000 higher earnings in the first year after graduation). However, we found widely differing wage returns depending on field, with male-dominated careers in the skilled trades linked to larger income benefits. Students attaining manufacturing-related credentials, for instance, typically earn about 35% more than their non-credential-earning peers with similar backgrounds.
On the other hand, we also discovered that many credentials yield little to no economic value for students. For example, we found no significant differences in the annual incomes of students earning a nurse’s aide or culinary certificate six years after high school compared with peers who did not attain a credential. A few credentials, such as a cosmetology certificate, were even associated with reduced earnings after students leave high school.
Our findings lead to some important insights about how states can more effectively leverage industry credentials.
First, policymakers should not view credentials as an isolated indicator of career readiness, but rather as a key element within an integrated career pathway. In addition to finding variable wage returns by field, our study revealed that students who both attain credentials and complete a sequence of career-technical coursework reap larger wage returns than students who attain only a credential or do not participate in any career-focused education. This suggests that states’ accountability systems should count students as career-ready only if they both complete coursework and obtain an aligned credential.
Second, states must be selective about which credentials they approve and, in turn, incentivize. Here in Ohio, the credentials that provide the strongest and most enduring wage gains — lasting into people’s mid-20s — are linked to the transportation, manufacturing and construction industries. By contrast, credentials across a dozen other career fields provide no enduring wage returns. Policymakers should prioritize credentials that yield strong long-term economic payoffs. They should also be wary of approving credentials that lack a clear link to a specific occupation — for instance, a basic job-safety certificate versus a certified welder license — or those that might inadvertently encourage students to pursue low-paying jobs with limited opportunities for advancement.
Third, states should create robust frameworks for valuing credentials. Our study focused primarily on wages, which ought to play a central role in systems that identify “high-value” credentials and promote their attainment through policies such as targeted funding. Yet pay isn’t the only factor to take into account. How well credentials align with employers’ needs and labor market demands should also be a priority, because while wages and employer demand for a credential often overlap, that is not always the case. For instance, credentials linked to health care or education might pay modest starting wages but could also lead to employment that opens doors to a better-paying job later on. Policymakers should create tiered systems that place more value on credentials that are both high-wage and high-demand, and then provide secondary consideration to those that meet only measures of industry demand.
Ohio illustrates the promise and pitfalls associated with incentivizing credentials through policy initiatives. On the one hand, more students than ever are earning credentials that might give them an edge in the job market. On the other hand, the state has also struggled to pin down the value of credentials and maintain stringent quality control in the face of proliferating attainment rates.
All students should leave high school with the knowledge and skills needed for their next steps. To support this, make sure industry-recognized credentials benefit students and overall economic growth.
Urban revitalization efforts touch many aspects of daily life for residents, with the ultimate goal of making the community a better place to live for all. While schools are not typically impacted directly by neighborhood renewal work, a group of researchers look at the student-level impacts of a federal program that does specifically cite school improvement as part of its revitalization model. Their new report finds only a weak connection between the program’s stated education-related goals and observed academic outcomes for students.
The Choice Neighborhoods Initiative (CNI) is a program of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) started in 2009. It “aims to decrease neighborhood racial/ethnic segregation and concentrated poverty by developing mixed-income housing units and attracting economically diverse residents.” Additionally, “high-performing schools are an explicitly stated goal of the CNI.” This analysis looks at one CNI project in Memphis, Tennessee. It is called “South City” today (and throughout the report), but this was primarily a “branding” identifier applied to a previously-unnamed section of downtown beginning in 2016 as the CNI revitalization got underway in earnest. A nearly $30 million grant was specifically aimed at demolishing one 1940s-era low-income housing project and providing 712 new housing units it its wake—600 on the original site and 112 in the surrounding blocks. The report’s authors go into lengthy detail about all of HUD’s goals and intentions for bettering neighborhoods and residents’ lives, but the mechanisms by which schools are/were supposed to be improved remain unclear even after the analysis is complete.
The report explains the CNI intervention generally as improving physical infrastructure in the neighborhood—specifically, the renovation and replacement of housing—and forging “new partnerships across community organizations, local businesses, and schools, from early childhood to and through college.” More specifically, the researchers look at students whose families received what are termed “case management” and support services. They denote a vague but wide range of services including “asset building, basic and emergency services, adult education, employment services, health and family services, early childhood services, youth services, legal services,” and more. Such services were promised to all original CNI resident families (and provided from an office in the local district high school) for up to 5 years after redevelopment. Demolition began in 2017. Construction was completed in six phases between early 2019 and October 2025.
The researchers focus on 59,277 children who lived within the South City footprint and whose student-level data were available from the 2015–16 through the 2021–22 school years. The two treatment groups consisted of nearly 3,000 students who attended one of the four Memphis-Shelby County School district buildings in that footprint and a second group of 621 students who also received “case management services” via CNI. Student outcome measures analyzed were attendance, disciplinary rates, and academic performance (first via NWEA MAP scores—later by the i-Ready Diagnostic scores when the district switched tests—in reading and math).
The researchers applied a robust difference-in-difference analysis to dynamically estimate CNI impacts on students. Attending a CNI partner school decreased suspension days by 41 percent compared to non-CNI students and reduced absences by 6 percent—the latter almost fully accruing to male students only. The only other statistically-significant overall effect of attending a CNI school was a small decrease in math performance—roughly 0.06 standard deviations. Meanwhile, students receiving CNI case management services showed no overall impacts one way or another, although a marginal increase in reading test performance—0.12 standard deviations and still significant—was observed in a small subset of students with a history of family economic distress. Some significant positive effects emerged in year one of both types of interventions, only to be lost by the end of year two.
Despite what sounds like tepid results, the report nonetheless concludes that place-based investments in revitalization can be effective in boosting students’ academic outcomes. This would be more plausible if the researchers could have connected one or two mechanisms to the findings observed, but there are just too many vague variables here to do so. As valuable as any individual service may be to neighborhood residents, the list is too broad and too opaque for a researcher to understand how their combination could result in both a dramatic reduction in suspensions and a decrease in math scores, for just one example.
Interestingly, an image in the report that lists some concrete services does a better job of explaining the educational interventions than the text of the report itself. The closer researchers can get to determining how much of these kinds of supports were provided and to which students in CNI cities, the more likely they will be to find models of change than can truly be called effective.
SOURCE: Jason Jabbari et al., “Can Neighborhood Redevelopment Initiatives Improve Educational Outcomes? Novel Evidence From the Choice Neighborhood Initiative,” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (March 2026).
Wide-ranging education reforms in New York City Public Schools in the early 2000s under then-mayor Michael Bloomberg and schools chief Joel Klein ran the gamut from school closures and consolidations to revamping academic offerings and giving families additional choices within the district. The overarching goal was to boost long-languishing student achievement. A new working paper examines which reforms worked and extracts some vital lessons that other districts might heed.
A trio of economists divide the various reform efforts into categories derived from economics and computer science terms—“reallocations” and “resource augmentations”—that are precise but not necessarily intuitive. Reallocation reforms include changes to New York’s school assignment algorithms and increased information distributed to families regarding school options, intending to make it easier for students to find the best academic “fit.” Resource augmentation reforms include the creation of 200 small high schools in the city and the simultaneous closure of larger, more traditional schools that were underperforming. The clearest way to differentiate the interventions is that reallocation keeps most or all schools open but allows students to move around more freely, while resource augmentation closes schools to effectively eliminate bad choices and create better options. Students still move, but it is a less voluntary proposition and all remaining schools are, theoretically, better options.
The researchers’ first step is to see how the real-world reforms impacted students. Data come from the NYC DOE administrative information system and cover students enrolled from the 2003–04 through the 2012–13 school years. Specifically, they focus on four cohorts enrolled in eighth grade between 2003–04 and 2006–07. They follow each cohort through high school and examine middle school test scores, high school enrollment, New York Regents test scores, high school graduation, and college attendance within two years of their expected high school graduation date.
School quality is measured in two ways: (1) an ordinary least squares value-added model, and (2) an estimate of student preferences for specific schools based on ranked lists submitted as part of their high school applications. The first approach controls for observable student characteristics; the second accounts for unobserved factors that influence student choice such as school culture and ease of transportation. The researchers also create what they call counterfactual impact estimates, which simulate student outcomes under various idealized reform scenarios.
The report is wonky, but the bottom line is that the most ideal student–school matches achieved by reallocation generated only modest educational gains. For example, in a model designed to represent perfect choice—with each hypothetical child assigned to the ideal school for their needs—the impact of reallocation reform was just a 3.8 percentage point increase in both high school graduation and college attendance. That’s not much—and it’s also hypothetical. In the real world, such ideal student–school matches rarely occurred in the NYC data, largely because available seats at the most effective (and desired) schools are limited. In other words, making it easier in theory to access a coveted high school yields benefits for those who get in, but the reality is that very few additional students actually achieve such access.
By contrast, resource augmentation policies appear to provide as much or more positive impact for students with less systemic disruption. The terminology used makes these findings feel counterintuitive—how can closing a number of schools, opening a bunch of new ones, and making kids move be less disruptive?—but the concept makes more sense when the explanation is simplified. Closing lower-performing schools and making sure that impacted students move to higher-performing ones is a boon for student achievement. Whatever systemic disruptions do occur are more than offset by widespread student academic gains. In New York, closing 14 percent of the city’s underperforming high schools led to gains predicted to be comparable to the most idealized version of the perfect reallocation model.
Of course, getting kids into “replacement” schools that are better than the ones being closed is not an exact science. The researchers use a sophisticated value-added calculation in their impacts modeling, but also run similar analyses that suggest a simple look at graduation rates is nearly as effective in determining school quality. Whether graduation rates are an effective measure of student learning remains a question for another time (color all of Fordham skeptical on that score). Regardless of what criteria are agreed upon to determine school quality, there will axiomatically be a set of schools at the bottom of every ranking. By starting with the worst schools on the list when closures become the preferred reform, you come as close as possible to guaranteeing that impacted students will find a better option.
In the end, all this complexity boils down to a few simple, albeit highly generalized, points. One is that systemic reforms in school districts should be aimed at giving more students better access to the best possible schools, but shuffling students around is limited by the effectiveness of the lowest-performing options and by capacity restraints in better schools. Another is that if you don’t have enough space in existing high-performing schools, the easiest fix is to start closing the worst of the worst and investing in better ones.
SOURCE: Atila Abdulkadiroglu, Parag A. Pathak, and Christopher R. Walters, “Who Gets What in Education: Can School Matching Improve Student Achievement?” NBER Working Paper (March 2026).
NOTE: Today, the Ohio Senate’s Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 127. The legislation would, if enacted, make changes to the way the state identifies charter schools for closure going forward. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided the following proponent testimony.
I appreciate the opportunity to return and testify on the amended version of Senate Bill 127. In my prior testimony, I expressed support for the bill’s goals but recommended several changes to strengthen its approach to identifying and addressing persistently low-performing schools. I am pleased to say that this amendment reflects meaningful improvements, and Fordham now strongly supports the bill as amended.
At its core, Senate Bill 127 tackles a longstanding challenge: ensuring that chronically low-performing schools are identified clearly and addressed decisively. As I noted previously, Ohio has too often maintained fragmented and confusing accountability systems, allowing some schools to persistently underperform without meaningful consequences.
The amendment strengthens the bill in several important ways:
First, it creates a clearer and more predictable charter school closure framework.
The amended language establishes transparent criteria tied to both achievement and growth, using consistent measures over multiple years. Schools that fall into the lowest 5 percent on performance index and demonstrate weak growth are identified in a straightforward way.
This clarity matters. Policymakers, educators, and families all benefit from knowing exactly how schools are evaluated and when closure is required.
Second, it raises the bar for accountability by more effectively identifying the lowest-performing charter schools.
By refining the metrics and phasing in a consistent standard across grade spans, the amendment ensures that the state is focusing on schools that are both low-achieving and failing to improve over time.
According to our analysis, this updated framework would result in approximately 25 schools being identified for closure, compared to about 14 under current law. That is not a flaw—in our view it reflects a system that is doing a better job of identifying schools where students are not being well served.
Third, it appropriately removes earlier provisions that would have allowed persistently struggling charter schools to reorganize instead of close.
That earlier approach would have been a step backward. Charter schools operate under a clear bargain: autonomy in exchange for accountability. When a school consistently fails to deliver results for students, closure—not reorganization—should be the outcome.
By eliminating that provision, the amendment restores integrity to Ohio’s charter school accountability system and reinforces high expectations.
Finally, the amendment narrows the bill’s focus by removing closure provisions for district schools.
While we continue to believe that states must take strong action when any public school persistently fails students, we recognize the complexities associated with district school closure. The amended bill appropriately focuses on strengthening the charter school accountability framework, where closure is both a well-established and necessary tool. At the same time, Ohio should continue to ensure that district schools identified as persistently low-performing are subject to meaningful and effective interventions.
Taken together, these changes move Ohio in the right direction. The amended bill promotes clarity, transparency, and rigor in the charter sector, ensuring that chronically low-performing schools are not allowed to continue year after year without meaningful consequences.
Most importantly, this is about students. Every year a child spends in a persistently low-performing school is a year of lost opportunity. Senate Bill 127, as amended, helps ensure that Ohio is acting with urgency when schools are not delivering results.
Thank you for your leadership on this issue and for strengthening this legislation.
NOTE: Today, the Ohio Senate’s Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 311. The legislation, if enacted, would make changes to the state’s laws regarding unused school facilities. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided the following proponent testimony.
I want to focus my testimony on one part of this bill that is both overdue and absolutely necessary: the provisions strengthening Ohio’s unused school facilities law.
Let’s be clear about the problem. Ohio already has a law on the books requiring school districts to make unused or severely underutilized buildings available to other public schools. That includes buildings that are sitting empty—or those operating at less than 60 percent capacity.
That 60 percent threshold is not new. It is not radical. It is existing law.
And yet, too many districts have treated that law as optional. They’ve slow-walked requests. They’ve redefined “use” to avoid triggering the law. They’ve warehoused half-empty buildings while denying access to public charter schools serving Ohio students. They’ve quickly torn down buildings to avoid making them available to charter schools.
This isn’t speculation—it’s well documented. Charter leaders have long reported that districts are “generally uncooperative” in making facilities available, and state officials have flagged similar concerns.
Put more bluntly: districts have been playing games.
That’s why the unused facilities language in SB 311 is so important. It doesn’t invent a new policy. It clarifies, enforces, and brings transparency to an existing one.
The bill tightens the definition of what it means for a building to be “less than 60 percent used,” tying it to real enrollment metrics instead of vague interpretations. It requires reporting, so the state and the public actually know which buildings qualify. And it ensures a clear, fair process for offering those facilities to other public schools.
In other words, it makes the law real. And that’s exactly why you’re hearing pushback.
Opponents will frame this as an attack on local control. It isn’t. Local control does not mean the ability to ignore state law. It does not mean sitting on taxpayer-funded assets while other public schools struggle to find space. And it certainly does not mean shielding anti-competitive behavior.
These are public buildings, paid for by taxpayers, intended for public education. When they sit empty—or half empty—while students elsewhere lack adequate facilities, something is wrong.
SB 311 begins to fix that.
Now, I also want to briefly address another provision in the bill: the allowance for remote administration of state assessments for e-school students.
I understand the rationale here, but I do have reservations—specifically around test security.
Even with guardrails like remote proctoring and training requirements, the risk of inconsistent conditions and potential improprieties is real. Maintaining the integrity of Ohio’s assessment system must remain paramount.
That said, I appreciate the committee’s inclusion of language requiring ongoing review and study of remote testing results. That is a prudent step. If remote testing is to continue, it should be accompanied by rigorous monitoring and transparency to ensure confidence in the results.
In closing, I’ll return to where I started.
The unused facilities provisions in SB 311 are not about creating new obligations. They are about enforcing existing ones.
For too long, the law has said one thing while practice has said another. This bill helps close that gap.
It sends a simple but important message: laws passed by this body are meant to be followed.
And in this case, following the law means putting publicly funded school buildings back to their intended purpose—educating Ohio’s students.
Thank you for your time.
