The Education Gadfly Weekly

Nearly twenty years ago, state leaders established Academic Distress Commissions (ADCs) as a way for the state to intervene in chronically underperforming districts. Lawmakers significantly strengthened the law in 2015 in the hopes of boosting lackluster results. Instead, they were met with fierce pushback from district officials. By 2021, they’d caved to political pressure and created an easy off-ramp for the three districts that were under ADC control at the time—Youngstown, Lorain, and East Cleveland.

As part of these changes, the school board in each district was required to develop an academic improvement plan. Of the three, East Cleveland submitted the most rigorous and detailed proposal. The plans crafted by Youngstown and Lorain weren’t nearly as promising. In fact, Lorain’s submission was littered with so many incomplete benchmarks that the state was forced to point them out in its review. Despite all this, lawmakers gave Lorain a free pass by dissolving its ADC and its plan before seeing any evidence of improvement.

Two years later, things aren’t looking great in Lorain. East Cleveland, on the other hand, is on the upswing, as evidenced by the three-star rating it earned on its most recent state report card. According to the Department of Education and Workforce, a three-star rating means the district is meeting state standards. That hasn’t happened in East Cleveland since…well, ever. The district earned just two stars during the last two years. Before that, when the state handed out A–F grades, it regularly earned an “F” overall and on most components. Even as far back as 15 years ago, before Ohio established its current report card system, East Cleveland was failing to meet state standards and was under academic watch.

In other words, this three-star rating is a really big deal. Overall ratings can mask issues in specific areas, though, so it’s important to look under the hood to get the full picture of East Cleveland’s performance. To do so, let’s examine results on three of the most significant report card components.

Achievement

Performance index (PI) scores determine a district’s achievement rating by measuring the test results for every student and awarding points based on the state’s six achievement levels. The higher a student’s achievement, the more points the district earns. For example, a student who scores at the advanced level earns their district 1.2 points, while a student testing at the basic level (just below proficient) earns 0.6 points.

Table 1 identifies East Cleveland’s PI scores during the three most recent academic years, as well as 2018–19, the final year before pandemic era disruptions. To put the district’s performance in perspective, the table also includes results from the original ADC districts (Youngstown and Lorain) and the neighboring district of Cleveland. Green shading in the final column indicates a PI score that’s higher than pre-pandemic levels, while red shading indicates that a district has yet to return to pre-pandemic achievement levels.

Table 1. Performance index scores in selected districts

Both East Cleveland and Youngstown earned PI scores in 2025 that were higher than their 2019 results. Not only have these districts bounced back to pre-pandemic levels, they’ve actually gotten better. A gap remains between pre-and post-pandemic numbers for Cleveland, but it’s only 2 percentage points. Lorain, on the other hand, has a gap of 11.4 points.

Progress

The progress component determines the academic growth students make over the course of a year. This measure is crucial, as it showcases a district or school’s contribution to student learning while yielding results that are closer to neutral with respect to demographics. Even in districts where students are far behind in reading and math achievement, the progress component can reveal positive academic growth. Table 2 identifies progress ratings from the last three academic years.

Table 2. Progress ratings on state report cards in selected districts

Between 2024 and 2025, East Cleveland’s progress rating jumped from two stars (falling short of state expectations) to four (exceeding state expectations). That kind of improvement is excellent news for kids. Youngstown also showed improvement, as it jumped from two stars to three. And while Cleveland didn’t improve this year, it’s achieved three straight years of four-star ratings. The only district that failed to either reach three stars or improve is Lorain, which has earned a two-star rating for three consecutive years.

Early literacy

The early literacy component offers a detailed look at districts’ progress in reading via three measures. The primary measure calculates how many students score proficient or above on the reading segment of the third grade English language arts test. Table 3 displays these percentages for the four selected districts, as well as the statewide average.

Table 3. Percentage of third graders scoring proficient on the reading segment of state ELA exam in selected districts

East Cleveland is the only district in this group that improved its third grade proficiency rate between 2024 and 2025. It’s important to note that the district still has one of the lowest percentages in the state—only 13 locales registered lower numbers, including Cleveland and Lorain—and that East Cleveland’s 2025 percentage is lower than what it posted in 2023. It’s also important to recognize that the district’s 2025 results are nearly 26 percentage points lower than the statewide average. That’s a huge gap. But even with those caveats, an improvement of 10 percentage points is progress that should be celebrated—especially when comparable districts slid backward.

The early literacy component’s “improving K–3 literacy” measure offers additional proof that East Cleveland is on the upswing in early literacy. This measure uses the results of fall diagnostic assessments to determine the percentage of students who move from “not on track” to “on track” in reading from one year to the next. These results indicate how well districts are improving K–3 literacy throughout all the early grades, not just third, and identifies those making critical progress with struggling readers. Table 4 displays the overall percentage of students that each district moved to on track in reading during the three most recent school years, as well as the difference between 2024 and 2025 results.

Table 4. Results for the improving K–3 literacy measure on state report cards in selected districts

Just like with third grade reading proficiency, East Cleveland is the only district of the bunch that improved. Again, context is important: The district still moved just 20 percent of its off-track readers to on track, and its 2025 percentage is lower than what the district posted in 2023. But a jump of nearly 7 percentage points is still good news—especially when everyone else moved backward.

***

There are two major takeaways we can glean from these data.

First, East Cleveland is trending in the right direction. The district is making progress in several crucial areas, all of which add up to a better overall rating. There’s still plenty of work ahead to recover from more than a decade of poor performance. But district staff, students, and families deserve a lot of credit for how hard they’re working to turn things around. They also deserve credit for refusing to rest on their laurels now that they’re officially meeting state expectations. “It’s not a finish line,” superintendent and CEO Henry Pettiegrew II told Cleveland.com. “It’s definitely a starting point. And we want to see if we can get more stars.”

Second, the two ADC districts that didn’t get a free pass from lawmakers are outperforming the one that did. And it’s not by miniscule margins, either. PI scores in East Cleveland and Youngstown went up this year and are back to pre-pandemic levels. Meanwhile, Lorain’s PI score declined and the gap between its pre- and post-pandemic results is more than 11 percentage points. East Cleveland and Youngstown have improved on the progress component. Lorain hasn’t budged. And while East Cleveland now has an overall report card grade of three stars, Lorain has logged three straight two-star ratings.

Reasonable people can disagree about when and how the state should intervene in low-performing schools. But when a chronically underperforming district that isn’t being held to strict standards slides backward, while two others that are being held accountable leap forward, that seems like a pretty clear indicator that the hands-off approach doesn’t work.

The headline of all this, though, should be East Cleveland’s leap forward. Time will tell whether the district’s efforts produce stable, long-term improvements. But for now, things are definitely looking up.

The mundane but critical task of transporting students to school has stirred controversy over the past few years. Districts have chafed at their longstanding responsibility under state law to transport resident students who attend public charter and private schools, even though the state subsidizes their transportation. Meanwhile, charter and private school leaders—parents, too—have lodged legitimate complaints about getting the short end of the stick. Districts’ reluctance to provide reliable transportation—or any transportation at all—has caused unnecessary headaches for families choosing non-district options, and has even aggravated the chronic absenteeism crisis.

Simmering tensions erupted into public view last fall with Columbus City Schools blatantly refusing to transport hundreds of Columbus students to charter and private schools just before the year started. One school board member intimated that denying busing might be an underhanded way to get students to enroll in the district. “If you are a charter school parent and you’re struggling and your child can’t get to school, Columbus City Schools is a great option for your family,” he said. The shenanigans caught the attention of Attorney General Dave Yost who sued the district on behalf of impacted families (the case is ongoing).

State lawmakers have also noticed these long-running disputes and enacted provisions that aim to improve cross-sector relations and ensure reliable transportation. In 2021, they passed a law requiring charter and private schools to notify districts of their bell schedules well before the next year begins in order to assist with route planning. Two years later, the General Assembly authorized districts to use vans to transport charter and private school students. Lawmakers also increased state aid for pupil transportation ($519 million to $797 million from 2021 to 2025). And they even added a “weight” inside the transportation formula to send extra dollars to districts with more students attending schools of choice.  

But one area lawmakers have not yet tackled, and which remains a source of many problems, is the state’s “impractical to transport” provisions. But what are they? And why must they be addressed?

As a quick refresher, since 1965, Ohio has required school districts to provide transportation to resident students, no matter whether they attend a district or private school (and later, charters, too). The requirement makes sense. Parents, many of whom are heading to work in the mornings and at their jobs in the afternoons, rely on school systems to transport their kids safely and on time. They also pay sizeable sums in local taxes to their local districts, and some of their state taxes also subsidize district transportation. Rather than creating hardships on parents and increasing safety hazards and inefficiencies, the legislature thought it best to charge districts with busing all resident students (with the help of state funding).

There are exceptions to the general rule, however. Districts are not obligated to transport students living within two miles of their school, nor private and charter students attending schools more than thirty minutes away from their assigned public school (commonly known as the “thirty-minute rule”). Districts are also not required to transport high school students, no matter their school of choice.

Those are sensible allowances, but statute also contains a more problematic impractical to transport exception, which gives local school boards the power to deny transportation to otherwise eligible students. Here, all they must do is “consider” six factors that render it “impractical”—in their own estimation—to transport a student.[1] When this happens, the district relieves itself of transportation duties and must offer the impacted family a payment in lieu of transportation, which is a measly $607 at present, or just half the average per-pupil cost of district transportation.[2]

Ohio districts have used this loophole to deny transportation to thousands of public charter and private school students—and this was the way Columbus ducked their transportation responsibilities last year. Table 1 shows that statewide, almost 23,000 charter and private school students were declared impractical last year (roughly 8 percent),[3] while only 592 out of more than 1.4 million district students—a miniscule fraction—were deemed as such. In other words, non-district students were nearly 200 times more likely to be denied transportation than students attending district schools. The table also displays the fifteen districts that declared the most charter and private school students impractical. In these places, not a single eligible district student was denied busing, even though some likely attended magnet schools or resided in remote parts of the district. Meanwhile, hundreds of their peers attending schools of choice were determined to be “impractical.”

Table 1: School district “impractical to transport” declarations by the type of school students attend, 2024–25

What appears to be happening in some (though not all) districts is a systemic exclusion of charter and private school students from district transportation service. This is hardly fair and arguably discriminatory. No one thinks a fire department should be allowed to ignore fires at restaurants it doesn’t like, or the police to disregard certain neighborhoods. But that’s what districts are effectively doing—denying a basic governmental service to citizens they find inconvenient to serve.

Ohio lawmakers should take action to close the impracticality loophole. A couple of options include:[4]

1. Tighten the language and increase the payment in lieu of transportation to deter districts from impracticality determinations. Lawmakers could require districts to “prove” impracticality against measurable standards—not just “consider” factors—in order to deny transportation to a student. This might mean, for example, providing evidence that it takes more than twenty minutes to bus a student and that the cost is significantly more than the already enhanced amount the district receives to transport choice students. In addition, lawmakers could also increase the cost to districts of declaring impracticality by tying the “payment in lieu” to the state average per pupil cost of transportation—not just half of it.
    
2. Repeal the impracticality exemption but preserve the “thirty-minute” rule. A cleaner but potentially more politically controversial approach is outright repeal of the impracticality exemption. This would clarify the state’s expectation—and strengthen the requirement—that districts provide all eligible students transportation service. If going this route (or pursuing the option above, too), legislators should preserve the existing exemption from transporting charter and private school students excessively long distances. The “thirty minute” rule should remain intact, as well the other exemptions mentioned earlier in this piece.

Pupil transportation is a nuts-and-bolts service that Ohio requires of its school districts. Rightfully so, as thousands of parents rely on school systems to get their kids to class. Many districts do provide reliable service, but an increasing number are avoiding their responsibilities, most notably to children attending schools of choice. When districts fail to fulfill their obligations, lawmakers need to step in to ensure that all students receive the busing services they are entitled to.

 

Since 2019, education officials in Texas have been implementing the Teacher Incentive Allotment (TIA), a statewide initiative that offers districts and schools the opportunity to create and use a local designation system to identify top educators. When participating districts employ those teachers, they receive additional state funding via an annual allotment based on a teacher’s performance level. Identified teachers can then receive sizable pay bumps. (For a more in-depth look at how TIA works, see here.)

A statewide analysis conducted by Texas Tech University found that implementing TIA “moderately and meaningfully” impacted math and reading achievement. TIA also mitigated teacher turnover, with “particularly pronounced” effects for teachers with three to five years of experience. These findings align TIA’s initial impact with prior research demonstrating that merit pay programs are associated with a statistically significant increase in student test scores and the potential to decrease teacher turnover and increase recruitment. That’s a solid evidence base. But it’s important to note that success largely depends on program design and context. In other words, merit pay can be beneficial for students, teachers, and schools—but only if it’s done right.

Texas appears to be doing it right. And when other states figure out how to thread the needle on complicated policy issues, Ohio leaders should pay attention. Here are three lessons that policymakers should learn from TIA as they consider bringing merit pay to the Buckeye State.

1. Make it optional.

Participation in TIA is voluntary. In fact, the word “optional” is right there in state statute. By not requiring districts and open-enrollment charter schools to participate, Texas leaders ensure authentic buy-in. Schools sign up because they want to participate not because they’re being forced to, and that kind of willing engagement increases the likelihood of rigorous implementation.

It’s also likely that TIA’s voluntary nature has been instrumental to its growing popularity. According to the 2024–25 annual report, TIA participation jumped from 35 districts in 2019 to more than 800 by 2025, which is roughly two-thirds of all Texas school systems. Read that again: Two-thirds of districts in Texas are choosing to participate in a teacher merit pay program. TIA also enjoys growing support among individual teachers, too. In 2025, 63 percent of teachers supported linking pay to classroom effectiveness, up from 56 percent in 2022. The steady climb in participation numbers and popularity indicates that TIA has a lot of staying power. That level of durability—especially when it benefits students—is hard to find in education. And while it’s possible that a mandate could have achieved the same, the fate of other top-down initiatives suggests it’s unlikely.

The upshot? TIA is the merit pay version of “if you build it, they will come.” The quality of the initiative matters immensely. If TIA was poorly designed or poorly implemented, it’s unlikely that so many districts would continue to participate or that a majority of teachers would be on board. But TIA is well-designed and well-implemented, and inviting districts to participate instead of requiring them to do so is a key part of why this initiative has been successful. In Ohio, where top-down teacher policy mandates have routinely endured pushback until they’re eliminated, the best path forward is an optional program.

2. Strike a balance between flexibility and oversight.

TIA permits districts to design their own designation systems to identify high-performing teachers. This flexibility is crucial for two reasons. First, it creates a sense of ownership. When teachers play a role in designing the system that evaluates them, districts are more likely to implement it faithfully. Second, it empowers local leaders to design systems that support their specific staffing needs and meet localized goals for retention and recruitment. Unique design, rather than a one-size-fits-all system, is a win-win.

Designing a local designation system isn’t a free-for-all, though. Texas has constructed strong guardrails around the process. Table 1 identifies the three main components that each system is required to address, as well as some of the flexibilities that are available to districts.

Table 1. Three main components of a TIA local designation system
 

Component	Requirement	Flexibility
Eligibility	Districts must identify which teachers are eligible.	Districts can make all teachers eligible for evaluation or choose which teaching assignments and campuses qualify. They can also establish local eligibility prerequisites, such as mentoring, years of experience, attendance, or leadership roles.
Teacher performance data and designation criteria	Teacher performance data consist of classroom observation and student growth. TIA requires the observation component to amount to at least 45 minutes of instructional time, and all teachers must be evaluated using a state-approved rubric (there are multiple options). Districts must establish growth targets at the individual student level.	Districts can incorporate additional measures like results from student and parent surveys or teacher attendance. To meet the requirement for a valid and reliable student growth measure, districts can choose from four options: student learning objectives, pre- and post-tests that include expected growth targets (like nationally norm-referenced exams), portfolios, or value-added models.
TIA spending plan	Districts are required to develop a local spending plan that outlines how they’ll distribute their allotment. State law identifies allowable uses.	Districts have plenty of options among the allowable uses, including signing bonuses, higher starting salaries, annual retention bonuses, stipends for professional development, and increased compensation for teachers serving in leadership roles or mentoring new teachers.

The key to how Texas balances flexibility and oversight is TIA’s three-year application and approval process, which requires districts to obtain two separate forms of approval before they can receive TIA funding. Unlike some initiatives, where approval processes are mostly for show, TIA’s historical acceptance rates indicate that Texas isn’t just rubber-stamping whatever districts submit. These are legit expectations.

The first step is system approval. As outlined in Table 1, districts are permitted to design their own systems, including identifying which teachers are eligible to participate and determining how they can earn a designation. Districts develop their systems over the course of a year—the application year—while engaging in technical assistance sessions that are offered for each component. They are required to submit their system to the state for approval by April. The Texas Education Agency (TEA) then scores applications to determine whether the locally designed system meets state standards. Districts must meet “Full Readiness” in all the statutory categories for their system to be accepted. Those that fail to do so have an opportunity to go back to the drawing board. But districts with accepted systems move on to initial implementation and the second step of the approval process.

The second step is data validation. During year three of the process, districts are required to submit their teacher designations and performance data to a third party—Texas Tech University—to evaluate its validity and reliability. Texas Tech conducts ten different data checks, including correlations between teacher observation scores and student performance ratings (if a teacher earns high marks on the observation component, they should have equally high marks on the student growth measure), confirming alignment between district designations and statewide value-added data, and a comparison of district designation percentages to statewide performance standards. If districts earn approval, TEA processes their designations. Districts that fail to earn approval can make improvements to their system using feedback from the data validation process and try again in subsequent years.

3. Don’t skimp on funding.

Since its inception, TIA has funded more than $1 billion in allotments. That’s a significant amount of money. But it’s also the cumulative total over six school years. And while Texas’s 2025 allotment total—$481 million—is the largest to date, it’s not even 5 percent of Ohio’s foundation funding for public schools in FY25.

It’s also important to remember that Texas is much bigger than Ohio. The Lone Star State has more than 5.5 million students to Ohio’s 1.6 million public school students and nearly 375,000 teachers to Ohio’s roughly 100,000. Even if we copied and pasted every single aspect of TIA into Ohio, it would cost much less to implement here. For example, Texas had 42,294 designated teachers in 2025—roughly 11 percent of the total teacher population—and distributed $481 million in allotments. TIA amounts vary widely, but that works out to $11,373 per teacher. In Ohio, 11 percent of the total teacher population would be just over 11,000 teachers. At $11,373 dollars per teacher, that’s roughly $125 million total—a much smaller price tag with the same amount of bang for the buck in terms of outcomes.

All that said, doing merit pay the right way isn’t going to be cheap. If lawmakers aren’t willing to invest a consistently significant amount of money into this policy over time, they’d be better off steering clear. But if they are willing to invest, there are four crucial funding details they have to get right.

First, it should not be a grant program. TIA is an allotment included within Texas’s school funding system, making it a steady and sustainable funding source for schools. Grant programs, on the other hand, are temporary infusions of cash that have to be re-upped every few years and are subject to political whims and budget constraints. If Ohio wants to implement a TIA-style program that achieves similar success, then that program needs to be a part of the state’s school funding formula.

Second, lawmakers need to go big or go home. Measly bonuses of $500 to $1,000 aren’t going to cut it. If Ohio leaders want to incentivize greatness, then they need to put their money where their mouth is and offer our best teachers meaningful amounts of money that match their meaningful impact on students. TIA’s allotment formula is complex, but generally ranges from $3,000 to $32,000 depending on a teacher’s designation level and where they teach. Ohio doesn’t have to use those exact numbers, but it should follow Texas’s lead and make a sizable investment.

Third, Ohio policymakers need to commit upfront to fully fund the program. That will be a departure from the norm, as there are currently several incentive programs that are structured to award smaller funding amounts than promised based on how many applicants qualify. Funding incentive programs this way makes political sense, as it allows lawmakers to allocate a specific amount of money upfront. But it’s also irrational because it diminishes the power of the incentive. If a teacher in Cleveland works her butt off to earn a $15,000 bonus but only ends up receiving $5,000 due to funding availability, it’s highly unlikely that she—and every other teacher, once the word spreads—is going to positively respond to future incentives. Delivering smaller rewards than promised is also a surefire way to torpedo efforts to retain top talent, teachers who have plenty of other higher-paying options available outside the classroom. In Texas, there’s no cap on TIA allotment funds or the number of teachers who can earn a designation. Ohio should follow suit. Yes, it’s going to be expensive. But cutting funding corners will undercut the incentive and eventually render the program ineffective. 

Fourth, Ohio should provide additional dollars to schools that serve high-need students. Texas does so by including multipliers for rural schools and socioeconomic status in its allotment calculation. Ohio could also prioritize rural schools (data show they often struggle to fill teacher vacancies) and low-income communities. But it doesn’t have to stop there. It could allocate additional funding to other students and communities, as well, like urban schools, special education students, or English learners. And thanks to the recently passed state budget, Ohio will soon have data on teacher vacancies. State leaders could use those data to direct funding toward the subjects, grades, and schools where teacher shortages are the most persistent.

***

Teacher merit pay has a long history of controversy and pushback, including in Ohio. Much of that pushback can be attributed to valid questions about fairness and effectiveness. If Ohio leaders want to bring performance pay to the Buckeye State, they’ll have to answer those questions. Designing an initiative that’s modeled after TIA—an optional program that balances flexibility and oversight and doesn’t cut funding corners, all while benefitting students and teachers—would go a long way toward doing so.

For decades, ACT has been testing students’ postsecondary readiness via two separate assessments: one aimed at measuring college readiness and a second that focuses on career-related skills and abilities. A new working paper from the nonprofit that produces both assessments compares the college-based ACT with the WorkKeys test to find out if there is some overlap among their measures. In other words, how well do the scores on a career-readiness test align with those of a college-readiness test?

Analysts from ACT’s internal research department examined a sample of almost 359,000 students nationwide who took both the ACT and WorkKeys assessments between fall 2022 and summer 2025. Data focused on each student’s most recent attempt on each, which for 68 percent of those in the sample occurred in their junior year of high school. The analysts were interested in students who took the two tests within the same academic year, wanting to limit additional learning taking place in between.

The sample group was 54 percent female and 46 percent male. Forty-nine percent were White, 30 percent Black, and 11 percent Hispanic. Students hailed from 30 states, but the majority came from just six (North Carolina, Louisiana, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Kansas). The analysts compared their sample test takers to a reference population—specifically, all 11th grade students assessed during the school day under ACT state contracts across 22 states in spring 2025. In comparison, the two-test sample students had a larger percentage of students who are female or Black and a lower percentage of those who are male or Hispanic. Otherwise, the two were demographically similar.

The researchers began by examining correlations between ACT scores and WorkKeys scale scores. The ACT data for this analysis comprised the four section test scores (English, math, reading, and science), the English-plus-reading score (representing ELA performance), and the composite score for all students in the sample. The WorkKeys data comprised the scale scores for applied math, graphic literacy, and workplace documents tests, as well as a summed total score. All WorkKeys scale scores were compared to all ACT section scores, regardless of academic subject (thus, applied math is compared to English, graphic literacy to science, and workplace documents to reading, etc., as well as the more direct applied math to math comparison).

They found the correlations with WorkKeys scores were generally high and consistent across ACT sections, ranging from 0.59 to 0.69 for applied math, 0.62 to 0.65 for graphic literacy, and 0.55 to 0.62 for workplace documents.[1] That’s not surprising, given that both tests largely assess reading and math skills. Correlations of this magnitude suggest that students who perform well on the ACT are also likely to perform well on the WorkKeys assessments, but the two assessments also provide some unique information on student readiness.

Next, they investigated how performance benchmark outcomes—ACT’s college readiness levels and the National Career Readiness Certificate (NCRC) performance levels of WorkKeys—compared among dual test-takers. Only one in three sample students met ACT’s college-ready threshold, with another 37 percent nearly college ready. By comparison, 65 percent of sample students earned at the Silver or higher NCRC level, which means that nearly two out of every three students had the foundational skills needed for most entry-level, career-ladder jobs. The bottom line: Thirty-one percent of sample students were prepared for both college and career, while 34 percent were career ready only. And although a miniscule 2 percent were college ready only, a worrying 33 percent tested ready for neither college nor career.

About 26 percent of students in the sample performed better on the ACT than on WorkKeys, and a similar percentage better on WorkKeys than the ACT. About 47 percent performed similarly (within 9 percentage points) on the two assessments. These relative scores were compared with students’ stated postsecondary plans (derived from answers provided on additional questions asked during ACT administration), with some interesting findings. For example, students with occupation plans in skilled trades performed relatively better on WorkKeys than the ACT, while students with occupation plans in the social sciences, arts, communications, and languages performed relatively better on the ACT. Students who did not plan to go to college or who expected to earn less than a bachelor’s degree performed relatively better on WorkKeys, while those who expected to earn at least a bachelor’s degree performed relatively better on the ACT.

It is unsurprising that the folks who produce the ACT and WorkKeys exams conclude from all this that “there are potential benefits to having separate assessments and separate performance standards for college and career readiness,” and such a finding would seem to support the idea of most students taking both tests as a matter of course. But the analysis here could also indicate that there are lots of jobs out there—which are not dead ends—that are attainable for a swath of students who test ready for them via WorkKeys and who are indeed interested in pursuing them. For them, career training should be the prescription in their upper high school years, rather than enforced college prep courses and an ACT arms race.

SOURCE: ACT Research, “Multiple Measures of College and Career Readiness: What Does the Evidence Suggest?” Draft Working Paper (October 2025).

The types, amounts, and modes of testing done in our schools are subject to debate and analysis, with “too much,” “too often,” “too complex,” and “not helpful” among the many complaints. A new report looks to address these questions by focusing on optional assessments called “benchmark modules.” They appear to counter some of the criticisms of testing—proving popular with teachers and seeming to provide positive impact on students’ end-of-year exam scores.

Data come from Utah, where the state board of education launched benchmark modules for instructional use in 2016. These are available for grades 3–8 in English language arts (ELA), math, and writing, and for grades 4–8 in science. Use was—and remains—optional from the state’s perspective and is typically determined at the school or classroom level. (Parents can also opt students out of these or nearly any test in Utah.) While the state doesn’t report who uses them, that information is collected, and researchers were given access to it down to the classroom level. State policymakers see the modules as a “productivity tool”: short, targeted interim assessments for teachers to understand how students are performing in relation to Utah’s state standards during the course of instruction.

Researcher Kyla McClure of the University of Colorado Boulder looks at administrative data for all benchmark modules assigned by Utah teachers from the 2020–21 through the 2022–23 school years in grades 3–8. Each observation identifies the student, teacher, class, and school, as well as scores on every module, thus allowing those results to be linked to end-of-year test scores. McClure runs fixed effects regressions to estimate the effect of completing benchmark modules on end-of-year outcomes.

Use of benchmark modules more than doubled during the relatively brief period under study, from 486,000 in 2020–21 to 1.3 million in 2022–23. The number of students in Utah also increased over this period, as did the percentage of eligible classrooms and teachers assigning modules (from 26 percent to 50 percent), which accounted for some of that growth. Also relevant was that teachers assigned a growing number of benchmark modules per student per class.

In 2022–23, most teachers who used the modules did not begin assigning them until March, indicating primary usage as preparation for end-of-year state testing. The second largest group included teachers who only assigned modules at or near the start of the school year, perhaps as diagnostic tools. The third largest group comprised teachers who used modules continuously through the year—and the number of such users increased by over 400 percent since 2020–21. Across all three years of the study, teachers gave an average of 2.4 to 4.2 benchmark modules per student, with end-of-year users giving the fewest. Continuous users gave almost triple the number of benchmark modules as the other groups, on average.

McClure finds a small, positive, and statistically-significant relationship between having taken a benchmark module and end-of-year summative test scores. Students who took at least one module in a grade and subject scored about 0.02 to 0.05 standard deviations higher than their peers in the same school or with the same teacher. Students who took an additional benchmark module scored about 0.006 to 0.012 standard deviations higher, on average, compared to students who took one fewer module—a smaller but still statistically significant impact as the number of modules rose. The effect was higher on end-of-year math tests than on ELA tests but near zero on science tests. Scores were higher in classes where modules were assigned continuously throughout the year, versus start-of-year and end-of-year classes.

In the end, this report presents an interesting snapshot. No causal effects can be determined, and mechanisms to explain the observations can only be conjectured at. Are kids responding to the feedback they get via benchmark modules? Do teachers make changes in their instructional approach based on module scores? Does experiencing multiple modules sharpen a student’s test-taking ability? Do school leaders review and address module data with teachers? Utah’s schools and classrooms remain black boxes, but the data emanating from them—especially in terms of this optional interim testing regime—are intriguing.

SOURCE: Kyla N. McClure, “Benchmark Modules: A Better Interim Assessment? Evidence From Statewide Use of Benchmark Modules in Utah,” AERA Open Journal (October 2025).

Acronyms and definitions

Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) is the state agency responsible for overseeing the implementation of K–12 education policies.

An industry-recognized credential (IRC) is a credential or certificate signifying that an individual has acquired certain technical skills. As of August 2025, DEW had approved 693 IRCs that can be used to meet career-tech-based graduation options. Each credential is assigned a point value, ranging from one to twelve, and students must accumulate credentials worth at least twelve points to meet certain graduation requirements.[1]

End-of-course exams (EOCs) are state assessments administered when students complete specific courses. Ohio currently administers five high school EOCs in Algebra I, Geometry, English II, Biology, U.S. History, and U.S. Government. Students must pass the Algebra I and English II exams to graduate, though alternatives are provided for students who fall short of the state’s passing score.

This report focuses on the four-year graduation rate—i.e., the percentage of students in a cohort who graduate “on-time,” or within four years of entering ninth grade for the first time.

The Ohio Graduation Tests (OGTs) were the state’s previous set of high school exams, given prior to introduction of the EOCs in 2014–15. Students in the classes of 2007 to 2017 were required to pass the OGTs to graduate.

 

Executive summary

High school diplomas—and the graduation rates based on their receipt—have long been held as markers of educational attainment and success. In 2024, Columbus superintendent Angela Chapman touted the district’s 83 percent graduation rate as being “stronger than ever before.” Cleveland school leaders have routinely trumpeted the district’s soaring graduation rate. In Akron, a city councilman recently defended the district superintendent, writing “What you cannot deny is the district’s 88.1 percent graduation rate.”

There is no denying these record-breaking numbers. But do they actually signify that a vast majority of students exit high school ready for success? Or do they simply reflect a low bar—getting ever lower—that underlies today’s diplomas? 

This report argues that mediocre standards, not widespread academic success, are behind swelling graduation rates in the Buckeye State. The first section discusses Ohio’s current graduation requirements, and the recent policy debates and shifts that helped shape them. The next section documents just how out-of-sync graduation rates have become with student proficiency on state exams given to high schoolers. Finally, the report examines two factors that explain the large discrepancy between graduation and proficiency rates: (1) the low score needed to “pass” the state’s Algebra I and English II exams, the two key tests that factor into graduation requirement, and which are usually taken in eighth to tenth grade; and (2) the presence of a lower-level career-tech alternative route for students who struggle on these exams.

Here are the key findings.

1. Statewide graduation rates continue to increase, and currently exceed state proficiency rates on Algebra I and English II exams by more than 25 percentage points. The figure below demonstrates the steady rise in Ohio’s four-year graduation rate from 83 percent in 2015–16 to 88 percent in 2024–25. That rise has occurred even as high school proficiency rates fell sharply during the pandemic, and remain below the pre-pandemic marks posted in 2018–19. The diverging trends—increasing graduation rates versus slumping proficiency rates—result in a noticeable disparity between the two measures. In 2024–25, Ohio’s graduation rate stood 29 and 28 percentage points above the Algebra I and English II proficiency rates, respectively. This large discrepancy suggests that thousands of Ohio students receive diplomas despite lacking the solid math and reading skills that are essential to college and career success.

Figure ES-1. Statewide graduation versus high-school proficiency rates 

2. The graduation-proficiency gap reaches 40 to 60 percentage points in large urban districts. All but one of the Ohio Eight districts[2] report graduation rates above 70 percent, despite just a quarter to half of their students scoring proficient on high school exams. Columbus City Schools, for example, posts an 83 percent graduation rate, even though just 34 percent of students score proficient in English II and 22 percent achieve that mark in Algebra I. Tables 2 and 3 in the report show similarly large disparities in graduation and proficiency rates in the other Ohio Eight districts, as well as other districts across the state.

Figure ES-2. Graduation versus high school proficiency rates, Columbus City Schools

3. The graduation-proficiency gap can be explained by a low “competency” score needed to meet exam-based requirements, along with the introduction of a weaker career-technical alternative. To graduate, Ohio requires students to achieve a state-defined “competency” score on the Algebra I and English II exam, or to meet an alternative requirement. The competency benchmark is set significantly below the “proficient” standard, and is well beneath a true “college-ready” target (see below for details). A low passing score allows many students to meet graduation requirements even though they have not demonstrated proficiency in high school level English and math.

For students failing to reach the competency bar after a mandatory test retake, the state offers a “career experience and technical skill” pathway. This requires students to acquire industry credentials, pass career-technical course assessments, or meet one of several other measures. Data from school districts with low achievement data suggest that substantial numbers of students now graduate with the help of this less-demanding option (see Table 6 below). In Youngstown, for example, 85 percent of students graduate on-time, despite an Algebra I proficiency rate of just 27 percent. Yet we also discover that 59 percent of the district’s most recent graduating class earned industry credentials during high school—more than twice the state average—and 45 percent passed career-tech assessments, almost double the state average. These numbers suggest that a sizeable number of Youngstown students graduated by virtue of the career-tech alternative.

Permitting students to graduate via career-tech pathways might make sense if those pathways effectively prepare them for careers. But a closer look at the credentials earned reveals troubling patterns. In Akron, students have collected large numbers of retail certificates, while in Columbus and Youngstown, students have racked up credentials in national emergency management. These certificates might have value to students with strong academic skills or to professionals already working in the field, but they are unlikely to open rewarding opportunities for students who have not even demonstrated basic competency in math and English. Unfortunately, what is more likely happening is that schools have discovered ways to work around the academic requirements by funneling students into lower-level career-tech programs just to get them a diploma.[3]

***

Ohio policymakers have consistently talked a good talk about readying students for college and career. But they haven’t always walked the walk. Graduation standards have slid, and diplomas are quickly becoming participation trophies rather than well-earned prizes that signify students’ readiness for post-high-school success.

To state leaders, we ask this: Please strengthen graduation requirements to require “competency”—if not “proficiency”—in Algebra I and English II (at least) as an unwavering condition of earning a diploma. No matter their aspirations, every student must exit high school with solid reading, writing, and math skills. We also know that, with hard work, determination, and the right support, every Ohio student has what it takes to achieve that baseline standard. Rather than giving away counterfeit diplomas that lead nowhere, let’s hold the line on academics and see where a next generation of well-prepared young people take our state.

 

Ohio’s graduation requirements: Past and present

The value of a high school diploma has long been debated. More than forty years ago, UCLA professor James Popham argued that “U.S. citizens believe that a high school diploma means little today,” and went on to propose minimum competency tests that would “restore meaning to the high school diploma.”[4] About the same time, A Nation at Risk noted that, in many high schools, learning to cook or drive had as much bearing on graduation as math and English. That landmark report proposed minimum course requirements in the academic subjects, and also recommended use of standardized exams that would “certify the student’s credentials.”[5]

To address concerns about graduation standards, states began to implement both course requirements and exit exams during the 1980s and 1990s.[6] Here in Ohio, lawmakers instituted a ninth-grade competency test that required students starting in the class of 1994 to pass its reading, writing, math, and citizenship sections.[7] Yet the earliest competency exams—in Ohio and elsewhere—were criticized as low-level and not aligned to the expectations of colleges and employers.[8] In an effort to raise the bar, Ohio transitioned to the Ohio Graduation Test. Under that system, students, starting with the class of 2007, were required to achieve proficiency on five statewide tests (reading, writing, math, science, and social studies). But with passage rates ranging between 80 and 90 percent by 2011,[9] and with many considering the tests to be roughly eighth-grade level, policymakers sought to increase the rigor yet again.[10]

In a package of reforms passed in 2014, Ohio introduced a next generation of high school graduation standards and assessments.[11] Students in the class of 2018 and beyond were required to achieve a state benchmark on seven end-of-course exams (EOCs) in Algebra I, Geometry, English I and II, U.S. History, U.S. Government, and Biology. The exam-based pathway was envisioned as the route that most students would take to graduation, although lawmakers added two alternate routes to the diploma: (1) Earn a remediation-free ACT/SAT score, or (2) attain industry credentials and pass WorkKeys, a workforce development exam.

The new diploma requirements set off a raucous debate, with education groups complaining that this time lawmakers had set the bar too high—the EOCs were tougher than the softball OGTs—and warning of a “graduation apocalypse.”[12] Amid prolonged debate, the legislature approved stop-gap measures for the classes of 2018 through 2020 that allowed students, in lieu of passing EOCs, to graduate based on extremely weak options such as satisfactory attendance, an acceptable grade point average, or completing an ill-defined “capstone” project.[13][14] Some advocates pushed to make these weak alternatives permanent, but lawmakers declined and settled on “long-term” requirements that were supported by Fordham and others.

Starting with the class of 2023, these requirements aim to preserve an objective, exam-based component but also make significant modifications that softened requirements relative to the original system enacted in 2014. These include a reduced number of exams that factor into graduation: The state’s Geometry, Biology, U.S. History, and U.S. Government EOCs no longer play a serious role in meeting graduation requirements, and the English I exam was simply scrapped. Moreover, the state also relaxed the career-tech alternative by removing the WorkKeys testing requirement and adding several other options.[15] Under current requirements, students must do all of the following to graduate:

Complete course requirements: Following long-standing policy, earn at least twenty credits, with a certain number of credits in specific subjects (e.g., four each in math and English).[16]

Earn two diploma “seals”: Earn at least two seals out of twelve possible options. Due to the relative ease of attaining several of the seals, this requirement is not very challenging. Appendix A lists the seals and includes a brief description of each.

Demonstrate competency: Meet either the exam-based academic pathway or complete one of four alternatives.

To meet the main academic pathway, the one based on exams, students must achieve a “competency” score of 684 or above on the state’s Algebra I and English II EOCs, which are usually taken in eighth to tenth grade. It’s important to understand that this score is beneath the “proficient” cut score of 700, and it falls substantially below the “college- and career-ready” benchmark of 725. While the decision to set the graduation mark below a bona fide college-and-career ready score is sensible—that is a truly ambitious target for most students—the move below proficient represents another form of softening. Today, all students need to do is score in the “basic” range, which indicates only “partial command” of state standards and, as studies indicate, diminishes their likelihood of attending and succeeding in college.[17] 

Figure 1. Algebra I scaled scores and corresponding achievement benchmarks

The state provides four alternative pathways for students who fall short of the competency standard on their first try and again on a mandatory retake. Three are reasonable options, as they are more closely tied to an objective measure of achievement. They include: (1) achieving a remediation-free ACT/SAT score,[18] (2) completing a dual enrollment course in the failed subject area,[19] or (3) enlisting in the military.[20]

A fourth alternative—a career-tech-oriented route—requires students to meet two of seven requirements, at least one of which must be a “foundational” option:

• Foundational options: (1) earn a cumulative score of proficient on at least three technical assessments (known as WebXams); (2) earn at least twelve points in the state’s industry credentialing system;[21] (3) complete a pre-apprenticeship or apprenticeship program; or (4) obtain a state-issued professional license.

• Supporting options: (1) complete at least 250 hours of a work-based learning experience; (2) pass the WorkKeys exam; or (3) attain the OhioMeansJobs readiness seal.

Creating a career-technical pathway makes sense, provided that fulfilling it actually signifies career readiness and serves as an acceptable substitute for academic proficiency. These questions hinge on the rigor of the underlying measures. Unlike state assessments and well-known college admissions and military enlistment exams, little information is available about the content and rigor of the WebXam technical assessments.[22] Moreover, as discussed below, some of the industry credentials that students can earn are of dubious rigor and value. By allowing for expansive yet questionable career-tech alternatives, state lawmakers may have also inadvertently lowered the bar for graduation.

Through the years, Ohio has struggled to maintain strict standards for graduation. Current requirements are no different. The “competency” standard is a relatively soft benchmark for academic performance, and the career-technical workaround leaves open the possibility that students graduate with neither the academic nor technical skills needed for success after high school. But how have these changes impacted graduation rates? How do these rates compare with trends in student proficiency? The next section dives into the data.

 

Soaring graduation rates, stagnant proficiency

Historically, most Ohio students have graduated “on-time,” i.e. within four years of entering ninth grade. In recent years, however, graduation rates have climbed to unprecedented levels. As the chart below indicates, 82 to 84 percent of students graduated on-time during the last years of the OGT-driven standard. In the post-OGT era, rates rose higher still, topping 85 percent for the first time for the classes of 2018 and 2019, which were the cohorts that graduated under eased temporary requirements. Just over 87 percent of students in the Covid-impacted class of 2020 graduated on-time, and rates continued to climb to a remarkable 88 percent for the classes of 2023 and 2024, the first cohorts subject to the state’s current requirements.

Figure 2. Statewide four-year graduation rates, classes of 2014 to 2024

Graduation rates have marched upward not only statewide but also in most of Ohio’s large urban districts. As Table 1 indicates, graduation rates in the Ohio Eight ranged from 64 to 74 percent for the class of 2014. Since then, they’ve risen substantially in six of the eight districts, ranging from 69 percent in Dayton to 88 percent in Akron for the class of 2024.

Table 1. Four-year graduation rates in the Ohio Eight school districts, classes of 2014 to 2024

Figure 3 depicts the increases in Akron, Cincinnati, and Youngstown, all of which have posted double-digit gains in graduation rates over the past decade. The increases accelerated starting with the class of 2018—especially apparent in Youngstown—which coincided with the transition from the OGTs to new graduation requirements.

Figure 3. Four-year graduation rates in selected urban districts, classes of 2014 to 2023

Lofty graduation rates would be worthy of praise if they denoted true gains, which we can gauge by comparing those rates with student proficiency—a key measure of preparedness for life after high school, as it predicts performance on college-admissions exams and college-going rates.[23] Employers, too, routinely say that they seek individuals with strong analytical and communication skills, which proficiency in math, reading, and writing underpin.[24]

But here, we see that proficiency on state high school exams continues to lag far behind graduation rates. Figure 4 shows that Algebra I proficiency fell sharply during the pandemic—even as graduation rates continued to rise—though scores have recovered since 2021–22. English II proficiency rates likewise slid during the pandemic and remain virtually unchanged since then. The chart also shows a large disparity in graduation and proficiency rates—a gap of more than 25 percentage points in 2025. Reflecting the diverging trends in graduation and proficiency rates, the gap is wider today than it was in 2018–19. 

Figure 4. Statewide graduation versus Algebra I and English II proficiency rates

Larger disparities emerge in the large urban districts. As Table 2 indicates, Algebra I proficiency rates in the Ohio Eight range from 22 to 47 percent, yet all but one of these districts register graduation rates above 70 percent. This results in graduation-proficiency gaps ranging from 28 percentage points in Canton to 61 points in Columbus. The table shows that these large differences are not a one-year phenomenon, as they were clearly evident in 2023–24 as well. 

Table 2. Graduation versus Algebra I proficiency for the Ohio Eight districts, 2023–24 and 2024–25

Figure 5 provides a longer-term view of the graduation-proficiency gaps in the three largest Ohio Eight districts. While graduation rates in Cincinnati, Cleveland, and Columbus have consistently topped 70 and 80 percent over the past decade, proficiency rates on the Algebra I and English II exams fall well below those marks.

Figure 5. Graduation versus Algebra I and English II proficiency rates, selected Ohio Eight districts

Cincinnati

Cleveland

Columbus

Sizeable differences in graduation and high school proficiency rates are not limited to the big-city districts. Table 3 shows the districts with the largest discrepancies based on Algebra I scores. In some of these districts, 90 to 100 percent of students graduate on-time, despite posting Algebra I proficiency rates below 40 percent, resulting in gaps exceeding 60 percentage points. A list based on the largest differences in English II proficiency and graduation rates appears in Appendix D. 

Table 3. Twenty-five districts with the largest differences in graduation versus Algebra I proficiency rates, 2024–25

Overall, this section shows that thousands of Ohio students receive diplomas despite not having demonstrated high-school level proficiency on state English and math exams. The problem is especially acute in (though not limited to) urban districts where graduation rates often exceed 75 and 80 percent, even though roughly half that number achieve proficiency. The large disparity raises questions about how students are graduating—and whether they truly have the knowledge and skills needed for success after high school.

 

What’s going on? 

How can it be that some districts graduate large majorities of students when just a quarter to half score proficient? And that statewide graduation rates have far outstripped proficiency rates? One obvious explanation is that Ohio does not align its academic requirement for graduation to its own “proficient” standard. Rather—as discussed above—it sets the bar considerably lower at “competency,” a mark that is at the very low end of the “basic” achievement level. Despite their shaky academic skills, allowing students scoring in the “basic” category to meet graduation requirements does narrow the graduation-proficiency gap. In Columbus, for instance, 53 percent of students score “basic” or above in Algebra I—more than double its 22 percent proficiency rate—which brings us closer to the district’s graduation rate of 83 percent.[25]

In addition to graduating students thanks to the lower-level competency mark, schools are also taking advantage of the state’s alternative pathways to graduation, most notably the career-technical option.  Statewide, we see sharp increases in the number of students attaining industry credentials and passing three or more career-technical assessments, two of the key measures for this pathway. Prior to the class of 2023, roughly one in ten students earned industry credentials (technically, accumulating twelve or more points in the credentialing system). That rate almost doubled with the class of 2023, the first cohort subject to the current graduation requirements, and increased again to 26 percent for the class of 2024. While it does not appear that technical assessment data were being reported prior to 2023, almost a quarter of students in the classes of 2023 and 2024 passed three or more of those exams.  

Figure 6. Statewide percentage of students earning industry credentials or passing career-technical assessments

Schools with more students who struggle academically would likely be more apt to encourage use of the career-technical alternative. Indeed, in low-achieving urban districts, we find substantial proportions of students meeting two of the key measures that can be used for this alternative. Table 4 shows that more than two-fifths of the class of 2024 in Akron, Columbus, Dayton, and Youngstown earned industry credentials—rates that are much higher than the statewide average. As for technical assessments, more than one-third of students in Akron and Youngstown met that measure in the class of 2024.

Table 4. Career-technical measures, Ohio Eight districts

Figure 7 depicts the sharp increase in industry credential attainment across the Ohio Eight, starting with the class of 2023 in most of the districts. This jump in credentialing coincides with the transition to the current graduation requirements that provide students a career-tech pathway when they are unable to demonstrate competency in Algebra or English II.

Figure 7. Percent of graduating classes earning industry credentials, Ohio Eight districts

If the career-technical assessments and industry credentials were high-quality, the upward trends on these measures would be heartening. While little is known about the technical assessments—perhaps because they are relative newcomers to the state accountability system—we do know more about the credentials that students earn statewide and in the Ohio Eight. Table 6 displays the ten most frequently earned credentials for the class of 2024.[26] Several credentials rise to the top—retail certificates, national incident management certificates, and general first aid and job-safety certificates. Under Ohio’s graduation policies, students can “bundle” certain credentials to reach the twelve-point mark for graduation. Bundles that appear to be widely used are shown in Table 5 and highlighted in Table 6.

Table 5. IRC combinations that equal twelve or more graduation points

Table 6. Most commonly earned industry-recognized credentials, Ohio Eight districts and statewide, class of 2024 

A serious career-technical pathway to graduation does have merit and is worth consideration. Ohio identifies and provides extra funding for high-priority industry credentials through the Innovative Workforce Incentive Program (IWIP)—credentials that would be more useful to students after graduation. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of the most-commonly-earned credentials are not on the IWIP list[27] and are of questionable value, particularly for students who have not demonstrated basic academic skills. The retail certificates, for instance, may not even be necessary to obtain entry-level positions, and are unlikely to help graduates advance beyond that, especially given their inadequate math and reading skills. The national incident management certificates are equally troubling. Do large numbers of Cleveland, Columbus, and Youngstown students intend to enter emergency management? What happens if they don’t? Do these specialized certificates have any value in other occupations?

In sum, while there isn’t anything inherently wrong about collecting credentials, the price low-achieving students pay is an opportunity cost. They would have likely been better off shoring up their academic skills—something that is of more certain value across all professions—rather than spending time pursuing credentials that do little to advance their careers or may quickly become obsolete.[28] Ohio policymakers have two options to clean up this mess. One, they could get serious about making sure all students graduate with solid academic skills by eliminating the career-tech alternative. Alternatively, they could keep a career-tech option. But if so, they must significantly tighten the pathway to ensure that meaningless credentials and low-level tests don’t count toward graduation.

 

Conclusion

Student effort and accomplishment should underpin the high school diploma, which should reflect young people’s striving to master core academic content, persevering when the going gets tough, and demonstrating knowledge and skill on an objective measure of achievement. When diplomas are truly earned—not just handed out—they empower young people and act as a gateway to a brighter future.

Unfortunately, too many students now receive diplomas that lead nowhere. As this report documents, large proportions of Ohio students are allowed to graduate without having achieved proficiency on state math and English exams. Some will argue that giving such students a diploma is the compassionate thing to do. But what happens when that graduate can’t find employment, gets stuck in a dead-end job, or drops out of college with only debt and regret? How is that kind-hearted?

A firmer but better-for-students approach is to require competency, or better yet proficiency (which is still below a true “college- and career-ready” mark), at least in Algebra I and English II, to graduate high school. No matter the direction students choose—whether it’s higher education or employment—they all need a solid academic foundation to succeed over the long-term.

Is that too much to ask of students? Consider the algebra assessment, which is largely taken in eighth and ninth grade. Students falling short should have multiple opportunities to retake the exam—and the underlying course, if necessary—as tenth graders, or even into their junior or senior years. It shouldn’t matter when students pass the Algebra I exam, or how many times they need to take it. What matters most is that they nail down the content before they exit high school. As for English II—a tenth grade-level assessment—three in five Ohio students already achieve proficiency on their first attempt. Is it an impossibility, especially with the state’s Science of Reading initiative underway, to reach four out of five? Or higher?

How about demographics, and equity considerations? Would a strict academic standard withhold diplomas from too many disadvantaged students? There is no doubt that many Ohio students face barriers to academic success. But the answer is not double standards and a lower bar. What they need instead are education leaders willing to hold them to the same standards as their more advantaged peers, while giving them the supports to meet those standards. Some Ohio schools already demonstrate that this can be done. In Steubenville, a district that serves mainly low- to mid-income households, 94 percent of students score proficient or above in Algebra I and 72 percent do so in English II. And in Cleveland, the district’s John Hay high schools serve predominately Black or Hispanic students, and about three quarters achieve proficiency on state exams.

Ohio should build its education policies upon the unwavering belief that every student can and will excel academically. It’ll take the right set of incentives, accountability systems, and supports to reach this ambitious goal. Will state policymakers have the courage to challenge Ohio’s high school students—and their schools—to achieve more? The state’s future hinges on how they answer that question.

 

Acknowledgments

I wish to thank my Fordham Institute colleagues Michael J. Petrilli, Chester E. Finn, Jr., Chad L. Aldis, Jessica Poiner, and Jeff Murray for their thoughtful feedback during the drafting process. Special thanks also to Alicia Anderson, who copy edited the manuscript, and Dave Williams who created the design.

— Aaron Churchill
Ohio Research Director, Thomas B. Fordham Institute

 

Endnotes