The Education Gadfly Weekly

Fund students, not systems. That’s a basic tenet of fair and efficient school finance policy. In some regards, Ohio follows this principle, most notably by ensuring that state dollars (though not local) follow students when they choose to attend public charter or private schools. On the other hand, Ohio has long struggled to create a student-centered framework for traditional school districts.

One reason is Ohio’s addiction to “guarantees,” a mechanism that shields districts from reductions in state aid, even if they shed enrollment. Instead of funding districts based on actual headcounts—i.e., strict adherence to a student-driven formula—guarantees override those prescriptions and pay districts based on some historical level. This school year, Ohio is funneling $313 million to 203 districts—about one in three—through the two main guarantees in the system.[1]

Let’s look at how the guarantee works and how it distorts the system. Figure 1 illustrates the issue by using data from one of the state’s largest beneficiaries of the guarantee, East Cleveland. Based on actual FY25 formula prescriptions that use current enrollments, the district should receive $18.3 million in state aid. Instead, it receives $27.2 million—an extra $8.9 million, amounting to an astounding 49 percent bump—to reach the amount it received in FY20, the baseline year for calculating the state’s primary guarantee. This practice circumvents the state’s own formula, ignores enrollment declines (down 38 percent), and causes East Cleveland’s state aid to soar to an astronomical $24,740 per pupil—way out of line with other districts’ state funding.

Figure 1: East Cleveland’s guarantee, FY25

Given the unfairness exemplified by guarantees, lawmakers have tried to remove them from the funding system. The state’s current formula, championed by former Speaker Bob Cupp and Representative John Patterson, promised to fund schools based on their actual enrollments. That seemed to foreshadow an end to guarantees. Yet they still remain. Earlier this year, Governor DeWine took a swing at guarantees by proposing some modest reductions to them in his budget. But the House inexplicably went the opposite direction and recommended a gargantuan guarantee that ensures no district receives less than it does this year, despite declining enrollment statewide.

The ball is now in the Senate’s court, and word is that President McColley is no fan of guarantees. That’s encouraging, but the upper chamber will face immense political pressure to keep them intact. With that in mind, let us review the reasons why guarantees need to go away.

1. Guarantees undermine the state funding formula. Ohio has a formula based on student enrollment and measures of local wealth. Guarantees, however, short-circuit that system by providing excess dollars the formula says districts do not need. In the case of the aforementioned House plan, the guarantee takes away dollars from other districts, which may be growing in enrollment, but whose funding is “capped” (they don’t receive the full formula amount).

2. Guarantees are unfair to Ohio taxpayers who foot the bill for “empty desks.” No one believes that taxpayers should fund hospitals for patients they don’t see or pay unemployment to people with steady jobs. Nor should taxpayers be asked to subsidize schools for students they don’t educate.[2]

3. Guarantees are handouts given to certain districts but not others. Guarantees are simply “pork”—special political favors that some districts enjoy when the formula produces a result that might upset the apple cart.

4. Guarantees discourage districts from streamlining and operating more efficiently. Guarantees relieve districts from making hard but necessary adjustments to their budgets. This promotes government inefficiency—think underused facilities and bloated staff counts—exactly the opposite of what fiscally responsible policymakers should be working towards.

5. Guarantees soak up money that could be used in better ways. Guarantees are an expensive “extra”—dollars above the formula—yet serve no clear educational purpose. The $300 million currently spent on guarantees could be used for math and reading acceleration, beefing up CTE, or improving teacher quality. Any of those initiatives would surely generate a higher ROI than throwing money at empty desks.

6. Guarantees were never intended to be a reliable, permanent funding stream. The two main guarantees are technically called “temporary transitional aid” and “formula transition supplement.” This language clearly signals that guarantees are meant to sunset, and that districts, which advocated for the current formula, should not be surprised by efforts to phase them out.

Despite the strong, principled case to remove guarantees, they linger on and on. Setting aside the politics, the most oft-heard argument for maintaining them is that districts “need” the excess money because they face significant “fixed costs” that cannot be reduced. Here, it’s important to remember a few things:

1. Most costs are not fixed, even in the short run. A nationwide study by economist Ben Scafidi estimates that just 36 percent of schools’ costs are fixed in the short run (things like building expenses or interest payments), while the rest are “variable” costs that districts have the power to adjust right away. As economists will tell you, all costs are variable over the longer term as organizations, including schools, can adjust costs to align with revenues, given time.

2. Guarantees assume districts are helpless. Crying “fixed costs” presupposes that district leaders are helpless or incompetent at managing costs, including their labor and capital expenses. In fact, it’s something of a self-indictment of their own leadership when the argument comes from school boards and administrators. 

3. Public charter and private schools aren’t given guarantees to cover fixed costs. Lawmakers don’t give special handouts to cushion charters and private schools when their enrollments decline.[3] They expect these schools to right-size immediately—more like a business—even though they also face some fixed costs in the short run.

4. Fixed costs only seem to apply when discussing enrollment declines. Almost no one makes a fixed/variable cost distinction when talking about districts with increasing enrollments. We simply say the school should receive aid that covers the “full” cost of educating an additional student—for instance, $8,500 per pupil—not just the fractional amount that covers the variable cost (e.g., $5,000 per pupil). Somehow fixed costs only exist in declining districts but not in growing ones.

Finally, let me add this: If guarantees are so urgently needed, how is it that districts have so much cash in reserve? Just consider the five largest recipients of the guarantee this year. Mason is receiving almost $15 million from the state in guarantees, while it had a whopping $60 million on hand at the end of last year. That is almost a half year of cash. East Cleveland is hardly cash-strapped with almost $20 million in reserves, while Lakewood has 50 million smackers in reserve. Are these guarantees truly needed, or are they just padding bank accounts at taxpayer expense?

Table 1: Cash reserves of districts receiving the largest guarantees in FY25

There’s a kid’s song titled the “Song That Doesn’t End.” Guarantees are much like this obnoxious tune—they never go away, despite all the efforts to press stop. It’ll take some political courage, but let’s hope, for everyone’s sanity, that lawmakers put a fork in guarantees and start following a formula that funds students where they attend school.

Over the last few years, Ohioans have heard plenty of reports about teacher shortages. Educators and advocates have warned that fewer young people are entering the profession and attrition rates are rising among current teachers. One news station recently reported that Columbus City Schools is facing a shortage of special education teachers. Officials at Cincinnati Public Schools reportedly spent last summer racing to fill more than 100 vacant teaching positions.

These are troubling reports. Research suggests that teachers matter more to student achievement than any other element of schooling. And in Ohio, we need a robust pipeline of highly-effective educators now more than ever. Our disappointing results on the 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress indicate that just 32 percent of fourth graders achieved proficiency in reading, and less than a third of eighth graders were proficient in math.

Bolstering the teacher pipeline should be a top priority for elected officials. Unfortunately, the size and scope of teacher shortages in Ohio is nearly impossible to determine. That’s because state and local leaders don’t have access to detailed data on teacher vacancies. Without this information, they can’t identify the regions, schools, subjects, and grade levels where shortages exist and respond accordingly.

Governor DeWine’s proposed budget aimed to address this dearth of data. He called on Ohio’s Department of Education and Workforce to annually collect school employment and vacancy data, and then summarize and publish it online. This change would have been a big step forward in addressing teacher shortages. Unfortunately, House lawmakers eliminated it. If the Senate doesn’t add it back, Ohioans will continue to be in the dark.

Why is it absolutely critical for Ohio to have teacher vacancy data?

First, it will ensure that all communities—not just the largest or richest—can track shortages. Public schools in Ohio serve rural, small town, suburban, and urban communities. Their staff needs differ greatly. Rural districts in northwest Ohio might be struggling to hire advanced math teachers, while those in the southeast may need science teachers. Urban districts could need middle school educators. And Joint Vocational School Districts need career-technical education instructors. Without a mechanism to gather data from every region and school, some are sure to slip through the cracks.

Second, thorough and precise data will equip state leaders with the information they need to craft policy solutions that address the actual needs of schools and students. Consider Ohio’s increasing number of students with special needs. Staff vacancies data collected by the National Center for Education Statistics in March 2024 show that 51 percent of public schools nationwide reported that they would need to fill positions in special education before the start of the next school year. Nationally, no other category of teaching is more in demand. It’s all but certain that Columbus City Schools isn’t the only Ohio district struggling to hire special education teachers. But without thorough vacancy data, policymakers can’t know for sure or respond effectively.   

Policy solutions are available—provided that lawmakers gain a better grasp on Ohio’s teacher shortages. A state-funded scholarship for those who pledge to work in special education could boost the pipeline of teachers serving students with special needs. A refundable tax credit for teachers working in areas struggling to hire staff would provide recruitment and retention incentives. Bonuses for teachers in subjects or grade levels with the most significant shortages would allow leaders to put more money directly into teachers’ pockets.

Such moves could strengthen Ohio’s teacher pipeline. But to be effective, they must be targeted at the regions, grades, and subjects where genuine shortages exist. The only way to do that is to gather detailed data about teacher vacancies. We can’t solve problems we don’t understand. And it’s well past time to understand Ohio’s teacher shortages.

When school district leaders start raising alarms about a proposal that simply enforces existing law, it’s a clear sign the law hasn’t been taken seriously. That’s precisely the case in Ohio, where some superintendents are pushing back against sensible reform proposals designed to ensure districts comply with a longstanding requirement to make vacant or underused school buildings available to public charter schools.

The controversy centers on provisions in Governor DeWine’s budget proposal that would strengthen the state’s unused facilities statute. Under current law, districts must first offer these buildings to charter and STEM schools before repurposing or selling them. It’s a reasonable and longstanding policy—one rooted in fairness and fiscal responsibility. Yet some district administrators are objecting, not because the state’s expectation will change, but because they would actually be held accountable for following the law.

How did we get here? Unfortunately, it’s been a long time coming. The policy has been on the books since 2013, and—as my Fordham colleagues have detailed—there’s ample evidence that it has been routinely flouted. A 2016 survey found that nearly half of charter school leaders described districts as “generally uncooperative” in making facilities available. Former Auditor of State Dave Yost flagged the same problem in a 2019 report. Ohio’s largest district, Columbus City Schools, provides telling examples. In recent years, the United Schools Network—one of the state’s top-performing charter operators[1]—was given the very public runaround by the district when it sought to purchase a vacant building. Another shining star in the capital city, the independent STEM school Metro Early College High School, was similarly stymied by the district for several years before a consortium led by Battelle and The Ohio State University intervened to override the district’s anti-competitive dictates.

In response to these and other flagrant incidents, lawmakers added some clarity to the law in recent years—optimistically hoping it would result in greater compliance. Legislators sought to define “unused facility” to include severely underutilized buildings, meaning those under 60 percent capacity. Their hopes were quickly dashed as the law is still being ignored.

Fast forward to today and in steps Governor DeWine, doing what responsible policymakers should and proposing the addition of guardrails to finally sync up what the law says and what’s happening on the ground. His commonsense recommendations include: proposing a clearer, more enforceable definition of “unused facility”—specifically, designating buildings as such if they fall below 60 percent of either their design capacity or their peak enrollment over the past ten years; requiring that facilities be offered at prices more reflective of their value as educational spaces rather than market-rate appraisals aimed at commercial buyers; removing unnecessary geographic restrictions, allowing any high-quality charter in the state to bid on available buildings, not just those already operating in the district; and requiring districts to report unused buildings to the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce, which will then make those records publicly accessible.

The governor’s language was largely stripped out of the budget bill by the House, but the prospect of it being embraced by Senate has district officials on edge. DeWine’s proposal was a much-needed start. Could it be improved to better target chronic noncompliance and protect legitimate use cases like swing space during construction or specialized student services? Absolutely. Senate leaders can and should refine the proposal to avoid unintended consequences and ensure schools still have flexibility for legitimate facility planning. But they should resist efforts—sure to come in force from districts—to water it down into irrelevance. The goal should be to make the law work.

Predictably, some district leaders are opposing these efforts under the banner of “local control.” But what they’re really asking for is the continued ability to ignore the law. They want to retain the power to warehouse taxpayer-funded buildings, even while high quality public charter schools struggle to secure school buildings. That’s not local control. That’s obstruction.

Here’s the principle that should guide this entire debate: Ohio taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay twice for public education infrastructure. The idea that charter schools—public schools that educate tens of thousands of students—should have to fight to prevent a taxpayer-funded facility from being sold off, demolished, or handed over to a private buyer defies both logic and fairness. These are public assets that are being left vacant or half-empty. Their continued use for public education shouldn’t be controversial.

For too long, Ohio’s traditional public schools have treated the state’s facility disposition law as optional—sidestepping their obligation to offer unused buildings to public charter schools. The governor’s proposals aren’t radical or punitive; they’re long-overdue, sensible fixes that reinforce the intent of the law. They ensure that charter schools—an integral part of the state’s public education system—get a fair shot at obtaining taxpayer-funded facilities designed for education. It’s good policy, it’s overdue, and it sends a clear message: Laws matter, and it’s time they were followed.

Under the leadership of Governor DeWine, Ohio has made expanding and improving career pathways a top priority. State policymakers have spent the last several years establishing a variety of initiatives and funding sources, with the goal of providing more and better opportunities for kids. Overall, Ohio has a pretty solid foundation in career technical education. But there’s still plenty of work ahead to ensure that all students have access to high-quality career-connected learning.

The state budget process that’s currently underway is an excellent opportunity for lawmakers to build on previous efforts. Unfortunately, it’s been a mixed bag thus far. Governor DeWine’s proposal was a solid step forward. But the House took several steps back.

It’s now up to the Senate to push Ohio forward on career-connected learning. Two issues in particular—career planning and industry-recognized credentials (IRCs)—should be at the top of their to-do list. Let’s take a look at the current state of play and recommendations for what the Senate should do.

Career planning

The issue

Current law requires every Ohio student in grades nine through twelve who attends a public or chartered non-public school to have a graduation plan that maps their academic pathway to a diploma. These pathways consider course and graduation requirements. Plans must be updated each year until the student graduates. They do not require students to think beyond graduation or consider potential careers.

Governor DeWine’s proposal

Last year, during his state of the state address, Governor DeWine called on the legislature to “make a very simple fix in statute to insert career planning into existing graduation plan requirements.” When he released his budget recommendations this February, he followed through. Under his proposal, students’ plans would be required to identify post-graduation career goals and align students’ high school experiences to those goals. To support the transition, DeWine charged the Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) with adopting rules regarding plan contents. (For more information on what should be required from DEW, see here.)

The House’s proposal

The House removed the governor’s proposal to incorporate career planning into current graduation plan requirements.

Recommendations for the Senate

The Senate’s first order of business should be to restore the governor’s career planning proposal. Thousands of students graduate each year with no idea how to pursue their interests or even what they’re interested in. By requiring schools to help students create graduation plans that align with their interests and future career goals, policymakers could take an important first step toward addressing the issue.

But they shouldn’t stop there. To be prepared for planning efforts in high school, students need in-depth opportunities to explore career fields and educational pathways during middle school. The Senate could provide those opportunities by requiring all students to complete a career exploration course during grades 6–8. Districts and schools should be permitted to meet this expectation by designing and offering their own course based on guidance from DEW or by partnering with a qualified organization.

Industry-recognized credentials

The issue

IRCs allow students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills and verify their competence via an objective, third-party measure. High-quality credentials can boost earnings and employment. And in Ohio, high school students can use IRCs as a pathway to graduation. To determine which IRCs qualify, a state-level committee reviews and assigns them a point value between one and twelve. Students must earn at least twelve points in one career field to qualify for the IRC graduation pathway, but they can bundle several low-point credentials to reach that threshold.

The problem is that Ohio’s current point value system doesn’t effectively identify credential value or encourage students to earn IRCs that will lead to better long-term outcomes. In fact, because of the flaws in Ohio’s current system, thousands of students are obtaining IRCs that are poorly aligned with in-demand, high-value careers. Recent data even suggest that Ohio’s urban districts are routing students into less rigorous IRC programs to ensure they receive diplomas.

Governor DeWine’s proposal

DeWine’s proposed budget eliminated the point value system and required the IRC committee to establish new criteria under which a student may use IRCs to earn a diploma.

The House’s proposal

The House eliminated DeWine’s changes. Doing so maintains Ohio’s current point value system and does nothing to curtail use of low-level IRCs to meet graduation requirements.

Recommendations for the Senate

The Senate should restore the governor’s proposed language. Doing so would put Ohio on the path toward solving many of its current IRC problems. The Senate could then build on that foundation by adding three key provisions.

First, it should require the IRC committee to link credentials to wages. If a credential doesn’t ensure that a student is financially better off for having earned it, then it shouldn’t be considered valuable by the state and shouldn’t be a pathway to graduation.

Second, it should require the committee to link credentials to two job outlook measures—one that focuses on short-term demand according to feedback from industry partners, and a second that considers long-term job outlook based on projected data.

Third, it should require the committee to establish a three-tiered system that assigns IRCs to one of three tiers (from highest to lowest value): Preferred, Valued, or Recognized. Although students should be able to earn an IRC in any tier, only credentials that are Preferred or Valued—those that are considered beneficial by employers, lead to well-paying jobs, and have a positive future outlook—should count toward meeting graduation requirements.

***

Ohio policymakers have invested a great deal in career-connected learning. Doing so was wise—when implemented well, these opportunities benefit students, schools, employers, local communities, and the state as a whole. Ohio still has a long way to go before it capitalizes on all that potential. But if Senate lawmakers follow the recommendations outlined above and prioritize much-needed changes in career planning and IRCs, Ohio will keep pushing career education in the right direction.

Over the past decade, Ohio has had an on-again, off-again relationship with accountability and interventions. State policymakers, for instance, have rolled out accountability mechanisms such as third grade reading retention and state interventions in low-performing districts. But when the political going got tough, they lost their nerve and walked back these well-intended efforts.

It’s time for state leaders to get more serious about sticking with accountability. Last spring, one in four Ohio students scored “limited” on math or reading exams, the state’s rock-bottom achievement level. In ten districts, including Dayton, Lorain, and Youngstown, more than half of students scored at the lowest mark. Worse yet, in this same trio of districts, 53 percent of students attended an ineffective school—defined as one receiving a Progress (growth) rating of just one or two stars. Translation: Too many Ohio students are behind academically and not getting what they need to make up that ground.

Fortunately, two pieces of legislation in the Ohio Senate take another crack at accountability and intervention. Introduced by Senate Education Chair Andrew Brenner, one bill calls for stronger interventions for low-achieving students (SB19), while the other beefs up the school-improvement framework for chronically low-performing district schools (SB127). Fordham’s Chad Aldis has already provided committee testimony on these bills, and offered important suggestions for improving both. But let’s revisit the key ways they would move accountability forward in Ohio.

Senate Bill 19: Student-level interventions

Schools should be responsible—and held accountable—for providing struggling students with extra academic supports. Schools already must create improvement plans for students struggling in reading, thanks to reading improvement and monitoring plan (RIMP) requirements. Yet these plans currently cover grades K–5 only, and obviously do not include mathematics. Moreover, because current law does not explicitly call for state oversight or evaluation of RIMP implementation, it’s possible that these plans have become check-box exercises rather than guarantors of quality interventions.

SB19 maintains current RIMP requirements and adds new provisions that will better ensure struggling students receive effective support. The bill requires schools to provide “academic intervention services” to students who score “limited” on a state math[1] or reading assessment in grades 3–8 or high school. Such interventions may be high-dosage tutoring, extended learning time, or other evidence-based academic programs. Parents must be notified when their child scores limited and qualifies for intervention services. The bill also requires schools to periodically update parents about their child’s progress and provide resources on how they can assist.

Importantly, the bill also requires the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to randomly select no more than five percent of all public schools to audit the interventions they provide to students scoring limited. This audit must be more than a bureaucratic desk review, as SB19 calls for site visits by the department or third-party evaluators who gauge quality through observations and interviews with school personnel. The evaluators must produce a report with their findings and recommendations for improvement. The report will be provided to the school and made publicly available on its report card webpage. Taken together, these provisions will help ensure schools actually provide interventions to students and will encourage the use of effective practices.

Senate Bill 127: School-level interventions

Ohio has a decidedly mixed record on school improvement. On the one hand, a rigorous study of Ohio’s efforts under the federal, Obama-era School Improvement Grant program found positive results in schools that undertook more comprehensive turnarounds. On the other hand, the state recently backed off a controversial but well-intentioned attempt to reform low-performing districts through Academic Distress Commissions (ADCs). Although current federal requirements call on states to do something to improve low-performing schools, Ohio hasn’t implemented especially bold interventions.

SB127 offers a more coherent approach to state intervention in low-performing district-run schools (comments regarding charters are saved for the end). Here’s what the bill proposes.

1. Creates a framework for addressing poor-performing schools—as opposed to trying to fix entire districts. Given the drama of ADCs, focusing efforts at the individual school level should be more practical and politically doable than whole-district reform.

2. Creates fair and understandable identification criteria. Under SB127, any public school that is ranked—for three straight years—in the bottom five percent of schools statewide on the performance index AND in the bottom ten percent statewide in value-added[2] will be deemed chronically low-performing. These criteria will identify truly dysfunctional schools—probably around ten to fifteen campuses per year—where pupil achievement is extremely low and zero progress is being made to help students improve. [3]

3. Establishes (mostly) clear consequences for poor performance. Once a school is identified, the district has five options: (1) permanently close the school; (2) contract with a state-approved management organization to run the school; (3) replace the principal and a majority of licensed staff; (4) consolidate with another district; or (5) work with a state-approved “external service provider,” likely a turnaround consultant, to improve the school. If schools choose one of the non-closure options, they have three years to improve, or else they will automatically close.

The first four options are strong interventions for district-run schools. They either result in closure, or force significant changes in school management. The fifth option—selecting a turnaround consultant—is the softest option and is almost surely the route most districts will take. To ensure it doesn’t become a way to escape accountability, lawmakers should add the following provisions to SB127:

• Require DEW to conduct an annual audit of the turnaround work at each school, and produce a publicly available report that evaluates the schoolwide improvement efforts.

• Limit the number of “external service providers” that DEW may approve (perhaps to no more than five), instead of opening the door to dozens of possible consultants. This would help to avoid a “race to the bottom” for schools to select a consultant with a reputation for leniency or low rigor.

• Require schools to notify parents—before or shortly after the start of the school year—that the school has been designated as low-performing and that improvement efforts are being undertaken.[4]

Finally, a comment on charter schools. Under current law, chronically low-performing charters must automatically close. They are not given “restructuring” options, as charters are schools of choice and (unlike district schools) do not serve as “default” options for students. In other words, charters don’t need to exist in order for the state to meet its basic obligation of providing a public school option to every student. Unfortunately, SB127 extends the non-closure options discussed above to low-performing charters, effectively weakening charter accountability. While lawmakers should embrace the heightened accountability for district-run schools, they should reject the proposal to water down charter school accountability.

* * *

In the midst of discussions about education policy, which tend to gravitate toward dollars and cents, lawmakers should not forget about student-centered accountability measures. Strong interventions are essential to a quality education system that helps all students reach their potential.

In 2014, Ohio implemented a new screening tool for all incoming kindergartners. The screener—called the Kindergarten Readiness Assessment (KRA)—was intended to provide a broader look at children’s school readiness by considering math, socialization, physical well-being, and motor development in addition to language and literacy, which had been the sole focus of the previous test. More importantly, the new protocol was launched with an emphasis on helping teachers use the results to modify their classroom instruction and meet the academic needs thus revealed. In 2019, researchers at Ohio State University’s Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy examined whether the KRA predicted student success in third grade. Given that state lawmakers are currently considering a proposal to eliminate the KRA, that previous research has renewed importance right now. So here is a timely reminder of their methodology and findings.

Data came from a large, unnamed, urban school district in Ohio. The researchers looked at 2,221 students who 1) took the KRA in the 2014–15 academic year, 2) took the state’s third-grade reading assessment in the fall of 2017, 3) did not have an Individualized Education Program (IEP), and 4) were not identified as having limited English proficiency (LEP). No demographic data were included beyond this. The KRA has three score categories: Emerging Kindergarten Readiness, Approaching Readiness, and Demonstrating Readiness. Twenty-eight percent of children in the sample received a score in the lowest category, compared to 41 percent in the middle tier and 31 percent in the top. These results generally mirrored the state score distributions for that school year, although slightly more sample students earned Emerging Readiness than the state at large.

At the start of their third grade year (fall 2017), each student took the state-mandated English language arts (ELA) test, and the researchers compared the outcomes of these tests versus KRA scores from three years earlier. Scores on the state ELA test spanned from 545 to 863 and students were grouped into one of five category ranges from limited (lowest) to advanced (highest) based on their scores. Any student scoring 700 or higher was deemed “proficient.” However, the state at that time set a cut score below which students were at risk of being held back in third grade. In 2017 that score was 677, slightly below “proficient,” and that cut score was the main focus of the Crane Center’s analysts. Students in the research sample scored between 545 to 833 (mean = 667.65), and exactly 50 percent of them reached the promotion threshold via either their full test score or a substitute measure on a reading-specific subtest allowed by the state.

But the big question was: Did students’ KRA scores predict their third grade performance? Overall, the correlation between KRA scores and third grade ELA scores was 0.49 standard deviation, a modestly strong link. Of the subsections of the KRA, math scores correlated with third grade ELA scores at 0.48 and language and literacy at 0.46. Much further down the predictive scale, social foundation and motor development scores were less correlated (0.31 and 0.28 standard deviation, respectively). And the most important finding in this regard was that 74 percent of children who tested in the lowest category on the KRA went on to score below the promotion cut score on the fall ELA assessment or the reading subtest. Students in the middle KRA category had a 50-50 chance of meeting the promotion cut score come third grade.[1]

As the Crane Center team explained it at the time: The intention of the KRA protocol change in 2014 was to more effectively identify struggling students and boost the instruction and supports they receive in kindergarten and beyond. However, despite clear and obvious signals from the KRA, that intention was not realized to any great degree three years later. If it had been, they reason, fewer low-scoring kindergartners would have ended up as low-scoring third graders.

As noted at the outset, these 2019 findings have new relevance today because legislators in the Ohio House of Representatives are proposing to eliminate the KRA, despite its demonstrated predictive capability. Yes, it’s clear that the KRA didn’t result in an outpouring of supports to boost 2014’s new kindergartners to reading proficiency by the start of third grade. But the assessment itself is not the problem. In fact, policymakers should be looking to bolster screening in the early grades (as Governor DeWine proposed in his budget) with stronger accountability for schools to meet students’ clearly-demonstrated needs. This research from six years ago speaks clearly on these points.

SOURCE: L.M. Justice, A.J. Koury, and J.A.R. Logan, “Ohio’s Kindergarten Readiness Assessment: Does It Forecast Third-Grade Reading Success?” Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy and The Ohio State University. (May 2019).

Back in 2015, three Ohio community colleges launched the Accelerated Study in Associate Programs (ASAP), a comprehensive suite of supports meant to help new community college students persist in school and complete a degree in three years or less (the national average was 3.3 years at the time). ASAP is based on a similar program of the same name developed in the City University of New York (CUNY) system. It includes supports such as tuition and transportation assistance, work- and family-friendly class schedules, priority registration, and intensive advising from dedicated counselors.

While just two of those Ohio programs remain active today, evaluation partner MDRC has continued tracking longer term outcomes for the original participants via a randomized controlled trial. I have reviewed three of MDRC’s previous studies (the third one, covering six years of data and with links to the others in the series, is here), and a fourth report has just been released, covering eight years of data since the start of the program.

To recap the study design: Participating students enrolling in the three Ohio institutions in fall 2015 had to be degree-seeking, willing to attend full-time, majoring in degree programs that could be completed in three years or less, and Pell Grant–eligible. A lottery determined which students entered the ASAP program (806 participants) and which comprised the control group (695 non-participants). Students in the control group had access to the usual suite of assistance services the colleges provided but not the more-intensive support given students in the treatment group.

Before looking at the new report, let’s do a quick recap of findings from the prior reports in the series. After three years, 35 percent of the students in the treatment group had earned degrees, compared with 19 percent of students in the control group. Graduation impacts persisted in year six. And the labor market findings revealed that program group students earned $2,045 more than control group students’ annual average of $17,631—an increase of 12 percent.

And now? As of 2023 (eight years after initially enrolling), 46 percent of program participants earned a degree compared to 31 percent of control group students, an estimated 15 percentage point effect. And while one could argue that the goal of accelerated degree completion has been irrelevant for a while now, the fact that the positive impact has remained steady for all this time—that is, the control group has not caught up or, indeed, made any headway in closing the gap—suggests that some students are still earning degrees they otherwise would not have without the supports, even if it took them eight years to earn that “two-year degree.” Overall, ASAP appears to be one of the most effective postsecondary education initiatives in regard to graduation-rate increases among the numerous other rigorously-evaluated programs cited by the researchers. Furthermore, 17.6 percent of program participants have gone on to earn a bachelor’s degree within eight years of starting community college with ASAP support, compared with 11.4 percent of control group students. That’s a 6.2 percentage point impact.

Labor market findings also remain positive. In year eight, program participants earned an average of $3,337 more than the control group, a 14 percent increase that is larger than the one observed at the six-year point. In fact, the impact on earnings has been gradually increasing since year four. This effect was due almost entirely to higher wages being earned by the treatment group participants, as both they and control participants were employed at similar rates, as had been seen in previous analyses.

It is unclear what more can be learned from these long-term participants, but MDRC researchers promise to keep further tabs on their OG guinea pigs. Of more interest will likely be the expanded usage of the ASAP model now active at over forty institutions in seven states, including a baccalaureate version at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. Analyses of each are in the works. Here’s hoping for more good news to come!

SOURCE: Colin Hill, Kayla Warner, and Colleen Sommo, “From Learning to Earning,” MDRC (April 2025).

NOTE: Today, the Ohio Senate Education Committee held its fifth hearing on the education provisions of House Bill 96, Ohio’s biennial operating budget. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy was invited to provide interested party testimony before the committee. These are his full written remarks.

Chair Brenner, Vice Chair Blessing, Ranking Member Ingram, and members of the Senate Education Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today.

This testimony is necessarily comprehensive. House Bill 96 contains an extraordinary number of policy provisions with direct implications for students, schools, and the future of education in our state. This breadth reflects not only the size and complexity of the state budget but also the fierce urgency to make continued progress. Too many students remain unprepared for whatever path they choose to follow after high school, and we must act boldly to change that.

Funding Formula: Students Deserve a Fair and Sustainable System

The current model—well-intentioned though it may have been—continues to spiral in cost, largely because it allows outside forces, including local and federal funding outside of the formula, to influence the pace of spending. This is an unsustainable way to fund a statewide education system. The legislature, not the federal government or local districts, must reclaim its constitutional authority to determine how—and how much—we invest in public education.

Digging into formula specifics, we support the governor’s proposal to fully phase in the Cupp-Patterson formula and to not update the inputs that, again, include spending that occurred above and beyond the school funding formula. We do recommend that the Senate increase the base cost by a specific percentage (say 1.5 percent) annually for FY26 and FY27 to account for inflation.

On the matter of Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid (DPIA), the current approach is bordering on the absurd. One-third of the students deemed “economically disadvantaged” aren’t because of quirks in how Ohio uses data from a federal meals program. The result is an inability to target resources where they are most needed. We strongly recommend shifting away from funding students based on their free and reduced priced lunch status to “direct certification” based upon enrollment in other means tested aid programs. It offers a more accurate, honest count of truly low-income children. By making this shift, we could significantly increase the DPIA base amount from $422 to $775 per pupil and drive more funding to where it is most needed.

Then there’s the issue of guarantees—a euphemism, frankly, for handing out money to districts that are losing students or growing wealthier. Guarantees undermine funding formulas. They intentionally send more dollars to schools than the formula calculates that they should receive. As such, we commend Governor DeWine for proposing a starting point to begin phasing out guarantees. Unfortunately, the House functionally created a mammoth statewide guarantee ensuring that no schools receive fewer dollars than the year before. We strongly recommend that the Senate build on Governor DeWine's proposal--perhaps being a little more aggressive and reducing guarantees to 90 percent in FY26 and 80 percent in FY27, and eliminating “supplemental targeted assistance” that gives money to districts because students have decided to attend other types of schools. This shift would send a clear and necessary message: taxpayer dollars must follow students, not prop up outdated or inefficient structures.

None of these recommendations are radical. In fact, they are modest in fiscal terms—$53 million more in FY26 and $127 million in FY27 than the governor’s proposal. But they represent a major step forward in policy coherence and fiscal discipline; and most importantly, they help ensure dollars go to where the students are and the needs greatest.

Charter Schools: Addressing Chronic Inequities and Maintaining Accountability

HB 96 takes significant strides to level the playing field for public charter schools, which continue to operate with less funding and less facility access than their district counterparts. The bill rightly:

• Increases facilities aid from $1,000 to $1,500 per pupil

• Maintains performance-based high-quality charter funding of up to $3,000 per pupil

• Continues the charter equity supplement of $650 per pupil

• Embeds these programs into statute to reduce the likelihood of future policy reversals

Most critically, and most controversially, the governor proposed some changes to increase the enforceability of Ohio’s unused facilities statute. Charter schools—public schools educating tens of thousands of students—should not be forced to fight for access to taxpayer-funded buildings that sit vacant. The governor’s proposed changes, including clearer definitions and broader access, ensure that the law functions as intended. These updates respond directly to years of documented noncompliance, where districts have sidestepped their obligations and withheld facilities from high-performing public charter schools. Clear enforcement mechanisms and broader eligibility will help rectify these inequities and ensure that all public school students, regardless of the type of school they attend, benefit from access to educational infrastructure. Given some of the concerns voiced by districts, we have crafted some commonsense guardrails that will ensure that the pendulum doesn’t swing too far the other direction and hurt districts.

Finally, I’d be remiss not to mention several ongoing discussions and recent House amendments that we believe would significantly weaken Ohio’s post-HB 2, decade long focus on quality within the charter school sector. Three issues in particular stand out.

First, the House has included language in HB 96 to broaden the definition of a high-quality charter school in a way that would allow lower-performing schools to access funding that is currently—and rightly—reserved for those that meet high performance standards. We urge this committee to consider changes to the definition of high quality only if they are rigorous and apply to schools that can’t be evaluated under the current criteria.

Second, there are ongoing discussions around overhauling the sponsor evaluation system and many involved would like to downplay the role of academic performance in gauging a sponsor’s success. We strongly urge you to resist these efforts. The Department of Education and Workforce has proposed important changes to the sponsor evaluation system that we believe would make it fairer, more relevant, less time consuming, and--importantly--not reduce the role of academics. While we would be even bolder than DEW, we support their efforts. It’s critical that we don’t dilute accountability and reduce pressure on authorizers to ensure that the schools they oversee are delivering strong outcomes for students. Moreover, it’s also essential that the sponsor evaluation system begins operating again. Many Ohio sponsors have not been rated in five years.

Third, SB 127—which we have testified on and support many aspects of—could inadvertently lower the bar for school closure. The most recent data that I've seen suggests that very few charter schools would be identified under the proposed criteria. If you do move forward with it, we recommend making sure that the bar being set is high enough to identify low-performing charter schools. Under current law, 14 charter schools are in either year 1 or year 2 of the closure protocol.

Taken together, these changes risk reversing a decade of hard-earned progress and would send the wrong message about our commitment to excellence in public charter schools. Now is the time to lean into what’s working, not back away from policies that have delivered results for Ohio students.

Foundational Learning: Strengthening Literacy and Numeracy with Urgency

The as-introduced version of HB 96 includes several transformative steps to strengthen early literacy and numeracy—the building blocks of academic success. Governor DeWine’s budget proposal rightly expands on the 2023 science-of-reading initiative by calling for universal screeners in both reading and math for grades K–3. This would replace the current patchwork of district-selected assessments with a standardized approach that ensures early detection of learning gaps. The House removed this provision; the Senate should restore it to bring greater rigor, consistency, and accuracy to early diagnostics.

Transparency is also essential. We support the governor’s proposal to require districts to publicly report the curricula they use. We urge the Senate to take one additional step and require DEW to review math curricula and create a list of high-quality instructional materials that are aligned to Ohio’s math standards. While this is similar to the literacy list developed under the science-of-reading initiative, we don’t believe that districts should be required to use a curriculum from the list. Rather, this would help districts make informed, evidence-based purchasing decisions without mandating a one-size-fits-all solution.

To ensure elementary educators are equipped to teach foundational math effectively, HB 96 should include a minimum passing score on the math subsection of the licensure content exam be attained before a new teacher is allowed to provide math instruction. This common-sense measure would close a loophole that currently allows teachers without demonstrated math competency to teach math which could compromise students' early numeracy development.

Finally, the Senate should build on the language introduced by the governor related to students advanced in math by requiring districts to have a pathway for high achievers to have accelerated math opportunities culminating in the automatic enrollment of successful students into Algebra no later than 8th grade. This would ensure that students capable of excelling in advanced math—especially those from historically underserved backgrounds—have access to rigorous coursework that can open doors to STEM opportunities and college readiness down the road. For too long, readiness has been overlooked or undervalued, and this provision represents a critical correction.

These changes are largely included in Substitute SB 19. We’d encourage you to include those provisions in HB 96.

Career-Connected Learning: Expanding Opportunities with Evidence

Ohio has made important progress in expanding access to career pathways, but real challenges remain in ensuring that students are equipped with the knowledge, credentials, and experiences needed to thrive in a competitive workforce. House Bill 96 offers a crucial opportunity to build on recent momentum and adopt several meaningful improvements recommended by leading education and business groups, including Ohio Excels.

The Senate should restore the governor’s proposal to overhaul the flawed industry-recognized credential (IRC) system. The current point-based model permits low-value credentials to serve as graduation requirements, encouraging schools to pursue compliance over rigor. Instead, credentials should be categorized based on their connection to workforce demand and earnings potential. To count for graduation, IRCs should provide genuine preparation for in-demand jobs.

Next, we support Governor DeWine’s push for career plans for students and believe they could be even more comprehensive. Plans should include students’ postsecondary goals and outline how coursework and experiences will help them meet those goals. But meaningful career planning starts before high school. All middle school students should be required to complete a structured career exploration course. This would ensure that students begin thinking about their interests and potential futures early enough to align their high school experiences accordingly.

To support this important work, the Senate should also restore dedicated career exploration funding that the House removed. Without this investment, districts will struggle to implement the very programming needed to make career planning effective for all students.

Additionally, Ohio needs a more disciplined approach to data governance that allows the state to link workforce outcomes to specific training programs. This linkage will provide a much clearer picture of which programs are delivering strong results and which need to be improved or reformed.

Finally, the Senate should increase support for the Innovative Workforce Incentive Program (IWIP), which helps incentivize high-quality credentialing programs. Under current funding levels, incentive grants are being pro-rated, diminishing the program’s impact. A stronger financial commitment would allow IWIP to support more students and more schools, helping scale programs aligned to Ohio’s workforce needs.

Together, these actions would build a more coherent, transparent, and effective career-connected learning system—one that truly prepares all Ohio students for life after high school.

Teacher Workforce: Understanding the Scope of the Issue

We cannot fix what we don’t measure. Governor DeWine proposed that Ohio’s Department of Education and Workforce collect and publish annual data on teacher vacancies. The House removed this provision. The Senate should restore it and go further by requiring disaggregated data by school, district, and subject area. Without this information, we’re flying blind as we try to solve one of the most pressing challenges in education.

Private School Choice: Adjust Don’t Transform

Ohio has seen sweeping changes to its private school choice landscape in recent years. Most notably, EdChoice has been expanded to become a universal program—allowing every family in the state to access a scholarship to attend a private school of their choosing. This shift represents a milestone in school choice policy and dramatically increases educational opportunity for thousands of families across the state.

With this major expansion now in place, the focus should be on stabilizing and refining Ohio’s choice programs—not layering on untested changes. We encourage lawmakers to maintain the current EdChoice scholarship structure, including the sliding scale that determines award amounts based on income. This approach allows Ohio to continue offering broader access to school choice while prioritizing more generous support for the families that need it most.

We also recommend providing Disadvantaged Pupil Impact Aid (DPIA) funding to low-income students who use EdChoice or other state scholarships. Low-income students—regardless of whether they attend district, charter, or private schools—often need additional academic support. By extending DPIA to scholarship students, Ohio would take a step toward funding students based on need, rather than sector.

In addition, the state should align funding for special needs scholarships—namely, the Jon Peterson and Autism scholarships—with the formula used for charter schools. While the funding framework is generally similar, certain groups of students receive less money when they use a voucher. Ensuring full alignment would help improve services and equity for students with special needs.

Finally, we strongly urge the Senate to reject the House-passed provision that would create an Education Savings Account (ESA) for students attending nonchartered, non-tax supported private schools. These schools have chosen to operate outside of the state’s accountability and funding systems, based on deeply held religious convictions. While they should be respected for that choice, they have done so knowing that they would not receive taxpayer funding. Creating a new ESA program that diverts public dollars to these schools—without corresponding oversight or transparency—is not in the best interest of Ohio taxpayers.

The state has made remarkable strides in expanding educational options for students. Let’s take the time to implement these changes thoughtfully, focus on students most in need, and ensure the long-term quality and sustainability of Ohio’s private school choice programs.

Conclusion

The Senate has an opportunity to ensure that House Bill 96 delivers on its promise. That means more than just tweaking numbers on a spreadsheet. It means finishing what the governor started, restoring what the House removed, and holding the line against proposals that would take us backward.

From stabilizing our funding formula and preserving rigorous charter accountability, to accelerating foundational learning and building out career pathways, this budget can do more than spend—it can lead. It can say, with clarity and conviction, that Ohio will invest in what works, fix what’s broken, and always put students first.

Now isn’t the time to lower standards or chase shiny distractions. It’s time to double down on policies that have moved the needle for kids. Let’s not waste that momentum.

Thank you for your leadership and your commitment to the future of Ohio’s students. I’d be happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Note: Today, the Ohio House Education Committee heard testimony on House Bill 145, which would raise the required minimum number of hours in a school year. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided the following proponent testimony on the bill.

An Important Reminder

The COVID-19 pandemic made one thing undeniably clear: sustained, in-person instruction from a qualified teacher is irreplaceable. While educators and families made valiant efforts to adapt to remote and hybrid models, widespread learning loss across Ohio and the nation underscored how critical consistent classroom time is. Students thrive when they have routine access to great teachers and structured learning environments. Though House Bill 145 isn’t a direct response to pandemic-related disruptions, it addresses one of the root issues: not enough time spent in school.

Time Matters, But So Does Its Use

House Bill 145 increases minimum instructional time by 27 hours for part-time kindergarten and 53 hours for full-day kindergarten through grade 12[1]. In so doing, it acknowledges what researchers have long known: time in school is a critical input for student learning. In that regard, the bill would represent a modest but important step forward in Ohio’s commitment to academic recovery, improvement, and excellence.

However, it is not merely the quantity of time that matters, but its quality. A sweeping meta-analysis conducted by Yael Kidron and Jim Lindsay in 2014 and summarized in a brief published by the Institute for Education Sciences found that increased learning time has mixed but generally positive effects, especially when the added time is delivered by certified teachers and structured through traditional, focused instruction. Programs using certified instructors and clear instructional goals had positive impacts on both literacy and math outcomes. Moreover, increased time had a particularly strong effect on students who were struggling academically.

Researchers Matthew Kraft and Sarah Novicoff, writing in EdNext earlier this year, said, “we see a compelling body of evidence that increasing total school time leads to gains in academic achievement, on average. The most substantial impacts are at schools where longer days or years are part of wholesale reforms to maximize student engagement and instructional quality, such as turnaround or charter schools.”

Simply lengthening the day or year without accompanying instructional reforms often produces limited or no gains. A Massachusetts study found no improvement in student performance after lengthening the school year. The additional hours were not explicitly tied to high-impact practices but instead were more loosely connected to teacher planning and enrichment opportunities, rather than direct student learning. A rigorous 2018 study from Florida found that requiring schools with the lowest reading scores in the state to extend their school year by 100 hours led to significant improvements (about a month of instruction) on state reading assessments.

Beyond Minimum Requirements

Establishing a higher floor for instructional time could be helpful, but it will likely only get us part of the way there. Chronic absenteeism has surged in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, with one in four Ohio students missing more than 10 percent of the school year. When students miss school regularly—whether due to health issues, transportation barriers, family instability, or school disengagement—even the most carefully constructed schedules cannot deliver academic benefits. In fact, students who have never been chronically absent are six times more likely to read on grade level by the end of third grade and nine times more likely to graduate from high school on time. To truly make the added instructional time meaningful, Ohio must continue to emphasize the importance of student attendance and maintain accurate and transparent tracking efforts.

In addition to student attendance, schools must address the equally critical issue of teacher availability. Staff shortages and the overuse of substitute teachers can significantly diminish the quality of instructional time, particularly in schools that already face resource constraints. Studies have shown that a great teacher can have a large positive impact on student learning, but teacher absences and shortages put that at risk. When a classroom lacks a consistent, qualified educator, students lose out on continuity, engagement, and effective instruction. Policymakers should consider strategies to reduce teacher absenteeism, invest in retention efforts, and build stronger pipelines for substitute teachers who are trained and prepared to support academic progress.

We need to remember that the potential benefit of a longer school year will only be realized if both students and their teachers are actually in school.

Ensure Consistent Standards Across All Public Schools

Currently, community schools (Ohio’s public charter schools) are only required to provide 920 hours of instruction annually, a lower bar than what HB 145 proposes for district, STEM, and chartered nonpublic schools. Given that charter schools are publicly funded and serve some of Ohio’s most underserved students, we would encourage you to apply the same expectations to them. Applying HB 145’s standard to these schools would promote consistency and fairness while ensuring all students benefit from more classroom time.

Conclusion

House Bill 145 could help Ohio improve academic outcomes. We must remember though that quantity alone is not enough. For increased hours to have the maximum impact on students, they must be coupled with continued efforts to improve attendance, teacher availability, and instructional quality.

The Fordham Institute supports HB 145 and encourages thoughtful implementation to maximize its impact. Thank you for your time. 

Note: Today the Ohio Senate Education Committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 158. It proposes sharp limits on the use of cellphones by students during the school day. Fordham’s Vice President for Ohio Policy provided the following proponent testimony on the bill.

I want to begin with an undeniable reality: cellphones have become a major problem in our classrooms. While technology can be a powerful learning tool, personal smartphones are doing far more harm than good during the school day. They fracture students’ attention, disrupt lessons, and create an environment where true engagement with learning becomes much harder. A recent Common Sense Media study found that 97 percent of students aged 11 to 17 use their phones during the school day, even when rules technically prohibit it. The median student spent about forty-three minutes a day on their phone between 8:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., checking it roughly thirteen times. And most of that time isn’t devoted to educational pursuits; instead, students are absorbed in social media, YouTube, and gaming.

Educators are not blind to this issue. They see the impact firsthand and overwhelmingly support stronger limits on student cellphone use. A recent Pew/RAND survey revealed that nearly three out of four high school teachers view cellphone distraction as a significant challenge in their classrooms. Similarly, a National Education Association survey showed that 90 percent of teachers favor prohibiting phones during instructional time. The message is clear: teachers want to teach, and students need to learn—but the constant presence of phones undermines both.

The academic consequences of unchecked cellphone use are significant and well-documented. Research indicates that even the mere presence of a smartphone can diminish cognitive capacity and reduce focus. A large-scale study conducted in England found that schools implementing a cellphone ban experienced an overall improvement in student test scores, with the most pronounced gains seen among low-achieving students—those who arguably stand to benefit the most from a focused learning environment. Reducing distractions through a cellphone ban is a common sense, research-backed way to strengthen academic outcomes and give every student a better shot at success.

Yet the problem goes beyond academics alone. We are living through a national youth mental health crisis. Rates of anxiety, depression, and loneliness among adolescents have soared in the era of smartphones and ubiquitous social media. Researchers such as Jonathan Haidt and Jean Twenge have extensively documented how these technologies have reshaped adolescent development, often with detrimental effects. School should offer students a reprieve—a place to be present, connected to each other, and focused on learning. Unfortunately, smartphones constantly pull students away from those essential experiences.

Recognizing these challenges, the legislature took an initial step last year with the passage of House Bill 250, which required districts to establish a policy on cellphone use during the school day. However, while the hope was that local policies might resolve the issue, the reality is uneven at best. Inconsistent rules and sporadic enforcement have left teachers struggling. A state survey released in December found that only 41 percent of districts currently prohibit phones throughout the school day. Many others have adopted partial measures that are difficult to enforce and confuse students and staff alike. Teachers should not have to fight uphill battles every day simply to maintain basic classroom norms. It has become clear that a statewide solution is necessary.

Senate Bill 158 answers this need by providing clarity and support to our schools. The bill sets consistent expectations across the state, while still including commonsense and necessary exceptions for medical needs and individualized education plans. It reflects a thoughtful, balanced approach—one that prioritizes learning while recognizing that students’ diverse needs must be accommodated.

Finally, I want to thank Governor DeWine for starting this important conversation and Senator Timken for championing this legislation. Senator, I appreciate your leadership and look forward to working with you to see this effort through.