The Education Gadfly Weekly

Earlier this year, state lawmakers introduced House Bill 715, legislation aimed at expanding available data on chartered nonpublic (private) schools that accept scholarships provided by Ohio’s five private school choice programs. In a press release announcing the bill, one of its sponsors, Representative Gayle Manning, emphasized its focus on transparency. “Every public dollar,” she said, “whether for public schools or school choice programs, should be fully accountable, carefully tracked, and wisely invested to ensure all students benefit.” Representative Mike Odioso, the bill’s other primary sponsor, noted that the legislation “provides the transparency required to justify future public expenditures without placing burdens on private school administrators.”

Here at Fordham, we couldn’t agree more about the importance of transparency. Ohio taxpayers invest billions in education each year. They deserve to know those dollars are being spent in ways that benefit children. Parents, in particular, need access to transparent and accurate data. Ohio has a robust school choice sector designed to provide every family—regardless of income—with multiple school options. To help them navigate these options, state leaders have an obligation to provide resources that enable them to compare and make informed choices.

Last year, Fordham called on state officials to create and publish annually updated informational sheets for each scholarship-accepting private school. To help visualize the possibilities, we designed two samples: one for a fictional elementary school and another for a fictional high school. Both contain the following information, all of which is based on data that are currently reported by the state, albeit not in a user-friendly format:

• Details like the school’s address, phone number, website, grade span, and student enrollment.

• Which state scholarships the school accepts, as well as the number and percentage of the student population that attends via each scholarship.

• Confirmation that the school meets state operating standards and background check requirements.

• Student and teacher demographics.

• Academic outcomes. For achievement, that includes the percentage of students who scored proficient or above on state or state-approved alternative tests, both schoolwide and broken down by grade and subject. Student growth data, which will be calculated beginning this year, would appear, as well.

These sheets address several of the key provisions contained in HB 715. Most importantly, they make it possible for parents to easily review academic performance. But they also address transparency concerns. For example, in keeping with Representative Manning’s desire to track taxpayer funds, they clearly identify the total amount of state support each private school receives through scholarship funding, auxiliary services, and administrative cost reimbursement. They identify a school’s total enrollment and provide a demographic breakdown by race, gender, and low-income status, as well as the number and percentage of scholarship students. Moreover, because all of this information is already publicly available, the concerns about administrative burden expressed by Representative Odioso would largely be moot. It would be the state, not schools, that’s responsible for creating the sheets.

There are, however, two provisions in HB 715 that these informational sheets don’t address—and for good reason.

First, the bill would require the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to annually post for each private school what kind of school each scholarship student attended during the prior year. This level of detail is unnecessary because it doesn’t benefit students and families. Parents make schooling decisions based on all sorts of variables, like academics, safety, proximity to home, and access to reliable transportation, before or after-school care, and extracurricular activities. Knowing how many scholarship students were previously enrolled in a district, charter, or STEM school doesn’t answer the question of why those families made a different choice. It just indicates that they did. Anti-choice advocates might benefit from these data, as they can twist it into proof that public schools are suffering as a result of private school choice (rigorous research says otherwise). But parents and kids gain nothing. Knowing that a student previously attended a private school, regardless of whether it’s their current one, is similarly useless. This type of data isn’t included on public school report cards. Why report it for private schools?

Second, the bill requires DEW to publicly report the number of students participating in a state scholarship program and disaggregate the data by family income along precise income brackets that go well beyond the conventional “economically disadvantaged” rate reported for public schools. This is unnecessary for two reasons. First, just like above, it won’t help families make more informed decisions. And second, it establishes a double standard in state law. In 2025, public schools received approximately $15,000 in state and local taxpayer funding per student. In some districts, overall per pupil revenues are double or even triple the current maximum EdChoice scholarship amount.[1] If, as Representative Manning asserts, “every public dollar, whether for public schools or school choice programs” should be “carefully tracked,” then why wouldn’t the bill require DEW to annually post the income brackets of families who attend public schools, as well? Taxpayers are funding the education regardless of whether a student attends a district school or a scholarship-accepting private school. It’s hard to fathom a scenario where this level of detailed information would be compiled and publicized for the parents in a traditional public school district.

Lawmakers deserve credit for their commitment to transparency. Ohio taxpayers deserve to know how their money is being spent, and Ohio parents deserve detailed and accurate resources that help them make informed decisions. But HB 715 takes these imperatives a step too far by requiring data collection that doesn’t accomplish either of these goals. Going forward, policymakers should keep the focus on kids and families.

School district consolidation has recently emerged as a hot topic, as discussions about local tax burdens and the cost of government continue to percolate throughout Ohio. One county auditor suggested a move towards countywide districts in a streamlining effort. Meanwhile, a left-leaning national think tank (concerned more with segregation) generated headlines for recommending that Ohio go from 606 districts to somewhere between 88 and 163 districts.

While large, consolidated districts are not uncommon in America, merging hundreds of Ohio districts would be a massive undertaking and likely to set off a political firestorm. Fearing job losses, public school groups would vehemently oppose largescale consolidation. Community members would likely join the fray, as many Ohioans rightly view the local district as part of their community identity. Indeed, there is a strong argument for maintaining small(ish) school districts that are more responsive to parents and citizens than creating sprawling bureaucracies.

Nevertheless, consolidation should be on the policy agenda—albeit not the sort that wipes hundreds of districts off the map through brute force. Here’s a look at why Ohio should pursue consolidation and how it could be done in way that is sensitive to communities and eases transitions.

Dwindling enrollments, rising costs

Ohio must come to grips with the substantial enrollment declines occurring in traditional districts due to a combination of out-migration, low birthrates, and increasing demand for educational choice (including private, public charter, career-tech, and homeschool). In 2010, 1.65 million Ohio students attended a district school. Fast forward fifteen years, and district enrollment now stands at 1.43 million students, a 14 percent decline. Only three districts dissolved through voluntary consolidation during this timeframe, despite the sector’s loss of nearly 230,000 students.[1] Moving forward, the enrollment picture looks similarly bleak, as the U.S. Department of Education projects further declines over the next five years.

The statewide enrollment decline masks even larger downturns in specific districts. As Figure 1 indicates, 86 districts experienced losses of more than 30 percent over the past 15 years. Enrollment in another 180 districts fell by 20 to 30 percent. Only a handful of districts—mostly suburbs of Cincinnati and Columbus—have gained enrollment.

Figure 1: Number of Ohio districts by their change in enrollment from FY 2010 to 2025

Enrollment decline isn’t necessarily a cause for concern—at least on efficiency grounds—if districts “right size” their budgets commensurate with reduced headcounts. Unfortunately, that hasn’t happened in most rapidly declining districts. Consider the figure below. It shows 14 districts whose enrollments fell more than 40 percent and whose per-pupil spending increased more than 30 percent between 2010 and 2025. East Cleveland, for instance, suffered enrollment declines of 68 percent, while at the same time experiencing soaring costs to educate a dwindling number of students. Even after accounting for inflation, the district’s per-pupil expenditures rose by 91 percent—nearly doubling—over the past 15 years and reached a stunning $40,716 per pupil in FY25, about 2.5 times the state average. Other districts shown below, including four in Trumbull County, have likewise failed to contain costs in the face of massive enrollment declines.

Figure 2: Ohio districts with large enrollment losses and rising per-pupil expenditures, FY 2010 to 2025

Allowing small (and shrinking) districts to operate at an outsized cost is poor stewardship. With all the money East Cleveland receives, it employs 22 administrators at an average salary of more than $110,000. In a district of just 1,100 students, that number of administrators is way out-of-line—it has more admins than nearby Solon, which has four times as many students—and the cost is being shouldered by state and local taxpayers. Some of the districts continue to operate multiple school buildings, and pay associated expenses, despite tiny enrollments. For instance, Sebring (enrollment 360) and Jefferson Township (enrollment 259) both operate two buildings when each could likely consolidate into one. Beyond fiscal concerns, students attending districts of such miniscule scale can also miss out on opportunities such as specialized academic courses and extracurricular activities. It’s hard to offer AP courses, support a school play, or even field a football team when schools lack a critical mass of students.

Policy solutions: Use sticks and carrots

Under current law, there is little to stop districts from operating in perpetuity, even if their enrollments continue to fall and per-pupil expenses spiral further out of control. State law does authorize the state board of education to consolidate districts, though their actions are subject to citizen petition and referendum. The language is permissive (using “may” instead of “shall”), so it would require an unusually proactive state board to initiate consolidation. School districts can also consolidate voluntarily. As noted earlier, three districts have chosen to merge over the past 15 years—they were all struggling financially—but the rarity of consolidation in an era of enrollment loss suggests weaknesses in Ohio policy.

What to do? Mandatory consolidation is one option, but it would be a blunt tool and politically risky. A better approach is to create “sticks and carrots” that prod along district consolidation. In this vein, here are three ideas:

Create a framework that automatically initiates a county-level consolidation review. State lawmakers could require the formation of a commission comprising county leaders when districts meet certain criteria, such as enrollment losses of more than 30 percent and spending increases of more than 30 percent per pupil over the past 15 years.[2] The commission would be tasked with examining merger options, gathering input, and crafting a plan. While it wouldn’t directly mandate consolidation, the process would start local conversations about consolidation and increase the likelihood that it happens—and in a smooth way. Moreover, the threat of a consolidation commission might also encourage shrinking districts to pursue budget reductions (and perhaps property tax rebates for local residents) to avoid scrutiny. However, if no action is taken on the plan after a certain amount of time and the district continues to lose enrollment and face escalating costs, lawmakers could require the state board of education to initiate the consolidation process.

Remove funding “guarantees” that discourage consolidation. Through its current school funding model, Ohio provides excess subsidies that prop up districts whose enrollments are extremely small enrollments (via staffing minimums) or significantly decreasing (via guarantees, of which East Cleveland is the state’s largest beneficiary). Lawmakers should strip these elements from the formula. Maintaining them largely eliminates the necessity for districts to downsize their budgets consistent with enrollment declines or pursue efficiencies, including consolidation.

Provide state grants to support consolidation. One of the tools that states typically use to encourage consolidation is financial support. For the past couple decades, Ohio has not offered clear and direct funding incentives for consolidation, but House lawmakers have recently introduced legislation (HB574) that creates a $25 million grant program to support local government entities (including school districts) that choose to consolidate. The grants would help ease the transition costs of a merger and would provide an incentive for voluntary consolidation. In addition to short-term grants, Ohio lawmakers should update state law to give a newly consolidated district priority for school construction funding (the current provision appears to be outdated).

****

State lawmakers are responsible for being good stewards of taxpayer dollars. In fact, the Ohio Constitution charges them with securing a “thorough and efficient” system of common schools. But the status quo of running 606 school districts—many of which have shrunk considerably and operate at an escalating cost—is not an efficient use of funds. Small schools have their virtues, to be sure, but when districts become too small to operate efficiently or provide adequate services to students, consolidation must be on the table.

For nearly a year, Ohio lawmakers have been working on Senate Bill 19, legislation aimed at improving student achievement. Recently, the House Education Committee released an amended bill. There are considerable differences between the newest and initial versions. But there is one difference, in particular, that directly contradicts the bill’s original purpose.

Under the original legislation, public schools would be required to enroll any child in grades 3–7 who scores at the two highest levels on their state math exam (“accomplished” or “advanced”) in an advanced math course the following year. These designations weren’t just plucked out of thin air. Students who score accomplished or advanced are considered to be on track for college. Their achievement is a clear indicator that they’re ready for more challenging work. And yet, the revised version of the bill only requires opportunities to be provided to students who score advanced. Those who score accomplished can still be enrolled in advanced courses, but—in a new and misguided twist—only if both the school principal and the student’s classroom teacher, in consultation with a parent or guardian, agree that the student would “benefit” from the opportunity.

Implying that students with a documented history of high achievement might not “benefit” from advanced coursework is absurd. Testing data indicate that high-ability students who take Algebra I in eighth grade almost universally perform well on the state’s end-of-course exam. And yet, more than half of them (55 percent) weren’t enrolled in algebra during eighth grade and thus didn’t take the end-of-course exam in 2024. That’s nearly 13,000 students who missed out on advanced math opportunities despite proving their readiness. For reference, during the 2024–25 school year, just under 10 percent of seventh graders scored advanced on the state’s math exam. Meanwhile, 18 percent scored accomplished. Collectively, these students have demonstrated their readiness. But under the revised bill, only a third of them would have guaranteed access to advanced coursework.

What makes this subtle change particularly pernicious, though, is who it’s most likely to harm. Ohio testing data outlined in Chart 1 demonstrates that high-achieving low-income and minority students are more likely than their peers to miss out on advanced math. Less than 50 percent of Black, Hispanic, and American Indian/Alaskan native students who scored in the top two levels took algebra in eighth grade, while 56 percent of their White peers did so. A similar gap exists based on income: Just 45 percent of economically disadvantaged students who scored accomplished or advanced were enrolled in Algebra I in eighth grade, compared to 59 percent of their more affluent peers.

Chart 1. Percentage of seventh graders who scored accomplished or advanced on Ohio’s 7th grade math exam and took the Algebra I exam the following year

One of the reasons why these gaps exist is that some schools, like those in economically disadvantaged urban areas, offer fewer opportunities for students to take advanced math. But that’s not the only reason. According to a nationally representative survey of teachers and principals published by the RAND Corporation in 2023, even when low-income and minority students attend schools that offer advanced math courses, they can still miss out if teachers and administrators fail to recognize their potential. Nearly one-quarter of principals said teacher nominations were included as part of the selection process for taking Algebra I before high school. And that’s a problem, says RAND, given that “previous research demonstrates that [using] subjective measures—especially teacher nominations—during the enrollment process is a known contributor to persistent disparities in representation in advanced math courses.”

The upshot? This change to SB 19 could prevent low-income and minority students from accessing math opportunities that their achievement track record proves they’re ready for. Constructing a bureaucratic roadblock for students who score accomplished will benefit districts, as it limits the number of students they’re required to advance. But it won’t help kids—especially those from underserved backgrounds.

If current practice is any indication, most of these students will be placed on lower-level tracks that can hinder admission into selective universities. Delaying algebra until ninth grade denies high-achieving, low-income students the opportunity to take calculus or high-level statistics as juniors and seniors. Not only that, it likely forecloses advanced physics, chemistry, or computer science courses that require strong mathematical skills as a prerequisite. Ultimately, these students will have less competitive college applications than their more advantaged peers—all because state lawmakers were unwilling to guarantee advancement opportunities.

Offering advanced coursework for high-achievers will challenge the status quo in many schools. But Ohio families deserve to know that schools are being held accountable for ensuring that all students are being prepared for success. Senate Bill 19, in its original form, would help accomplish that. Recent adjustments that water down its original intent should be rejected.

The Ohio state board of education recently released draft revisions of its professional standards for superintendents. The document articulates the expectations Ohio has for the men and women who lead the state’s 606 districts that serve 1.4 million students. Though state law does not mandate use of these standards, they can guide school boards when hiring superintendents and evaluating their performance. They can also assist superintendents in understanding their own responsibilities.

First published in 2008, the standards contain five strands outlining the duties of a superintendent: 1) establish a vision and strategic plan for the district; 2) be an effective instructional leader; 3) communicate and collaborate well; 4) steward district resources; and 5) set district policy with the school board. The proposed revisions maintain these five areas, and even reorders them to signal greater emphasis on instructional leadership (a big improvement). The rest of the revisions are mostly wording tweaks.  

But there is one glaring change. As shown below, the proposed standards delete an expectation that superintendents “recognize the moral imperative to ensure the success of every child and recommend and enforce policies and governance practices accordingly.”
 

Erasing this line is baffling because, at a most basic level, it’s precisely what we ought to expect of superintendents.

The first part of the sentence calls on superintendents to “recognize the moral imperative to ensure the success of every child.” This statement is fundamental. Underpinning effective education is a conviction that each and every child can succeed, whether “success” means mastering specific academic content, completing assignments on time, participating productively in class, or passing a rigorous exam. Yet without this belief in children’s capacity to learn and succeed, education falters. Not even the most lavish amount of funding can overcome schools that expect little of their students.

The importance of this conviction likely explains the “moral imperative” language. In our anything-goes culture, some might object to the stern terminology. But the Cambridge Dictionary simply defines the phrase as “something that must happen because it is extremely important or urgent, and is the right thing to do morally” (emphasis added). It shouldn’t be controversial to obligate superintendents to recognize the extreme importance of understanding that every child has the capacity to succeed and to act with urgency to make sure they achieve success. The language also affirms that superintendents are in the right—acting ethically and morally—when they demand excellence and hold employees accountable for having high expectations of students, too.

The second part of the sentence directly challenges superintendents to act on this moral imperative by “recommend[ing] and enforce[ing] policies and governance practices accordingly.” In other words, superintendents are not merely to pay lip service to this moral imperative, but also operationalize it. What precisely this looks like in practice is not spelled out in the document. But here are some ways that superintendents might advance student success through district policy and practice:

• Take action to dismiss poor-performing or chronically absent school employees.

• Reward, and work to retain, high-performing teachers, no matter their seniority.

• Add instructional time and/or create a summer school for students who need academic help.

• Protect learning time by minimizing disruptions during the school day and school year.

• Enforce disciplinary practices that promote an orderly learning environment.

• Provide high-achieving students with the challenge and advancement they deserve.

• Set the tone for the district by establishing a clear expectation that all students will succeed.

Words, attitudes, expectations, and beliefs all matter in education. So does school leadership. When push comes to shove, will school leaders hold fast to the “moral imperative” of educating every student or fall prey to low standards and expectations? The stakes are high—the futures of 1.4 million students are on the line—and Ohio must preserve a clear expectation that its superintendents adhere to an unwavering belief in the capacity of every student to succeed.

Earning a bachelor’s degree has long stood as a marker of success—in one’s education journey, in life generally, and as the starting point for one’s career. Though the financial cost can be high (especially for those who struggled academically), the potential success is often deemed to be worth it. So millions of optimistic young people every year take out student loans to embark on the quest for a degree. But is misplaced optimism clouding some students’ judgment, and ultimately loading them down with long-term financial obligations that could have been avoided? A new research paper digs into some data to find out.

A trio of economists from the United States and Canada draw their data from two nationally-representative panel surveys of young people in the U.S.—the 1997 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY97) and the High School Longitudinal Study of 2009 (HSLS:09)—both of which tracked their initial subjects through age 30. Both surveys asked high-school-age respondents to rate their probability of earning a four-year bachelor’s degree by age 30; measured students’ academic achievement prior to college based on their performance on the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB); and tracked college enrollment (or not), student loan usage (or not), and degree completion (or not)—also through age 30.

Survey data revealed widespread optimism among respondents about their likelihood of earning a college degree. On average, high schoolers in the sample reported a 54 percent probability they would enroll in college and, among that group, a 78 percent likelihood they would earn a bachelor’s degree (so 42 percent of the total sample). The average ASVAB score among respondents was 50 out of 99, in the middle of the typical range of scores. Students with lower test scores were less likely to predict college enrollment and degree attainment, controlling for other observable characteristics, while their peers with higher scores were more likely to predict both outcomes for themselves. So far so good.

However, longitudinal data showed that only 35 percent of all sample members actually ended up earning a degree by age 30, including a large number who predicted a degree while in high school but ended up never enrolling in college. Even those who did enroll showed a 23 percentage-point gap between their average prediction of degree completion (88 percent) and their actual completion by age 30 (65 percent). The researchers call this an “optimism gap” and break it out among various groups of students based on test scores, income, and other demographics. College enrollees who scored lowest on the ASVAB showed the largest optimism gap (about 37 percentage points), compared with those who scored highest (15 percentage points). That is: High school students generally overestimated their ability to earn a bachelor’s degree—compared to what the future actually held for them—with those at the lowest academic skill level overestimating by the largest extent.

Next the researchers examined whether inflated optimism drove students to take out federal loans to pursue a college path they were unlikely to complete. Among all college enrollees in the sample, 24 percent failed to earn a degree by age 30. Those who did not complete were just as likely to have student debt relative to those who persisted to a degree, though they owed a little less, presumably in large part because they attended for less time. The average non-completer owed about $11,000 at age 30, compared to $17,200 for completers.

Using these real-world outcomes, the researchers also model the hypothetical impacts of specific variables. Notably, they found that moderately increasing the student loan borrowing limit (from approximately 37 percent of average tuition and fees up to 56 percent) introduced long-term “welfare” losses (an economics concept that includes measures of income and consumption over a lifetime) among individuals who borrowed.

These losses would disproportionately impact the lowest ASVAB performers and those who were low-income—specifically, the young people with the highest “optimism gaps”—by nudging more of them from non-enrollees to college enrollees. In other words, if students were able to borrow greater amounts, more college students would do so and enroll in college, based on their optimism for degree completion. But because completion rates would be unlikely to change for the lowest-performing and lowest-income students, that group would simply accrue more debt.

By reducing the loan limit in their model, the researchers found that more low-performing and low-income students would choose not to enroll in college, regardless of their optimism for degree completion. Not only did this, predictably, limit their debt, it also modestly boosted their welfare in the long run.

The researchers conclude that “access to student loans can be harmful to some young adults in the presence of optimistic beliefs” and express hope that their findings “will be useful for researchers seeking to evaluate and improve the design of college financial aid.” But those are largely conclusions based on the modeling part of the research.

Unanswered here is the question of where students’ misguided optimism is coming from in the real world. Why are so many high schoolers who achieve an average (or lower) score on the ASVAB so sure they will succeed in college? Could it be the messages they received as a result of lowered classroom expectations and/or inflated grades? Or, more fundamentally, are they internalizing a “college at all costs” mantra coming at them from all directions when other postsecondary options could improve their long-term outcomes quicker, cheaper, and more directly? The report considers the choices made due to over-optimism to be “subjective,” which is true up to a point, but those choices are not made in a vacuum.

SOURCE: Emily G. Moschini, Gajendran Raveendranathan, and Ming Xu, “Optimism about Graduation and College Financial Aid,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics (April 2026).

NOTE: Today, the Ohio House Education Committee heard testimony on Substitute Senate Bill 19. The legislation proposes a wide-ranging overhaul of math education in the state—from requiring math improvement plans for students at risk of failure to making sure that future math teachers pass content exams before starting in the classroom—in order to address an ongoing achievement crisis. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided the following Interested Party testimony.

I testified on key components of this legislation in February and remain generally supportive of its approach to taking on the math achievement challenges our state faces. I’ve kept my testimony on those provisions here for the record, but my comments will focus on provisions in the substitute bill involving state assessments and some more technical changes in the sub bill that likely weaken SB 19’s long-term impact.

The Scope of Ohio’s Math Challenge

Despite recent academic gains, Ohio remains well below pre-pandemic achievement in both reading and math. As Fordham’s recent analyses show, math proficiency remains 5.7 percentage points below 2019 levels, with only 55.3% of students proficient (on grade level) statewide.

Statewide proficiency rates in math and reading, 2018–19 (pre-pandemic) to 2024–25

These gaps aren’t just academic—they’re economic. Employers consistently cite quantitative reasoning and problem-solving as top skills for the modern workforce. Whether a student aspires to be a nurse, electrician, or software developer, math is a gatekeeper to opportunity. Without stronger math achievement, Ohio risks leaving a generation of students—and the state’s economic future—behind.

How Senate Bill 19 Addresses the Crisis

Senate Bill 19 takes a systematic, evidence-based approach to improving math outcomes that—if implemented robustly—has the potential to boost math achievement. It includes:

1. Academic Intervention and Monitoring

The bill requires schools to identify and support students scoring “limited” (the lowest level on state assessments) in math or reading, providing evidence-based interventions at no cost. This includes high-dosage tutoring, extended learning time, and other targeted supports.

2. Math Improvement Plans for Districts

Beginning in the 2026–27 school year, districts where fewer than 51% of students score proficient on the third-grade math assessment must create a Math Achievement Improvement Plan, ensuring leadership-level accountability and strategic intervention.

3. Statewide Oversight and Transparency

SB 19 strengthens state oversight by requiring the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to audit 5 percent of schools annually, reviewing the quality and fidelity of intervention programs. These findings will appear on public report cards—providing families and taxpayers with greater transparency.

4. High-Quality Math Curriculum and Instructional Materials

In one of the bill’s most significant provisions, DEW will review core math curricula and publish a list of high-quality, standards-aligned instructional materials. Schools’ use of these materials will be publicly reported on state report cards.

5. Strengthening the Teaching Profession

SB 19 recognizes that great instruction begins with great teachers. It calls for new math proficiency assessments for early-grade teacher candidates and state-developed professional development programs focused on evidence-based math instruction. These steps ensure educators have both the content knowledge and tools to deliver high-quality math lessons.

6. Opportunities for Advanced Learners

Finally, the bill opens new doors for high-achieving students by requiring that students who score accomplished (this portion was disappointingly removed in the sub bill) or advanced in math on the state assessment be automatically placed in accelerated or Algebra I courses, with a parental opt-out. This provision ensures that excellence is nurtured, not neglected—a crucial step in closing both the lower and upper ends of Ohio’s achievement gaps.

Why This Matters: Ohio’s Path Forward

Ohio has taken strides to improve literacy through the Science of Reading reforms. But as Fordham has repeatedly emphasized, we must now apply that same urgency to math. The bill reflects a clear understanding that strong math achievement is not optional in today’s economy. It is the foundation for innovation, progress, and workforce readiness. Students who can think mathematically will not only succeed in college but also thrive in trades, technology, and countless real-world applications.

Provisions Related to State Assessments

I would like to address one provision that raises significant concerns: the proposal to request a waiver from the United States Department of Education to shift Ohio’s state assessment system to a nationally normed referenced test, or NRT.

While NRTs can be useful in certain contexts—particularly as diagnostic tools—they are not well suited to serve as a state accountability assessment.

Ohio’s current system is built on a fundamental principle: alignment between academic standards and assessments. Standards define what students are expected to learn, and assessments measure whether they have learned it. This alignment ensures fairness and clarity for students, educators, and parents alike.

NRTs, by design, do not operate this way. They are intended to compare students to one another on a national scale, not to measure mastery of a specific state’s standards.  As a result, adopting an NRT would weaken the connection between what is taught in Ohio classrooms and what is measured on state assessments.

That shift would have real consequences. It would make it more difficult to hold schools accountable for helping students meet Ohio’s expectations. It would introduce questions about fairness, as students could be tested on material that is not aligned with state standards. And it would move Ohio away from the standards-based system required under federal law.

Beyond these concerns, changing assessments at the state level is a complex and disruptive undertaking. Ohio has experienced this firsthand. Past transitions led to confusion, frustration, and a loss of continuity in student achievement data.  A shift to an NRT would risk repeating those challenges, breaking trend lines that policymakers and educators rely on to understand whether reforms—like the Science of Reading—are working.

Importantly, moving to a national test would reduce Ohio’s control over its own assessment system. State tests should reflect Ohio’s academic priorities and benefit from the input of Ohio educators. An NRT, developed for a national market, cannot fully meet that need.

Fortunately, Senate Bill 19 also points toward a better path.

The bill directs the Department of Education and Workforce to develop a plan for a next-generation, computer-adaptive assessment. This approach has the potential to address many of the legitimate concerns that have been raised about testing.

A well-designed computer-adaptive assessment can reduce testing time by adjusting to each student’s performance in real time. It can provide more precise information about what students know and where they need support. And, importantly, it can deliver results much more quickly—making the data useful to teachers and families.

This is exactly the kind of thoughtful improvement Ohio should pursue. Rather than abandoning its current system, Ohio should build on it—modernizing assessments while preserving the critical alignment to state standards. Doing so would maintain fairness and accountability while making the system more efficient and more responsive to the needs of students and educators.

Provisions that Weaken SB 19

Auto enrollment: The bill previously enrolled every student who performed accomplished or advanced on the state assessment into advanced math in seventh and eighth grades, culminating in completing Algebra in eighth. The bill modified the language to only auto enroll students scoring advanced into the accelerated middle school path. Accomplished students would need approval from their principal and teachers. That provision accomplishes nothing as principals and teachers can already do that. This change goes against available data which shows that students scoring accomplished on the state assessment in seventh grade who take algebra in eighth grade excel. We encourage you to expand the pipeline for advanced math opportunities. As amended, this is going to keep disadvantaged students out of advanced math opportunities that they are prepared for. As a state, we must do better.

Science of reading instructional materials waiver: One of the hallmarks of the 2023 science of reading reforms is the requirement for all schools to use high quality instructional materials that are aligned to the science of reading. The sub bill includes waiver language for this year and next to allow a subset of schools to use materials that aren’t aligned to the science of reading. This creates a potential slippery slope for future carveouts. Accountability is accomplished through consistency of action—not strong policies that are walked back a little each year.

Reading diagnostics: In last year’s budget, you limited the number of approved reading diagnostics to five. Given the huge variability in the quality of diagnostics, we believe that was the right decision. Unfortunately, not all tests are created equal and some have very mixed results in actually correlating with state assessments. The sub bill raises the number of approved tests to six and appears to allow districts to apply for waivers to DEW on the diagnostic used for the 26-27 school year. These may well be the right moves, but they also could well be early backsliding on last year’s enacted language. I’m simply flagging the issue for the committee’s consideration.

Conclusion

In closing, Senate Bill 19 is a strong and important piece of legislation that addresses a pressing need in Ohio education. I urge the committee to advance the bill. At the same time, I encourage you to reconsider the proposed shift to a nationally normed test, focus on improving Ohio’s existing assessment system, and reverse course on the most recent sub bill changes related to auto enrollment. 

NOTE: Today, the Ohio Senate’s Education Committee heard testimony on Substitute Senate Bill 272. This legislation would, among other things, require students to pass a civics assessment as a condition for graduation. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided the following proponent testimony before the committee.

Substitute Senate Bill 272 takes an important and meaningful step to strengthen civic knowledge by requiring students, beginning in 2027-28 school year, to pass a civics assessment based on the U.S. citizenship test as a condition for graduation.

The citizenship test measures basic knowledge about American history, government, and democratic principles—knowledge that every citizen should possess. Yet today, far too many Americans lack this foundation. Based on a 2018 survey, only 36 percent of Americans could pass the citizenship test. That number drops to fewer than one in five Americans under age 45. Ohio does a little better with 41 percent able to pass the citizenship test. But let’s face it, that’s nothing to brag about. These troubling results point to a clear need to do more.

Requiring students to demonstrate this knowledge before receiving a diploma sends an important signal: civic literacy matters. Indeed, immigrants seeking to become citizens must pass this very test. And the vast majority do with a passage rate of almost 90 percent. It is reasonable to expect the same of students graduating from Ohio high schools.

The assessment required by Substitute Senate Bill 272 should be understood not as a high-stakes hurdle, but as a culminating demonstration of learning and confirmation that students have acquired the essential knowledge needed for informed citizenship.

If this committee wanted to be even bolder, my former Fordham colleague and current American Enterprise Institute scholar Robert Pondiscio has argued persuasively that passing the citizenship test shouldn’t be a high school graduation requirement but rather an eighth grade or even elementary school rite of passage. The knowledge assessed by the citizenship test is not advanced or obscure. It reflects content that can and should be taught systematically over many years with much of introduced as early as elementary school.

At a time of deep political polarization and declining trust in institutions, strengthening civic education is more important than ever. Ensuring that every graduate has a basic understanding of our nation’s history, principles, and system of government is a commonsense step toward preparing young people for their responsibilities as Americans.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge the committee to support Substitute Senate Bill 272.

Thank you again for the opportunity to testify.