A rigorous sponsor evaluation system is critical to the success of charter schools in Ohio. Efforts to chip away at academic accountability must be resisted to ensure that only the highest-quality charters are available for students and families.
In late June, state lawmakers passed a last-minute amendment to an education-related bill that suspends charter sponsor evaluations for the coming school year. The legislation also directs the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce to examine the state’s sponsor evaluation system and submit recommendations for revision to the General Assembly by March 2025.
We at Fordham opposed this move. It continues a disturbing erosion of Ohio’s efforts to hold charter sponsors—a.k.a. “authorizers”—more accountable. This chipping away at sponsor accountability—described in detail below—puts the whole charter sector at-risk of reduced quality.
As a quick refresher, sponsors allow public charter schools to open, provide them with technical assistance and direct oversight, and close low-performers if necessary. In Ohio, the state department of education, traditional districts, educational service centers, universities, and approved nonprofits (including our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation) may serve as sponsors. These entities do not actually operate charter schools, but especially because of their authority to close them, sponsors play a critical role in ensuring that charter students receive a high-quality education.
In the early years of its charter initiative, Ohio took a hands-off approach to sponsor accountability. The state, for instance, had no evaluation system to ensure that sponsors were giving due consideration to academic quality. Additionally, there were—and still are—financial incentives (via per-pupil sponsor fees) for less than scrupulous oversight. As a result, too many low-performing charters were allowed to remain in operation, and overall performance was lackluster. And the sector was not only struggling to move the achievement needle, but was also in the news for all the wrong reasons.
That began to change in the early 2010s, as state policymakers recognized the pitfalls of an accountability-free system. In 2012, the legislature established an evaluation system that sought to hold sponsors accountable for the schools they oversee. Three years later, lawmakers refined the system and gave the evaluation more teeth. The system has three equally weighted components:
Scores on these elements yield an overall rating of Poor, Ineffective, Effective, or Exemplary. The two bottom ratings trigger consequences: Ineffective sponsors are barred from authorizing new schools and are subject to an improvement plan. Sponsorship authority is revoked if an entity receives either a Poor rating or an Ineffective rating on its three most recent evaluations.
The evaluations had an immediate impact on Ohio’s charter sector. Dozens of low-capacity sponsors were shown the door—the state had sixty-six sponsors in 2013, but just nineteen remain today. Facing more pressure to authorize quality schools, sponsors took more aggressive steps to close low-performing schools in their portfolio. With toughened accountability, overall charter sector performance ticked upward.
Despite its role in improving the sector, heightened sponsor accountability has consistently come under fire from some in the sponsor community. The most troubling attacks focus on weakening the academic component of the evaluation—the portion that forces sponsors to make difficult but necessary decisions about their schools on behalf of students. Unfortunately, legislators have acquiesced and adopted measures that weaken sponsor accountability:
Table 1: Illustration of how a sponsor authorizing failing schools can be rated Effective
This list doesn’t include several egregious behind-the-scenes proposals that haven’t passed. For example, advocates made a brazen attempt last year to dismantle the evaluation system entirely and move towards what they dubbed a “portfolio model” in which school performance is ignored and sponsors need only submit paperwork. There have also been efforts to give sponsors of large e-schools a free pass for their poor academic results. Under the current system, online schools’ results weigh more heavily on sponsor ratings—as they should, given how many students they serve. Instead, some have sought to count a 10,000-student online school on equal terms with a 300-student brick-and-mortar charter school, a practice that would discount the results of the e-school and inappropriately inflate a sponsor’s academic rating.
A rigorous sponsor evaluation system is critical to the success of charter schools in Ohio. As we have noted on multiple occasions, policymakers should address the burdensome compliance and quality practices components. But the challenges with those areas of the evaluation aren’t an excuse to gut academics and relapse into an accountability-free sponsor system. Every charter student deserves an excellent education, and sponsor accountability for their schools’ performance remains essential to achieving that aim.
[1] Though likely less relevant due to the softer nature of the compliance and quality practices elements, the reverse was true, as well (e.g., deeming a sponsor Ineffective if it’s non-compliant with state laws but authorizing satisfactory schools).
Work-based learning initiatives provide a direct connection between K–12 education and the workforce. They offer students invaluable work experience, hands-on training with experienced mentors, and a chance to apply technical skills and develop soft skills. They give employers an opportunity to bolster talent pipelines and train future staff on in-demand skills. Robust work-based learning experiences are also one of the hallmarks of high-quality career pathways.
For states like Ohio, where expanding and improving career pathways is an economic priority, ensuring students have access to high-quality work-based learning experiences is crucial. But it’s also notoriously difficult, as it requires schools and the business community to work together. To their credit, Ohio leaders have spearheaded efforts to encourage collaboration. But are those efforts enough? And if not, what else should lawmakers do?
A recent report from ExcelinEd, Ohio Excels, and Workmorphis seeks to answer these questions. It does so by examining the current state of work-based learning in Ohio and identifying how state leaders can ensure that all students have access to high-quality experiences.
To start, the report offers a broad overview of work-based learning in Ohio. Student experiences fall into two distinct categories that cross-reference each other but “operate separately in both policy and practice.” The first is career connections, a framework that focuses on career awareness for grades K–5, exploration for grades 6–8, and planning for grades 9–12. The second category—and the focus of the report—is formal work-based learning.
DEW defines the latter as “a coordinated sequence of experiences designed to provide students with real-world learning through partnerships with local business and industry.” These activities should help students explore careers and choose a pathway. They must occur at a worksite,[1] be co-supervised by an instructor and an employer or business mentor, and be formalized by a learning agreement. They can be paid or unpaid, occur during or outside of school hours, offer credit (or not), and be of varying lengths. Internships, apprenticeships or pre-apprenticeships, simulated work environments, and entrepreneurship are all among the approved types.
The report’s authors conducted focus groups and distributed a statewide survey to gather input from stakeholders in four groups: public policy, business and industry, education, and intermediaries like community-based organizations. Findings indicate that, although stakeholders believe that work-based learning experiences are beneficial and should be available to all students, that’s not the case in many places across Ohio. The disconnect between formal work-based learning and career connections was cited as a challenge, with a mere 8 percent of respondents reporting that current state policies and program requirements are easy to navigate. Many stakeholders also identified worrisome gaps in measuring experience quality and student performance.
The biggest challenges, though, seem to be funding, capacity, and transportation barriers. For example, although most stakeholders believe they’ve exhausted all available state funding sources, public policy leaders are concerned that many of the available state programs and funding sources are underutilized (the report doesn’t specify which ones). Meanwhile, nearly 80 percent agree that transportation is a significant participation barrier, especially for students from lower income families and in rural areas.
The bottom line is that, although work-based learning has widespread support and promises many benefits for students and employers, Ohio has some significant issues to address. To help, the report offers four solutions.
***
Ohio leaders are investing significant time and funding into expanding and improving career pathways. These efforts include a renewed focus on work-based learning experiences, which benefit both students and employers. To capitalize on the potential of these experiences in the coming budget cycle, Ohio lawmakers should heed the report’s recommendations and establish a clear governance structure for work-based learning, improve data collection and transparency, invest in capacity building, and address common barriers.
For the past six months, Columbus City Schools leadership has mulled the closure of multiple school buildings. In February, district superintendent Angela Chapman convened a task force that explored school closures, and—after much discussion—the group released in late June its final report, which includes a recommendation to close nine schools and one administrative building.
The need to evaluate its facilities footprint comes as the district has experienced enrollment declines in recent years—it’s lost 10 percent of enrollment since 2015—leaving some schools severely underenrolled. An analysis by Ohio State University professor Vlad Kogan found that the district now has more facilities (118) than other similarly-sized districts nationally. According to projections, the district would save some $90 million over the next decade if the task force plan goes into effect. These dollars could shore up district finances and perhaps help avert yet another ballot issue to raise local taxes. (Even after recent passage of a massive $100 million per-year levy, one school board member said last month, “We are going to be coming back for more money.”)
In light of the district’s enrollment woes and fiscal situation, the task force report should be taken seriously. But shortly after the report was released, the Columbus school board—the entity with authority to close schools—declined to take action. In defense, board members cited a desire for more “conversations” and “authentic engagement” with the community. While dialogue is undoubtedly important, this could easily turn into a delay tactic that kicks the closure can down the road. The board might bide its time and allow the recommendations to be ignored and forgotten—which is exactly what occurred the last time a task force examined facility usage in Columbus.
Why might the Columbus board be shy to close schools? The politics of closure—whether in Columbus or elsewhere—are indeed tough to overcome. Employee unions are almost sure to oppose them (this has been true in Columbus), and school boards, whose electoral fortunes often hinge on union endorsements, are loathe to resist their interests. Community members may also push back on proposals to close a school in their neighborhood. On the other side, few people are likely to rally in favor of shutting schools, even though research indicates that students benefit when low-performing schools are closed and they transfer to more effective ones.
Given these headwinds, it’s worth considering how state policymakers can move a closure process ahead when it becomes necessary. To be clear, the final decision about shutting a school should remain in the hands of district boards. It is a complicated process that requires sensitivity to local circumstances. That said, the State of Ohio still has an obligation to promote an efficient public-school system. In fact, advocates often remind lawmakers of the constitutional admonition of a having a “thorough and efficient system” of schools. One aspect of this mandate is to ensure that districts responsibly steward taxpayer dollars, which includes closing under-enrolled buildings that are costly to operate and draw resources away from schools more in need of them.
Of course, Columbus isn’t the only district that may need to pursue building closures in the months and years ahead. Enrollment has slipped statewide, and demographic trends are working against schools. In May, the U.S. Department of Education released projections that Ohio’s public school enrollment will fall another 7 percent by 2031. The question then is how exactly state policymakers can create a policy environment that increases the likelihood that local boards take action without setting rigid, ham-handed closure rules. The following offers six possibilities.
Ohio policymakers can and should nudge along districts such as Columbus’s that need to downsize their facility portfolios. Considering the ideas above could help local school boards more effectively navigate the challenging and politically fraught process of closing schools.
[1] Such district-operated schools must for three straight years be ranked in the bottom 5 percent statewide in the performance index and either have a (1) one-star value-added rating or (2) a one- or one-and-half-star overall rating (ORC 3302.12).
One reason why parents choose to enroll their children in schools other than their assigned district is the opportunity to access alternative educational models. The question of whether these models benefit students academically is difficult to answer empirically, given the “selection effects” which make apples-to-apples comparisons between non-traditional schools and their traditional district counterparts hard to come by. But a new report from Frontiers in Education tries to cut through some of the differences and directly compare one well-known non-traditional model to its public school counterparts.
The pedagogy in question is Waldorf education. This 100-year-old schooling model is based on the teachings and principles of German artist and scientist Rudolf Steiner. It focuses on the developmental progress of children and their intellectual needs at various stages, with a heaping helping of art, music, and creative exploration built into all subject areas. According to Waldorf precepts, its teachers “are dedicated to generating an inner enthusiasm for learning within every child. This eliminates the need for competitive testing, academic placement, and rewards to motivate learning and allows motivation to arise from within.” Digital technology is also absent.
Waldorf schools in the United States are usually private—thereby facilitating the decreased emphasis on testing—but some of them are public. In fact, sixteen Waldorf institutions in California are public charter schools that must adhere to state testing requirements. Researcher Kimberly Telfer-Radzat of the University of California, Irvine, leverages the existence of these schools to compare their student achievement results to those from two other student groups: non-Waldorf charter schools in the state, and all other public schools combined (which includes the non-Waldorf charters and traditional districts). Achievement is measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress (CAASSPP) for grades three through eight in both ELA and math. Data come from spring test administrations between 2015 and 2019. In fact, the data here are all “archival” and not part of a specific experiment. The paper uses the terms “treatment” and “control”, but these are not really apt. More on this methodology in a moment.
In the final analysis, compared to the universe of non-Waldorf public schools (both district and charter), the Waldorf charters significantly underperformed in both ELA and math every year between third and sixth grade. For example, while more than three quarters of non-Waldorf third graders met or exceeded state standards in math, only half of Waldorf third graders did so. For third grade ELA, 73 percent of non-Waldorf students met or exceeded state standards, compared to 61 percent of Waldorf students. However, the picture changes in seventh grade, with Waldorf students notching big gains in both subjects and outscoring the non-Waldorf comparison group by a small margin. The observed Waldorf advantage expands to nearly five percentage points in eighth grade, both because the Waldorf student group continues to improve and because the non-Waldorf group’s proficiency declines. When the comparison is restricted to charter schools only—Waldorf versus non-Waldorf—a similar pattern emerges: sizeable lags in both subjects for Waldorf students in the early grades until a reversal begins in seventh grade, though the gaps between groups are generally smaller.
Telfer-Radzat notes several limitations of her methodology, including the fact that there are significantly fewer students in grades seven and eight than in the lower grades at the Waldorf schools. These droppers could easily be the students performing least well in the school, which could skew the results in such a model. More importantly, though, is the model itself. Telfer-Radzat is able to control for classroom size and low-income status of students in her final equations, but that’s the extent to which the widely-varying nature of the schools in question can be compared. For just one likely-relevant example, the Waldorf charters enrolled a mere 4 percent English learners (EL). By comparison, details from EdData show EL students comprising nearly 20 percent of California’s K–12 population in 2019–20. Those are big differences between schools wholly unaccounted for in the math.
Impacts of the unconventional pedagogy could be part of the mechanism driving the observed outcomes, but there’s plenty of room to question the findings. Still, one imagines that Waldorf practitioners, devotees, and inquisitive non-believers will come away from this report feeling positively disposed to the unusual pedagogy. And while it does seem to bear fruit for many of its initiates, the experimental jury is still out on the Waldorf vision of a quality education.
SOURCE: Kimberly Telfer-Radzat, “Exploring alternative education: a comparison on 3 levels—Waldorf charters, non-Waldorf charters, and local public schools, as measured by the California Assessment of Student Performance and Progress,” Frontiers in Education (June 2024).
Starting in 2010, Congress invested more than $1 billion to assist states with their literacy improvement efforts through the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) program. SRCL was designed to target funding toward disadvantaged schools (defined in several ways), encourage staff to use evidence-based practices, and support teachers in providing fully comprehensive literacy instruction. In total, this competitive program has awarded grants to fourteen states through two application rounds (with a new round just concluded). A recent study from the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) assesses how well SRCL implementation has been aligned with program goals and whether student learning in grant-winning states has improved as a result.
Specifically, analysts examined data from the eleven states—Georgia, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Minnesota, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio, and Oklahoma—that won awards in 2017 during the second round of grants. The average award was $33 million and was intended to provide three years of literacy support. Data come from school leader surveys describing their approach to using the grant funds during the 2018–19 school year, district staff surveys describing how SRCL funds were used that year, wide-ranging teacher surveys in both 2018–19 and 2019–20, and state grant director interviews. The U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) and Evidence for ESSA databases provided curriculum rating information. Administrative and academic data on students were gathered from various national and state level sources through the 2018–19 school year.
First up, targeting. Overall, the grant funding went where it was supposed to. On average, SRCL schools were relatively disadvantaged compared to non-SRCL schools. Across the four types of student disadvantage that states most commonly considered—low socioeconomic status, English learner status, disability status, and migrant or foster care status—73 percent of SRCL schools ranked in the most disadvantaged quartile in their state on at least one type. In contrast, just 53 percent of non-SRCL schools were disadvantaged in any way, and very few of those were in the top quartile. However, this overall finding masks some problematic targeting in certain states, where student disadvantage was minimally considered as a subgrant criteria or considered at a lower priority than SRCL intended. The analysts note that “some states that placed a heavy emphasis on targeting in the subgrant competition did not achieve it.”
Second, spending. The vast majority of districts (82 percent) used SRCL funds to purchase a core literacy curriculum for all students or a supplemental program to help struggling readers. Unfortunately, many of these curricula were not high quality, meaning they were not supported by strong or even moderate evidence of effectiveness. Of the 236 programs purchased with SRCL funds, only 12 percent had a strong or moderate evidence review rating. No published research could be identified for almost half of the programs purchased. The fault for this is laid at the feet of skittish state grant directors. According to interviews with state officials, only two states (Montana and North Dakota) emphasized the importance of strong or moderate evidence in their grant competition process. Other frequent purchases included literacy-related professional development (84 percent of SRCL districts), books unrelated to a specific curriculum (64 percent), or parent engagement activities (50 percent).
Third, implementation. The researchers looked at six key practices of effective and comprehensive literacy instruction, including an emphasis on phonics, vocabulary, comprehension, and writing; frequent opportunities to practice reading and writing; and regular use of formative assessments. They then assessed each district and school on its adherence to these practices. Overall, no more than 11 percent of teachers in any grade band engaged in all six practices; approximately 80 percent of K–8 teachers met at least three of the six applicable to their grade. The percentage for high school teachers was considerably lower (63 percent). Additionally, high school teachers reported emphasizing practices more common to lower grades (decoding, comprehension, grammar, etc.), which may be an indication that their students were still reading and writing at an elementary school level.
Finally, outcomes. Evidence from the first year of grant implementation shows no difference between SRCL and comparable non-SRCL schools in English language arts achievement trends overall. Combining results across states and grades, the overall difference in ELA achievement between SRCL and non-SRCL schools with similar demographic characteristics was very close to zero and not statistically significant. A tiny glimmer of hope comes from Louisiana and Fordham’s home state of Ohio, which both showed small positive differences in achievement overall. However, disadvantaged students—those specifically intended to be helped by the SRCL grant effort—showed no difference in achievement whether attending SRCL or non-SRCL schools in any state or grade.
The analysts stop short of calling the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy program a failure, citing the possibility that a further year of implementation might yield some actual improvement. There is no concrete reason, however, to assume that previous state decisions on unproven curriculum and established patterns of weak on-the-ground implementation would change significantly without additional incentives or intervention—none of which was forthcoming. And of course, that following year of implementation was 2019–20, when Covid-mitigation disruptions wiped out both data and the positive momentum of many students who had it. Moving forward from pandemic learning losses, states can likely learn a valuable lesson from this example: Money can’t buy success in the realm of literacy interventions without focusing on evidence-based best practices that are implemented faithfully.
SOURCE: Michael S. Garet et al., “Did the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy Grant Program Reach Its Goals? An Implementation Report. Evaluation Report,” National Center for Education Evaluation at IES (May 2024).
DEW refers to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, formerly known as the Ohio Department of Education (ODE). This state agency implements most of Ohio’s K12 education laws.
Phonics refers to an instructional approach that involves teaching children to match sounds of spoken English with individual letters or groups of letters.[1]
Science of Reading refers to a body of research-based evidence that tells us how students learn to read, including phonological and phonemic awareness, phonics and word recognition, fluency, vocabulary, content knowledge development, and comprehension.[2] Ohio law contains a formal definition of the Science of Reading (see Appendix A.)
Three-cueing refers to an instructional approach that encourages students to rely on “cues”—e.g., a picture or the position of a word in a sentence—to read words. Three-cueing is not considered a scientifically based method of reading instruction and is often embedded in “balanced literacy” and “whole language” literacy programs.[3]
In January 2023, Governor Mike DeWine opened his annual state of the state address by proclaiming the “moral imperative” of providing a good education to all Ohio students. Then he turned to specifics about how to fulfill that obligation. After noting the large proportion of children struggling to read proficiently—two in five third graders—he declared a statewide goal of improving elementary-school literacy instruction:
Today, I am calling for a renewed focus on literacy—and on the way we teach reading in the state of Ohio. … Not all literacy curriculums are created equal, and sadly, many Ohio students do not have access to the most effective reading curriculum. In our budget, we are making sure that all Ohio children have access to curriculum that is aligned with the evidence-based approaches of the Science of Reading.[4]
True to his word, Governor DeWine shortly thereafter introduced sweeping literacy reforms via his budget plan (House Bill 33). These provisions, which lawmakers would approve that summer, require Ohio public schools to follow the Science of Reading starting in 2024–25. This approach to reading instruction emphasizes phonics to help students “decode” words, as well as knowledge- and vocabulary-rich content to help them comprehend what they’re reading. The bill also prohibits use of “three-cueing,” a widely used but discredited technique that prompts children to guess at words rather than sounding them out. Recognizing that extra resources were needed to transition schools successfully to the Science of Reading, lawmakers budgeted $169 million for better instructional materials, professional development, and literacy coaching.
To prepare schools for the transition, the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) recently laid the groundwork for classroom-level implementation of scientifically based reading programs. This report focuses on three important steps the agency has taken since passage of HB 33 in July 2023:[5] (1) vetting and approving a list of high-quality instructional materials from which schools may choose; (2) collecting, via statewide survey, information about the English language arts (ELA) curricula used by Ohio schools prior to the recent reforms; and (3) allocating state funds to subsidize the purchase of new curricula and materials.
We offer four key takeaways based on analyses of these activities:
1. Ohio has wisely kept notoriously weak ELA curricula off of its state-approved list. DEW has curated an approved list of core elementary (grades K–5) curricula that includes highly respected programs such as Core Knowledge Language Arts, EL Education, and Wit & Wisdom, while excluding less effective curricula that promote three-cueing, such as Fountas & Pinnell’s Classroom and Lucy Calkins’ Units of Study. In total, DEW approved fifteen core ELA curricula for use starting next school year (the full list of approved programs, as of May 24, 2024, appears here).
2. Just one-third of Ohio districts have been using core ELA elementary curricula fully aligned to new state requirements. Based on results from its statewide survey of curricula used in 2022–23, DEW grouped districts and charter schools into three categories: aligned, partially aligned, or not aligned to the state-approved materials list. The figure below indicates that districts statewide were evenly split among the three categories. Urban districts were more likely to have aligned curricula (42 percent), while suburban districts and charters were least likely (23 and 28 percent, respectively).
Figure ES-1: Districts and charters’ alignment (2022–23) to the state’s approved curricula list for 2024–25
Moving forward, schools with aligned ELA curricula may continue to use their existing programs, but those with partially or nonaligned programs will need to implement new ones. As discussed here, schools needing to adopt new curricula should consider those containing both solid foundational skills—e.g., phonics—and strong knowledge-building elements.
3. More than half of Ohio’s lowest-performing districts, based on third-grade reading proficiency, will be undertaking curriculum changes. When focusing on the lowest ten percent of districts as gauged by their students’ reading proficiency in third grade (n=60), the survey found that thirty-four used nonaligned or partially aligned curricula in 2022–23. Of those districts, thirteen reported using either a district-developed program or only a supplemental program, while another twenty-one used non-approved core curricula.
4. Districts and charter schools that previously used nonaligned curricula received more state financial support for new materials. Based on survey findings, DEW allocated most of the state’s $64 million set aside for instructional materials to districts needing to make more extensive curricula changes. Districts reporting use of nonaligned curricula in 2022–23 received on average $121 per PK–5 student[6] to purchase new materials, while those using partially aligned curricula received $101 per PK–5 student. Districts previously using approved materials—and thus not required to make substantial updates—received $37 per PK–5 student.
* * *
To its credit, Ohio is moving full speed ahead in implementing its literacy reforms. To keep the push going, the report offers five policy recommendations. In brief, they are as follows (more detail starts here):
Under the leadership of the DeWine administration, Ohio’s literacy reforms are off and running. Now the long-term work of classroom implementation begins. If state and local leaders stay patient and resolute—keep their eye on the ball—more students will become skilled readers, will progress through the upper grades without falling behind, and will leave high school ready for their next steps.
Ohio policymakers have long understood the critical role of literacy in helping students reach their full potential. Within the past two decades, they have enacted policies aimed at lifting reading standards and increasing proficiency. For example, under former governor John Kasich, Ohio enacted the Third Grade Reading Guarantee in 2012. This legislation requires schools to annually screen students in grades K–3 for reading deficiencies and develop improvement plans for those identified as off track. Lawmakers also included a mandatory retention policy to ensure that students who fell short of a state-defined target on a third-grade reading assessment received extra time and supports.
The Guarantee has pushed Ohio schools to prioritize early intervention, and data suggest that the policy moved the achievement needle.[7] Regrettably, one component of the guarantee, the retention provision, was weakened via the most recent state budget bill (House Bill 33, enacted in July 2023).[8] Yet in that very same legislation, lawmakers gave literacy a significant boost by enacting provisions that push for more effective reading curricula and instruction. Those are issues that the Guarantee had not fully addressed but have become ripe for change, as literacy experts and advocates, often parents themselves, have pressed harder for scientifically based reading practices in elementary schools. They have rightly pointed to decades of research demonstrating the superiority of phonics-based instruction and the critical role of background knowledge for reading comprehension,[9] while also raising concerns about the continuing use of ineffective methods such as three-cueing.[10]
Ohio’s latest initiative aims to move schools toward the Science of Reading in three ways:
High-quality instructional materials: HB 33 requires DEW to establish a list of core ELA curricula and intervention programs that are “aligned with the Science of Reading and strategies for effective literacy instruction.” It further stipulates that all public schools must use materials from the state-approved list starting in 2024–25. With limited exceptions, these materials cannot include three-cueing to teach children to read.[11] DEW was also tasked with fielding a baseline survey of schools’ pre-HB 33 ELA curricula and collecting annual information about ELA curricula in future years.
Professional development (PD): To support effective implementation of new curricula, HB 33 requires educators to complete a PD course in the Science of Reading unless they’ve already completed similar training. Upon course completion, stipends of $400 or $1,200 are provided to teachers, depending on which grade and subject they teach. The course must be completed by June 30, 2025. HB 33 also calls for literacy coaches that support educators serving in the state’s lowest-performing schools as gauged by students’ reading proficiency. Roughly 100 coaches will be deployed to provide more intensive, hands-on PD for teachers in those schools.
Teacher preparation: State lawmakers also took steps to ensure that colleges of education adequately prepare prospective teachers in the Science of Reading. Per HB 33, the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) must implement an audit process that reviews preparation programs’ alignment to the Science of Reading. ODHE will begin these audits in January 2025. The bill also requires the chancellor of ODHE to revoke program approval if a review uncovers inadequate alignment to the Science of Reading and the deficiencies are not addressed within one year.
As shown in table 1, Ohio lawmakers set aside substantial funds to support these efforts. In total, the state will spend $169 million in FYs 2024 and 2025 to support the initiative, with the largest portion going toward teachers’ PD stipends ($86 million) and subsidies to purchase new curricula and materials ($64 million). Another $18 million will support literacy coaches, and $1 million is allotted to help teacher-preparation programs transition to the Science of Reading (of which $150,000 supports the ODHE audits).
Table 1: State funding set aside for literacy reforms, combined amounts for FY24 and FY25
While all elements of the literacy-reform package are crucial, this report focuses on the early implementation of the high-quality curricula requirement. Within the past year, DEW has completed key actions in this area, including the creation of an approved instructional materials list, release of its pre-reform curricula survey results, and the allocation of funds for instructional materials. DEW released the initial list of approved core ELA curricula and survey results on March 1, 2024. I cover the state-approved list first, as it helps interpret the survey findings. The allocation of materials funds is covered last, as it occurred several weeks later.
As discussed above, state lawmakers tasked DEW with creating a catalog of high-quality instructional materials that are aligned with the Science of Reading from which schools must select. Starting in 2024–25, all public schools must use “core” ELA curricula—programs designed for use in general education settings—in grades K–5 from this state-approved list. To meet this requirement, schools must use either a core comprehensive program or a coherent set of core and supplemental programs.[12] The box provides definitions that distinguish core comprehensive curricula from the hybrid—core plus supplement—option.
To develop state-approved lists of ELA curricula (both core and supplemental), DEW implemented a vetting process that took advantage of the widely used curricula ratings published by EdReports. Since 2015, this national, independent nonprofit has evaluated hundreds of ELA curricula to determine if they align with high-quality academic standards.[13] For each program, EdReports provides an “alignment” rating along three tiers:[14] Meets, Partially Meets, and Does Not Meet. These ratings, though sometimes debated by literacy experts,[15] often serve as an initial screening tool for states and local districts,[16] and DEW leveraged this system to approve, or not, both core and supplemental foundational skills curricula in the following way.[17]
This process yielded Ohio’s list of approved ELA curricula for grades K–5. The top part of Table 2 displays fifteen approved core comprehensive curricula, while the bottom panel shows two additional grades K–2 curricula in the category of “core, no foundational skills” that were state-approved but must be paired with a supplemental program to meet the statutory requirements.
Table 2: State-approved core ELA curricula, grades K–5
The vetting process removed ineffective and outdated curricula—a significant step forward in a state where many schools have used inferior programs, as detailed in the next section of this report. Yet even within the state-approved curriculum list, there likely remains some variation in quality. Going beyond Ohio’s state-approved (and EdReports-driven) list are several ELA curricula that the Knowledge Matters Campaign identifies as having especially strong vocabulary- and knowledge-building elements that support reading comprehension (see the importance of knowledge-building in the sidebar below). Those programs are in bold in Table 2. Meanwhile, though meeting Ohio’s baseline requirements, some literacy experts have questioned whether several of the non-bolded curricula—sometimes called “basal readers”—are too light on knowledge-building.[19] Nevertheless, despite ongoing discussion about what precisely constitutes a high-quality curriculum, DEW has given its stamp of approval to a relatively small number of core ELA programs, especially in light of the dozens of curricula options available.
Ohio has not historically required schools to report their curricula publicly, so there’s not been much information about which programs schools have been using. Seeking a systemwide picture of existing literacy curricula, state lawmakers in HB 33 directed DEW to gather information via a statewide survey. In September 2023, DEW fielded the survey, which garnered near-universal response rates (99 percent of districts and charters). Schools were asked about the core ELA curricula (grades K–5) and intervention programs (grades K–12) that they used in 2022–23, just prior to enactment of the state’s literacy reforms. The department released results in spring 2024.[24]
Table 3 displays the most commonly used core ELA elementary programs among traditional school districts. We see a wide range of curricula in use as well as variation in their quality, as indicated by whether DEW has since approved the program and whether the Knowledge Matters Campaign has recommended it. The survey also revealed widespread use of ineffective and nonapproved curricula such as Classroom and Units of Study (they were the fourth and sixth most frequently cited programs). Other nonapproved curricula such as the 2017 edition of Reading Wonders[25] and Journeys were also common. At the bottom of the table, we see that another forty-nine districts reported use of only a district-developed program. (Under the new legislation, they will need to adopt an approved curriculum.)
More positively, we find signs that some districts have been using high-quality programs. The most-used core ELA program was the state-approved 2020 edition of Reading Wonders. The most common programs that are both state-approved and Knowledge Matters-recommended were Core Knowledge Language Arts and Wit & Wisdom. Districts using approved curricula in 2022–23 will be able to continue their use of these programs.
Table 3: Most frequently used core ELA curricula (grades K-5) in 2022–23, Ohio districts (n=604)
Table 4 displays patterns by district typology, a way of grouping schools based on their geographic characteristics. It shows that urban districts were more likely to have implemented state-approved programs prior to the legislative reforms. Suburban districts, on the other hand, were more likely to cite use of nonapproved curricula, notably Units of Study and Classroom. Rural and small-town districts reported significant use of Reading Wonders (2017 and 2020 editions), which helps explain their appearance atop the statewide list in Table 3, as more districts are represented in those typologies.
Table 4: Most frequently used core ELA curricula (grades K–5) in 2022–23, Ohio districts by typology
The next table displays public charter schools’ most commonly used curricula. We again see a range of programs in use, with some less-frequently cited curricula among districts being more common among charters (e.g., Imagine It! and Reading Mastery). Two state-approved programs, Into Reading and Core Knowledge Language Arts, were the two most widely used by charters in 2022–23.
Table 5: Most frequently used core ELA curricula (grades K-5) in 2022–23, Ohio public charter elementary schools (n=222)
While all students will gain from the use of more effective ELA curricula, those struggling to read stand to benefit most. Table 6 displays the specific programs used by the districts with the lowest third-grade ELA proficiency rates in 2022–23. (The “Ohio Eight” urban districts are in bold.) Thirty of these sixty districts reported use of a state-approved core ELA curricula and eleven of them reported the use of a program that’s also recommended by the Knowledge Matters Campaign. The other half used non-approved published curricula, district-developed curricula, or did not report a core ELA curriculum on the survey.[26] As discussed in Appendix C, low-performing districts using a state-approved curriculum seem to slightly outperform those using nonapproved curricula on the state’s value-added growth measure. But for reasons discussed in that section, this conclusion is tentative, and further research is needed to rigorously evaluate the impacts of curricula decisions, both statewide and in struggling schools.
Table 6: Core ELA curricula (grades K–5) used in 2022–23 among the lowest 10 percent of Ohio districts in third-grade reading proficiency
Survey results confirm both the heavy lift the state is undertaking to transition schools away from weaker curricula and the wisdom of investing significant dollars to support new ELA programs. As noted earlier, one of the largest funding elements for the initiative is $64 million to subsidize the purchase of instructional materials. For the purposes of allocating funds to districts and charter schools, DEW divided them into three categories based on their survey responses about which programs they used in 2022–23. The categories are as follows:
Figure 1 shows the breakdown of districts and charters by these three categories. Statewide, districts were split evenly among the three categories, with urban districts—perhaps sensing a greater urgency to upgrade curricula—being more likely to be in the aligned category (39 percent), while suburban districts and charters were less likely to be aligned (23 and 28 percent, respectively). Table 7 displays the corresponding number of districts and charters in each of the categories.
Figure 1: District and charters’ alignment (2022–23) to the state’s approved curricula list for 2024–25
Table 7: Number of districts and charters by their alignment (2022–23) to the state’s approved curricula list for 2024–25
Based on this grouping methodology, DEW then steered more dollars to nonaligned schools. Table 8 shows that nonaligned districts and charter schools received just under half of the total allocation—$31 million of the $64 million set aside—while those deemed partially aligned and aligned received $23 and $10 million, respectively. On a per-pupil basis (grades PK–5), these sums amount to $121, $100, and $37 for nonaligned, partially aligned, and aligned districts and charters, respectively. Dollars must be used to purchase state-approved instructional materials,[28] whether core ELA curricula, supplemental materials, or intervention programs.
Table 8: Funding allocations to districts and charter schools for instructional materials, by alignment category
With literacy reforms solidly on the books and implementation off the ground, Ohio is moving smartly toward more effective reading instruction. But to achieve the intended results of the initiative—higher reading proficiency statewide—Ohio policymakers will need to keep the pedal to the floor, while also exercising patience and resolve when the going gets tough. They must keep in mind that transitioning hundreds of schools to new curricula and instructional practices won’t happen overnight. As literacy expert Robert Pondiscio has noted, learning to read “is the long game,” requiring time and persistence from both teachers and students.[29] To maintain a strong and sustained push toward better literacy instruction, we conclude with five recommendations for Ohio leaders:
Literacy is job number one for Ohio’s elementary schools. State leaders are right to insist that all classroom teachers have the curricula, materials, and training needed to do the job right. A wealth of evidence demonstrates that programs aligned with the Science of Reading are most effective at helping children become strong readers—the more so when those programs are also rich in knowledge. With strong implementation in the years ahead, Ohio will have more proficient readers in schools today and a more literate citizenry tomorrow.
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 to Kathi Kizirnis, who copy edited the manuscript, and Andy Kittles who created the design. Funding for this report comes from the Charles and Lynn Schusterman Family Philanthropies and our sister organization, the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
— Aaron Churchill
Ohio Research Director, Thomas B. Fordham Institute
The Thomas B. Fordham Institute promotes educational excellence for every child in America via quality research, analysis, and commentary, as well as advocacy and charter school authorizing in Ohio. It is affiliated with the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and this publication is a joint project of the Foundation and the Institute. The Institute is neither connected with nor sponsored by Fordham University.
[1] National Literacy Trust, “What is phonics?” (webpage, last accessed May 21, 2024): https://literacytrust.org.uk/information/what-is-literacy/what-phonics/.
[2] TNTP, “What is the science of reading, and why does it matter?” (blog, October 3, 2023): https://tntp.org/blog/what-is-the-science-of-reading-and-why-does-it-ma….
[3] ExcelinEd, “Why the three-cueing systems model doesn’t teach children to read” (2024): https://excelined.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/ExcelinEd_FactSheet_Th….
[4] Governor Mike DeWine, “2023 State of the State Address” (January 31, 2023): https://governor.ohio.gov/media/news-and-media/governordewines-2023-sta….
[5] Teacher professional development, literacy coaching, and teacher-preparation reform are also crucial elements of the overall literacy reform package and will be reviewed in future analyses.
[6] Though not the focus of this report, the state will also require district- or charter-operated preschools to use state-approved reading curricula; this is why the amounts are reported on a PK–5 enrollment basis.
[7] Ani Ruhil, Lisa Neilson, Caroline Barto, and Josh Hawley, Initial Results from the Third Grade Reading Guarantee Analysis, Ohio Education Research Center/Ohio Excels (June 2023): https://www.ohioexcels.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/Full-Report-Third….
[8] Documents and analysis related to House Bill 33 of the 135th General Assembly are available at: https://www.lsc.ohio.gov/budget/135/main-operating-budget/as-enacted. For more about the Third Grade Reading Guarantee in its current form, see Aaron Churchill, “Ohio lawmakers gut the third grade reading guarantee. What now?” Thomas B. Fordham Institute (blog, July 11, 2023): https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/commentary/ohio-lawmakers-gut-third-g… and Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, “Third Grade Reading Guarantee,” (webpage, last accessed May 21, 2024): https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Literacy/Third-Grade….
[9] National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read: An Evidence-Based Assessment of the Scientific Research Literature on Reading and Its Implications for Reading Instruction (April 2000): https://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/pubs/nrp/smallbook and Anne Castles, Kathleen Rastle, and Kate Nation, “Ending the Reading Wars: Reading Acquisition from Novice to Expert,” Psychological Science in the Public Interest vol. 19, no. 1 (June 2018): https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1529100618772271.
[10] Emily Hanford, “Sold a Story,” APM Reports: https://features.apmreports.org/sold-a-story/ and Sarah Mervosh, “Kids Can’t Read’: The Revolt That Is Taking On the Education Establishment,” New York Times (April 24, 2023): https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/16/us/science-of-reading-literacy-paren….
[11] Three-cueing may be allowed if it appears in a special-education student’s IEP, or if DEW approves a school’s request to use three-cueing with a particular student (provided he or she is not on a reading improvement plan).
[12] Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, Guidance for High-Quality Instructional Materials and Core Curriculum in English Language Arts and Reading Intervention Materials Requirements (February 2024): https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Englis….
[13] As of 2021, EdReports had reviewed 186 core elementary ELA curricula and thirty foundational skills supplemental programs. See EdReports, Data Snapshot: K-12 English Language Arts Instructional Materials (March 2023): https://www.edreports.org/resources/article/data-snapshot-k-12-english-….
[14] For core ELA programs that achieve a Meets “alignment” rating, EdReports also includes a “usability” rating. DEW, however, relied strictly on the “alignment” ratings to develop its approved materials list. For more about its ratings and review process, see EdReports, “Our Process” (webpage, last accessed May 21, 2024): https://edreports.org/process#intro.
[15] Natalie Wexler, “Literacy experts say some EdReports ratings are misleading,” Forbes (blog, February 22, 2024): https://www.forbes.com/sites/nataliewexler/2024/02/22/literacy-experts-… and Karen Vaites, “Ohio offers an object lesson on issues in the curriculum space,” (blog, March 25, 2024): https://eduvaites.org/2024/03/25/ohio-offers-an-object-lesson-on-issues….
[16] Jocelyn Pickford and Kate Poteet, “States take many paths to advance high-quality curriculum and align professional learning,” National Association of State Boards of Education (January 2024): https://www.nasbe.org/states-take-many-paths-to-advance-high-quality-cu….
[17] Provided it receives a satisfactory review from by another state, a curriculum not rated by EdReports could apply for DEW approval as well. Description of the review process and rubric is available at Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, High-Quality Instructional Materials in English Language Arts: PreK-Grade 5 Core Curriculum and Instructional Materials Approved List: Vendor Guidance and Request for Applications (2023-24): https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Englis….
[18] If a core, no-foundational-skills curricula had a Meets rating, it was automatically approved by DEW. There were two such programs that met this criterion (Wit & Wisdom, grades K-2, and Fishtank ELA, grades K-2).
[19] Kate Walsh, “Basal Readers: The lost opportunity to build the knowledge that propels comprehension,” American Educator (Spring 2003): https://www.aft.org/sites/default/files/Basal_readers.pdf.
[20] National Reading Panel, Teaching Children to Read (2000) and International Dyslexia Association, “Scarborough’s Reading Rope: A Groundbreaking Infographic,” (blog, April 2018): https://dyslexiaida.org/scarboroughs-reading-rope-a-groundbreaking-info….
[21] E. D. Hirsch, “The Case for Bringing Content into the Language Arts Block and for a Knowledge-Rich Curriculum Core for all Children,” American Educator (Spring 2006): https://www.aft.org/ae/spring2006/hirsch.
[22] David Grissmer, et. al., “How Building Knowledge Boosts Literacy and Leraning,” Education Next (blog, March 13, 2024): https://www.educationnext.org/how-building-knowledge-boosts-literacy-an….
[23] Knowledge Matters Campaign, “Explore Curricula,” (webpage, last accessed May 21, 2024): https://knowledgematterscampaign.org/explore-curricula/.
[24] Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, Use of High-quality Literacy Instructional and Intervention Materials in Ohio’s Elementary Schools: Results from a Statewide Survey (February 2024): https://education.ohio.gov/getattachment/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/Englis…. The Excel file (titled “Full Survey Results Spreadsheet”) from which I conduct analyses of survey results is available at this link: https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Learning-in-Ohio/English-Language-Art….
[25] Wonders was one of only a few curricula for which DEW reported a particular publication year.
[26] The districts marked as “none reported” reported only supplemental or intervention materials in the survey question about core ELA curricula.
[27] This could either be a core comprehensive or a combination of state-approved core, no foundational skills curricula and state-approved supplemental foundational skills curricula.
[28] A district or charter school may apply these funds to a previous purchase of state-approved curricula, provided it occurred after July 1, 2023.
[29] Robert Pondiscio, “Getting reading right,” Commentary (November 2023): https://www.commentary.org/articles/robert-pondiscio/teaching-reading-r….
[30] EdReports recently indicated possible changes in its review process; see Linda Jacobson, “Critics Call ‘Consumer Reports’ of School Curriculum Slow to Adapt to Science of Reading,” The 74 (May 14, 2024): https://www.the74million.org/article/critics-call-consumer-reports-ofsc….
[31] For more about how lawmakers could support the literacy initiative in the next budget, see Aaron Churchill, “Education priorities for Ohio’s next biennial budget, part 1: Sustained investment for literacy reform,” Thomas B. Fordham Institute (blog, April 17, 2024): https://fordhaminstitute.org/ohio/commentary/education-priorities-ohios….
[32] Colorado Department of Education, “Literacy Curriculum Transparency Dashboard,” (website, last accessed May 21, 2024): https://www.cde.state.co.us/code/literacycurriculumtransparency-dashboa….
[33] Such schools could be those that have been assigned a literacy coach (they serve in the lowest-performing schools in statewide proficiency in ELA), or elementary schools that are formally identified for “comprehensive support and improvement” under federal law.
