Search

This document discusses the educational aide program in the state of Ohio. Section I discusses the paid educational aide. The goal of the paid teacher aide program is to improve instruction; the objectives of the program are: (1) teachers will spend more time directly involved in significant high-level teaching and learning functions; (2) teachers will spend more time designing effective teaching strategies; (3) teachers will be more personally involved with pupils; (4) the basic skills program will improve; and (5) teachers will have more energy to devote to teaching. Guidelines are recommended for the selection, training, supervision, and continuous progress evaluation of educational aides and auxiliary personnel. A selection of questions and answers concerns the content and intent of the Educational Aide Statute of the Ohio Revised Code. The permanent regulations for issuance of the educational aide permit are listed. Ethical conduct is briefly discussed. The second section deals with the volunteer educational aide. It is stressed that understanding the volunteer is important to the development of effective utilization of the aide. Suggested steps for initiation of a volunteer aide program include: (1) recruitment of volunteers; (2) selection and placement; (3) criteria for volunteers; (4) orientation and training; (5) utilization of volunteers; (6) supervision and program coordination; (7) motivation and recognition; and (8) evaluation. The appendix includes: (1) The Revised Code of Ohio Educational Aide Statute; (2) Opinion No. 69-145; (3) a chart showing the organization and development of a volunteer program; (4) sample forms and questionnaires; and (5) a reading list. (MM)

School leaders, specifically principals, play a pivotal role in shaping student learning outcomes. The benefits of strong leaders extend beyond academic achievement, such as reductions in absenteeism and exclusionary discipline. While quality principals are critical for creating and sustaining quality schools, the staffing pipeline is facing significant challenges. In the context of these challenges, and recognizing the critical influence of effective leadership on student success, many states have recently enacted policies to better recruit, support and retain principals and other school leaders. This Policy Snapshot reviews trends in recent state legislation from 2022 to 2024 and highlights examples of both proposed and enacted laws in four key areas: (1) Certification and preparation; (2) Professional development; (3) Evaluation; and (4) Financial incentives and compensation.

Targeted school funding is a potentially valuable policy lever to increase educational equality by race, ethnicity, and income, but it remains unclear how to target funds most effectively. We use a regression discontinuity approach to compare districts that narrowly passed or failed a school funding election. We use close tax elections in 9 states to identify effects of operating funds and close bond elections in 8 states to identify effects of capital funds. Results indicate positive achievement returns to spending, especially for math achievement and for operating funds. We find similar returns to spending by race, ethnicity, and income (not statistically different), but we find significantly larger returns for students in low-resource districts than in high-resource districts, including larger returns for Black, Latinx, and low-income students. Mediation analyses suggest spending on teacher salaries and counselors may be particularly effective mechanisms to increase achievement among Black and low-income students. [Additional funding for this report was provided by the Gilead Foundation Creating Possible Fund and the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University.]

The academic and economic benefits of school spending are well-established, but focusing on these outcomes may underestimate the full social benefits of school spending. Recent increases in U.S. child mortality are driven by injuries and raise questions about what types of social investments could reduce child deaths. We use close school district tax elections and negative binomial regression models to estimate effects of a quasi-random increase in school spending on county child mortality. We find consistent evidence that increased school spending from passing a tax election reduces child mortality. Districts that narrowly passed a proposed tax increase spent an additional $243 per pupil, mostly on instruction and salaries, and had 4% lower child mortality after spending increased (6-10 years after the election). This increased spending also reduced child deaths of despair (due to drugs, alcohol, or suicide) by 5% and child deaths due to accidents or motor vehicle accidents by 7%. Estimates predicting potential mechanisms suggest that lower child mortality could partly reflect increases in the number of teachers and counselors, higher teacher salaries, and improved student engagement. [Funding for this report was provided by the Gilead Foundation Creating Possible Fund and the Population Studies and Training Center at Brown University.]

In order to assist higher education institutions and their students during the pandemic, the federal government established the Higher Education Emergency Relief (HEER) Fund, which directed over $75 billion to institutions of higher education--including nearly $25 billion to community colleges--over a three-year period. The U.S. Department of Education worked on a rapid timeline to distribute these funds to institutions, which they could use to provide direct aid to students facing financial challenges and cover institutional costs related to the pandemic. Drawing on a survey of community colleges in six states--California, Michigan, New York (State University of New York [SUNY] colleges), Ohio, Tennessee, and Texas--this report provides insight into the specific pandemic recovery activities colleges implemented, colleges' perceptions of how successful HEER funds were in addressing student and institutional needs during the pandemic, and colleges' views of unmet needs. The institutional survey was completed by 170 out of a total of 265 community colleges in the six states. Key findings from the report: (1) Colleges spent nearly all the HEER funds they received. Given the large amount of HEER funding and the fact that colleges did not need to submit a proposal and budget for how they would use the funds, it should not be assumed that colleges would have spent all the money they received. Yet colleges spent nearly all the funds they received by the time the HEER program ended in June 2023; (2) HEER funds met a variety of student and institutional needs during the pandemic. Colleges had relatively few problems using the funds and felt that the aid was successful in mitigating student and institutional hardships; (3) Colleges focused on retaining existing students; they employed a variety of methods to support students in need. Colleges used HEER funds to support and retain existing (pre-pandemic) students rather than to recruit new students. They focused on supporting students with financial exigencies, including those experiencing food and housing insecurity. They used institutional aid to forgive debt owed to the college and to provide food, housing, and childcare assistance; (4) Spending patterns suggest that colleges experienced similar challenges during the pandemic and often prioritized the same objectives. Despite differences in state contexts and institutional settings, colleges tended to allocate funds in similar ways. For example, most colleges used aid for campus safety and technology hardware. Expenditure patterns also shifted over time in similar ways, indicating that colleges were responsive to evolving needs; (5) Expenditures related to campus safety and technology remained strong but decreased in frequency over time; expenditures to support students' mental health increased in frequency. Mental health services was the only expenditure category that increased in frequency in each of the three years of funding, likely reflecting the toll the pandemic took on students' mental health; (6) Comparing pre- and post-pandemic spending, HEER funds had the most impact on increasing support for technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance. Colleges used HEER funds both to fund existing services and to begin offering new ones. Fewer than a third of colleges had services in place to provide technology hardware, high-speed internet, and housing assistance before the pandemic; many more did so afterward; (7) Concerns about the end of HEER funding and priorities for future funding expose a need for continued flexible resources to address students' financial needs. Colleges' main concern about the end of HEER funding was that it would limit their ability to support students during an emergency. Their top priority for using future funding was additional student aid; and (8) Rural and vocational/technical colleges (as defined by the Carnegie Classification) may have had fewer resources prior to the pandemic and may be in greater need of additional support. Colleges in towns and rural areas and colleges focused on technical training were less likely to offer a number of supports both pre- and post-pandemic. Rural colleges were also less likely to report having received additional funding for pandemic recovery from sources other than HEER funds. Overall, while the survey findings suggest that HEER largely met the goals for which it was intended, they also point to the importance of addressing systemic challenges facing community college students and the institutions that serve them. Now that the immediate crisis of the pandemic has passed and HEER funding has ended, there is an opportunity to think strategically about the investments that are needed to promote student success over the long term, particularly for underserved and financially vulnerable students who are the most at risk of stopping out or not enrolling in the first place.

This chartbook is the 14th version to be produced for the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) by the Population Reference Bureau (PRB). The Chartbook describes the diversity of the Appalachian Region on a host of demographic and economic measures and provides an important annual view of the area and its people. The data contained in the 2018-2022 Chartbook describe how residents in the Appalachian Region were faring before and during the COVID-19 pandemic that began in March 2020. Nearly half of the years during this time period were pre-pandemic and half were during the pandemic era. Thus, this Chartbook is a blend of these two eras. As future data releases reflect the post-pandemic era, data users will have additional insights on the long-term changes that the pandemic brought to Appalachia's social and economic dynamics. Most of the data shown here come from the 2018-2022 American Community Survey (ACS), a nationwide study collected continuously every year in every county in the United States by the U.S. Census Bureau. The ACS is designed to provide communities with reliable and timely demographic, social, economic, and housing data each year. To provide as much county-level data as possible, we use ACS 5-year data files which provide reliable estimates for geographic areas with fewer than 20,000 people. Since many counties in the Appalachian Region have fewer than 20,000 residents, these data permit comparable statistics for all 423 counties in the Region. The primary purpose of the ACS is to measure the changing characteristics of the U.S. population in a way that is continually updated. The estimates in this Chartbook, therefore, are data collected over the five-year (or 60-month) period from January 2018 through December 2022. These ACS estimates are not averages of monthly or annual values, but rather an aggregation of data collected continuously over that time period.

Over the past two decades, researchers have spent countless hours studying the impacts of public charter schools--independently-run, tuition-free schools of choice that serve some 3.7 million U.S. students today. Just prior to the pandemic, studies from Ohio and nationally indicated that charters on average delivered superior academic outcomes compared to traditional districts. And the very finest charters in Ohio and around the nation were driving learning gains that gave disadvantaged students the edge needed to succeed in college and career. The pandemic scrambled most everything about K-12 education. But did it upend what we know about charter school performance? The present study examines the post-pandemic performance of Ohio's brick-and-mortar charter schools, which enrolled 81,000 students--mostly from urban communities--during the 2022-23 school year. The results reveal that, in terms of student achievement growth, Ohio's charter schools remain a better educational option for the average charter student.

As states and districts seek to elevate learning and prepare more students for work in the digital future, they have not only a unique opportunity, but also an urgent imperative, to redesign high school math. This report examines an array of education policies that exert considerable influence on the math students learn and when they learn it, factors that have a profound influence on students' futures. It shares up-to-date information about how some states are navigating these policies as they develop innovative redesigns of high school mathematics and about strategies aimed at improving student outcomes, particularly for historically underrepresented students. A survey of state math supervisors highlights the priorities driving these changes. To illustrate various redesign strategies, the report features examples from five states: Georgia, Ohio, Oregon, Utah, and Washington. Drawing from those strategies, the research evidence, and the survey of state math supervisors, it provides insights and recommendations for states and districts to consider as they update their high school math policies.

Boosting literacy among school-age children remains a national priority. Nearly one third of students in the United States have not developed the foundational reading skills needed to succeed academically, with students living in poverty, students with disabilities, and English learners especially at risk. Starting in 2010, Congress invested more than $1 billion for state literacy improvement efforts through the Striving Readers Comprehensive Literacy (SRCL) program. SRCL was intended to focus funding on disadvantaged schools, encourage schools to use evidence-based practices, and support schools and teachers in providing comprehensive literacy instruction. These efforts were expected to lead to improved literacy outcomes for students. This study assesses how well SRCL implementation was aligned with these goals, using information collected from states, districts, and schools in all 11 states awarded grants in 2017.

The federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) entitles students with disabilities to a free appropriate public education. Students with disabilities often require additional support to enable them to achieve academic and functional goals relative to their nondisabled peers. These legally protected supports and services all add up to a need for additional school funding to support the education of children with disabilities. This brief examines how states and the federal government allocate funding to support the educational needs of students with disabilities and identifies questions that state advocates and policymakers can pose to better understand and improve their state's system for funding special education services.

For decades, college tuition costs have been skyrocketing, yet state financial aid has failed to meet the increasing economic needs of college students -- leaving many young people with the choice of bridging the financial gap by taking out student loans or not attending college at all. This pressing issue of rising college tuition is not just a matter of economic inconvenience; it is a harbinger of deepening racial and socioeconomic inequalities. The lack of financial aid disproportionately deters Black and Latino students and students from low-income backgrounds from pursuing higher education and earning a college degree. In this report, we explore state financial aid funding and associated program requirements in 10 distinct states: California, Illinois, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington. In it, we shed light on the 12 key eligibility requirements that often serve as barriers for students of color, students from low-income backgrounds, undocumented students, and justice-impacted students to afford college: (1) Program type (Need, Merit, or Need and Merit); (2) FAFSA completion required; (3) Alternative to FAFSA; (4) Low-income requirement; (5) Available without standardized test score; (6) Available without mandated GPA; (7) Marginalized student populations included; (8) FAFSA as a state high-school graduation requirement; (9) Institution types eligible; (10) Average undergraduate cost of attendance (COA) for in-state students (2022-23 academic year); (11) Annual award amount description; and (12) Enrollment intensity. This analysis is designed to help educators, policymakers, and advocates better understand the barriers, strengths, limitations, and influences that state financial aid programs can have on the ability of students of color and students from low-income backgrounds to access and afford college.

This is the technical appendix for the report "From Insights to Impact: Fostering Innovation through Texas" which examines the current national landscape of higher education research and development to help gauge Texas' current position and identify opportunities to drive further innovations into the future. This appendix includes the following sections: (1) Maintaining Texas' Edge; (2) From Roadmap to Reality; (3) Texas' Competitive Position; (4) Technology Transfer Landscape; and (5) Amplifying the Impact. [This report was produced with TIP Strategies, Inc. and Research Bridge Partners.]

For more than twenty-five years, public charter schools have served Ohio families and communities by providing quality educational options beyond the local school district. But it's no secret that we've also had a long-standing debate over whether increasing school choice impacts students who remain in traditional districts. In important--and sometimes impassioned--discussions such as these, rigorous research is critical to ground conversations in facts and evidence. Our latest report offers an analysis of the rapid scale-up of Ohio charter schools during the late 1990s and early 2000s. It finds that charters slightly boosted the graduation and attendance rates of traditional district students, while having no significant impacts on their state exam scores. These results follow a body of research from various locales showing that expanding educational choice--whether via public charter schools or private schools--consistently yields neutral to slightly positive impacts on traditional districts.

The guided pathways model, comprising 14 different practices, is a framework for comprehensive, whole-college reform undertaken by community colleges to help all students choose, enter, progress through, and complete a program of study that enables them to secure sustaining-wage employment or transfer with junior standing in a major. Since its introduction in 2015, it has been adopted by hundreds of community colleges across the United States. This paper asks whether guided pathways practices implemented at 62 community and technical colleges in three states--Tennessee, Ohio, and Washington--are associated with improvements in student outcomes during the first year of college. Specifically, using institutional survey and rich administrative data, we construct measures of adoption of guided pathways reforms to examine the association between guided pathways practices and fall-to-fall persistence, college credits earned, college math credits earned, and STEM credits earned. Our study reveals substantial variation in the adoption of guided pathways reforms across the states and across community colleges within the states over time. While we cannot establish a causal relationship between guided pathways adoption and student outcomes, we find significant positive associations between the statewide adoption of guided pathways reforms and early student outcomes in Tennessee. The observed improvements in that state are likely the result of concurrent reforms--guided pathways and others--implemented simultaneously, rather than of guided pathways reforms alone. We do not find evidence of improved student outcomes in either Ohio or Washington following the launch of statewide guided pathways initiatives. Our findings suggest that complementarities among adopted practices within and across areas of practice--rather than the adoption of individual practices or the intensity of adoption--seem to drive larger improvements in early academic success across the three states. Our study is the first of its kind to explore the potential of guided pathways reforms in contributing to improved early academic success, representing a significant descriptive contribution given that whole-college reforms in higher education are understudied.

CCRC recently conducted two major studies to shed light on the feasibility of implementing guided pathways reforms at scale and on the association between implementation and improvements in student outcomes. The first is an evaluation of the AACC Pathways Project, which involved 30 colleges from around the country that were committed to making guided pathways reforms, and the second is an evaluation of guided pathways implementation in three states--Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington State--that launched initiatives to assist colleges across their systems--70 institutions in total--to adopt reforms. This brief summarizes the results of these studies. One of the main findings is that whole-college reform is feasible but takes time--at least five years--to carry out. The authors also find that there is a positive relationship between the scaled implementation of complementary sets of guided pathways practices and some measures of early student momentum in AACC Pathways colleges that made the most progress in implementing guided pathways reforms and in one state (Tennessee) that got an early start on reforms and made good progress; in places that made less progress, the association is weak or not evident. A third major finding is that while students from all backgrounds may benefit from guided pathways reforms, these reforms are not sufficient to close equity gaps between racial and ethnic groups. The authors conclude with five recommendations for community colleges undertaking guided pathways reforms: (1) Offer ongoing case-managed advising by field, predictable schedules, and other supports to help students complete their plans; (2) Remove the obstacle to student success created by prerequisite remediation, particularly in math, and integrate support for students to master college-level courses in their field of study; (3) Take steps to strengthen teaching and learning in program gateway courses, not just math and English composition; (4) Extend tailored guided pathways supports for students from underserved groups; and (5) Build on-ramps to career-path college degree programs for underserved K-12 students after high school.

The Ohio "Operating Standards for the Education of Children with Disabilities" identify the state requirements and federal Part B Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) requirements that apply to the implementation of special education and related services to students with disabilities by school districts, county boards of developmental disabilities and other educational agencies.

Each year, more than a million high school students nationally take college dual enrollment courses, which have been shown to increase college access and success among participants. Yet racial/ethnic and other equity gaps in dual enrollment participation are widespread. To broaden the benefits of dual enrollment, the state of Ohio passed legislation in 2017 establishing the Innovative Programs (IP) policy, allowing waivers to test-based eligibility requirements--a frequently identified barrier to equitable access--for specific high school-college partnerships providing expanded outreach and support for students underrepresented in the state's dual enrollment program. This paper describes a multiple methods study of IP we conducted to examine how these partnerships were implemented to address the needs of underrepresented students and to evaluate whether the partnerships were successful in broadening access to and success in dual enrollment, as measured by course participation, pass rates, and college matriculation after high school. We find that the IP increased participation in dual enrollment among Black and Hispanic students. And while the implementation of the policy broadened access without changing course outcomes, the impacts on college enrollment after high school were mixed. Our results underscore the importance of pairing increased access to dual enrollment with adequate financial, advising, and academic resources to promote student success in and beyond dual enrollment courses.

The Remediation report is in response to Ohio Revised Code section 3345.061 (H), which requires the Chancellor of the Ohio Department of Higher Education (ODHE) and the Ohio Department of Education and Workforce (DEW) to issue a report recommending policies and strategies for reducing the need for academic remediation and developmental courses at state institutions of higher education. ODHE and DEW continue to collaborate on a range of initiatives to support student progress and success. Data in the following categories is presented: (1) Enrollment; (2) Remediation; (3) Economic Impact; and (4) Students. The report concludes with seven recommendations. [For the previous report "2022 Ohio Remediation Report: For Fall 2021 Enrolling College Students (Spring 2021 High School Graduates)," see ED627874.]

In 2023, charter school advocates continued to make legislative gains in statehouses across the country. These gains were made in red, blue, and purple states, oftentimes in ways that showed bipartisan support for charter schools remains firmly in place. In looking at the results of this year's legislative sessions across the country, four developments in particular stand out. First, in perhaps the biggest win this year, Montana became the 46th state to enact a charter school law. Second, charter school advocates notched an unusually large number of major wins on funding and facilities legislation, with especially significant progress in Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Colorado, and Wyoming. Third, charter school supporters opened the door to new types of authorizers in several states, including in Montana (new state authorizer), Nevada (cities and counties), North Carolina (new state authorizer), Oklahoma (new state authorizer, more types of universities, and accredited private institutions of higher learning), Utah (private institutions of higher education), and Wyoming (new state authorizer). Fourth, charter school supporters successfully played successful defense on anti-charter school efforts in several states, with three of the most notable defensive victories in blue states. In New Mexico, the Senate Education Committee voted down a charter school moratorium bill that was proposed by the Senate President Pro Tempore by a 7-1 margin. The bill would not have allowed any more charter schools in school districts where 20% of the students already attend a charter school. In California, Governor Newsom vetoed a bill that would have made harmful changes to the Charter School Facility Grant program and unnecessarily raise facilities cost for charter schools that want to establish or expand in low-income communities across the state. In Michigan, the legislature reversed a 20% cut to the funding of virtual charter schools proposed by the governor and instead level funded these schools. This report provides highlights from this year's state legislative activity across the country, organized into the following categories: funding and facilities, authorizing and accountability, other issues, no law states, and harmful legislation.

This report details how Reynoldsburg City Schools utilized the Inclusive Innovation model to introduce an innovative Open Educational Resource, Socratic Circles, designed to assist teachers in guiding discussions on racial and social justice in the classroom. These OER will be accessible to educators who are inspired by this work and interested in incorporating Socratic Circles into their classrooms. This report also offers insights from members of Reynoldsburg City Schools' Inclusive Innovation Core Team on how they applied the Core Tenets of Inclusive Innovation throughout their process.

Community colleges and broad-access universities (those with minimally selective admissions policies) provide an opportunity for students across the United States to attain postsecondary degrees and economic mobility. However, graduation rates from such colleges are often low and there are many obstacles that can be difficult to overcome, especially for students who must balance work or family responsibilities, older students, students from low-income backgrounds, and students of color who face additional systemic barriers. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic introduced unprecedented challenges for college students, making the pursuit of higher education even more difficult. Since about 2000, researchers have been collecting evidence on what forms of support are effective in helping students earn their degrees. Evidence shows that interventions that include multiple program components that support students over several years are associated with larger impacts on student outcomes. Building on the existing body of research, MDRC designed and is evaluating the Scaling Up College Completion Efforts for Student Success (SUCCESS) program, a multifaceted student support program designed to effectively promote student success and be financially sustainable. SUCCESS combines evidence-based components, including coaches engaged in active outreach to students, monthly financial incentives for students who meet program requirements, strategies to encourage students to enroll full time, and a data-driven program management system. Starting in 2019, 13 colleges across five states (California, Indiana, Minnesota, New Jersey, and Ohio), along with their state higher education agencies, have worked with MDRC to customize and launch SUCCESS. Eleven of the 13 colleges are participating in the randomized controlled trial. A previous brief presenting early findings from the first study cohort illustrated that the SUCCESS program in the 2020-2021 academic year, as adapted for the context of the pandemic, had no discernible effect on students' academic progress. This report provides updated insight into the SUCCESS program after one year of participation for the first three evaluation student cohorts, covering fall 2020 through summer 2022. The main implementation finding from that time period is that the program implementation varied by college and term, and did not fully align with the SUCCESS model, largely due to the adaptations implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, students who were offered SUCCESS had a different college experience from students in the control group--they were more likely to be told about the importance of full-time enrollment and, on average, they had substantially more contact with their advisors or coaches. [The following organizations supported the SUCCESS demonstration: the Minnesota State System Office and the Ohio Department of Jobs and Family Services.]

Guided pathways is arguably the most widespread whole-college community college reform movement in decades. In this report, the authors present findings from a study on the scale of adoption of guided pathways practices across community and technical colleges in three states--Ohio, Tennessee, and Washington--where there are state-level efforts to support adoption among colleges system-wide. These findings are based on an institutional survey developed and administered to these colleges in 2022 to more precisely measure the scale at which they have adopted guided pathways model practices. By May 2022, only a minority of colleges in each of the states had adopted at least one practice at scale from each of the four guided pathways practice areas. Most commonly, colleges adopted a few practices at scale across one or more practice areas, while other practices were still in the process of being scaled. Many colleges had put guided pathways reforms on hold because of the COVID pandemic. There is evidence, however, that most colleges in the three states are now continuing to scale guided pathways reforms. This report provides an interim look at a reform movement that will continue to play out in these and other states for several years to come.

Ohio's students deserve a world-class education, including safe and well-resourced schools that are staffed with teachers who are well trained and fairly paid. However, the combined effects of the COVID pandemic and Ohio's legacy of inadequate, inequitable funding have weakened the role school plays as a foundational public institution. Ohio ranks 21st in the nation for K-12 education, 46th for equitable distribution of funding, and 40th in starting teacher salaries. Ohio public schools educate 1.7 million students across racial, gender, socioeconomic and geographic lines -- and every one of them deserves better. The state of the schools is a direct result of policy choices made by legislators. This report, which focuses largely on public schools, describes how Ohio's schools are funded in the most recent budget, examines staffing issues, summarizes critical performance metrics and identifies new legislation that will impact education throughout the state. Policy recommendations are provided that will make Ohio's schools better places to learn, grow, teach and work.

In this paper, we focus on how Black students matter, from their perspective, in Ohio higher education. To better support Black students, policymakers, college leaders, and organizers must understand what is happening on the ground from students themselves. The words of the essayist and thinker, James Baldwin, are pertinent here: "Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing can be changed until it is faced." This Ohio Black Student Equity Report is our contribution to ensuring that Ohioans face the state of racial (in)equity in higher education as it relates to Black students. Over the past year, we have worked as a team of undergraduate student organizers, Ohio Student Association (OSA) staff and leadership, policy researchers, and education researchers to collect data and write a report that could provide a glimpse of Black college students' experiences throughout the state of Ohio. In what follows, we provide insight with the most comprehensive report to date about Black college students' experiences in higher education in Ohio. [This report was produced by the Ohio Student Association (OSA).]

The Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) helps people with low incomes avoid hunger and afford food. It stimulates the economy, improves individuals' success at school and work, and promotes better health. SNAP's Employment and Training (E&T) program is designed to assist participants in gaining skills, training, or work experience that helps them obtain regular employment. States operate these programs and have flexibility in the services they provide, who receives them, and the entities that deliver these services. However, SNAP E&T has onerous restrictions and entrenched biases that most hurt communities of color. Several policies are rooted in racism and classism. By perpetuating systems of oppression, SNAP E&T pushes critical nutrition aid out of reach. These obstacles keep the program from serving as a supportive pathway to opportunity. In this report, we analyze these challenges and offer recommendations to advance racial equity within SNAP E&T and make it function more effectively.