Fordham fellow sparks debate over Columbus Promise solutions 

Vladimir Kogan, an Ohio State University professor and Fordham Institute senior fellow, has offered a set of recommendations to make the Columbus Promise deliver for students, sparking sharp criticism and highlighting key positions in the education debate.

My latest: "For many participants, the Columbus Promise has meant enrollment in courses they ultimately ended up failing and likely delayed their entry into the labor force. Others were diverted from better-resourced, higher-quality four-year programs."https://t.co/G26C4ZrG39

— Vladimir Kogan (@vkoganpolisci) June 9, 2026

In his June 9 article for the Fordham Institute, “The false Columbus promise,” Kogan highlights the program’s unfavorable outcomes, citing evidence from the Upjohn Institute for Employment Research.

“The Columbus State class of 2026 included just 57 Columbus Promise participants,” Kogan notes. “This brought the total number of students who completed the program over the first four years to only about 430. Over the same period, Columbus City Schools—the only school district whose students are eligible to participate—awarded approximately 10,000 high school diplomas.”

Emphasizing the roughly 4-5% return on taxpayer investment, Kogan highlights that roughly 90% of participants never earn a credential through this program, and suggests solutions to make the program work.

In his critique, Kogan outlines three concrete reforms to better serve Columbus students, such as broadening choice and expanding the program beyond Columbus State.

“One simple change is to expand the program to cover tuition at any Ohio public college or university, rather than just Columbus State,” Kogan offers. Adding that models, like Say Yes Cleveland, show stronger graduation rates when students can attend four-year institutions.

“This was precisely the design of the original, well-studied college ‘promise’ program in Kalamazoo and explains why it produced much larger effects on both college enrollment and completion.”

Currently open to all CCS graduates, Kogan advocates for academic guardrails, such as adding a combination of GPA and test score requirements.

“Narrowing eligibility would have three benefits. First, it would help target Columbus Promise toward students who are likely to complete higher education and avoid pulling those who have almost no prospect of doing so out of the labor force. Second, academic requirements would also increase incentives for students to perform better while in high school,” Kogan writes. “Finally, reducing the number of participants would free up money that could be used to increase the $500 per semester stipend.”

Kogan’s third recommendation should come as no surprise to those familiar with the poor performance standards of Columbus schools. Citing the Upjohn data, Kogan suggests tackling the root cause, a lack of proper preparation, which attributes to D+ grade averages and high drop-out rates among Promise students.

“The last necessary change—improving the quality of Columbus students’ K-12 education—is the most difficult task. But it is also the most necessary. The main barrier to higher education for Columbus students is not cost,” Kogan argues. “But rather inadequate academic preparation during their public school years.”

However, Kogan’s recommendations quickly received a sharp rebuke.

Opinion: Think tank's attack on Columbus Promise flawed beyond belief | Letter https://t.co/YB6yuCYtxR

— Columbus Dispatch (@DispatchAlerts) June 13, 2026

In a June 13 opinion letter, published by The Columbus Dispatch, Managing Partner, Christie Angel a Recruiter for BroadView Talent Partners defended “some college” for building soft skills and portrayed Kogan’s critique as an “ideological” attack.

“As an executive search professional, I spend my days helping organizations identify talent,” Angel wrote. “Attending college — even without earning a diploma — provides meaningful benefits.”

Calling out the Fordham Institute’s “attack on Columbus Promise” as flawed, Angel argued: “We should be celebrating and supporting innovations like Columbus Promise — not undermining them in service to an ideological agenda.”

Yet, rather than engaging Kogan’s data on attrition, diversion from four-year schools, $100,000-per-credential costs, or his forward-looking fixes, Angel argued that college helps students to develop critical thinking skills, among others.

“Many balance work, family responsibilities, and academics, demonstrating resilience, adaptability and determination, all qualities employers consistently say they seek,” Angel wrote.

Absolutely brutal review by @vkoganpolisci of the Columbus Promise program developed by @MayorGinther and @SG_Hardin

Will either politician take these concerns to heart to redesign the program, or will they just keep shoveling money at it regardless of the evidence? https://t.co/M6S6x2ks8w

— cbustruth (@cbustruth) June 9, 2026

Concerns with Columbus Promise, which has become a central theme as the 2027 mayoral race heats up, appear indicative of the broader school choice debate now dominating Ohio elections and headlines.

As Ohio voters weigh the promises of education dollars, a larger debate over pedagogy has emerged in recent years — both of which are ideological.

Only a billionaire elitist like @VivekGRamaswamy would brush off the gross underfunding of our public schools as a “silly accounting dispute.”

Tell that to Ohioans watching their property taxes soar to fill the gap left by handing out tax breaks to the wealthy.

Tell that to… https://t.co/5DbW1Vp7gd

— Dr. Amy Acton (@amyactonoh) August 22, 2025

Critics of the status quo, such as Kogan, argue that students deserve a better functioning system that prioritizes student outcomes through data-driven solutions. These critiques often frame taxpayer dollars as an investment, currently producing low returns while serving the interests of institutions over students.

Defenders, however, often frame policy discussions in highly emotional terms, emphasizing the perceived benefits of increased funding as critical pedagogy, diversity, and a more inclusive environment, arguments that largely ignore the data in favor of utopian idealism.

Ultimately, the choice between increased funding versus measurable academic successes and returns on taxpayer investments through workforce placements will be decided by the voters.