Skip to content

PARENT POWER!

  • National Overview
  • Select Your State
  • About The Index
Menu
  • National Overview
  • Select Your State
  • About The Index

PARENT POWER!

  • National Overview
  • Select Your State
  • About The Index
Menu
  • National Overview
  • Select Your State
  • About The Index

PARENT POWER!

  • National Overview
  • Select Your State
  • About The Index
Menu
  • National Overview
  • Select Your State
  • About The Index

California

U.S.
Rank

#37
Overall PPI Score:
62.1%
PPI Grade Key:
← Back to California state overview
A
B
C
D
F
  • Opportunity
  • Innovation
  • Policy Environment

Charter Schools

Score:

72%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#25

California’s charter law took a plunge this year because of the passage in September, 2019 of AB1505, which gives districts sole power to authorize and make arbitrary decisions about their existence and operations. It was the biggest roll back since the law was first enacted in 1992, a result of increased political power of opponents.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1992

Most recently amended: 2019

Number of charter schools: 1,336

Number of charter students: 652,933 students

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes, but in essence it is very high. 100 new schools per year are permitted and total current total cap is 2,250 statewide.

Virtual charters allowed? Yes, but a two-year moratorium on virtuals started in 2020

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Whereas, prior to 2019, authorizers included local districts and county boards as well as the state board of education, the board can no longer act as an authorizer and is only an appeals board if the charter being denied can prove the district violated the law.

The new 2019 law also set back California’s charter law by giving broad authority that gives school district authorizers arbitrary, subjective power to deny a charter school that “would substantially undermine” existing schools in a neighborhood, that they can use to deny charter schools.

GROWTH: A modest increase of 48 schools and approximately 24,000 more students since 2018, the state with the most charter schools and students in the U.S. over time has slowed, with restrictions and attacks by prominent school boards. The 2019 changes further deterred applicants, and larger districts like Los Angeles have banned expansions. The Los Angeles union contract requires the school board to delay any approvals until they “study” charter school impacts, a proxy for banning charter school growth.

OPERATIONS: Charter schools have a blanket waiver from most regulations under the law, but in practice, district authorizers had and now have increased power to impose additional constraints. New virtuals are not allowed.

EQUITY: Charter schools are funded using the same formula as traditional district schools for state and local funds. Instead of local tax dollars, though, they may request a transfer of funds from their local district. This leads to inequity, as local districts generally do not provide equitable local tax funding to charters. Also, the new 2019 law allows districts to block a charter if they claim that approving it would push the district’s budget projections into deficit. While California is supposed to provide charters access to public buildings, there are limited funds ($800 million) for charter school facilities development due to the size of the state and number of charter schools.

Learn More:

California Charter School Law

California Charter School Association

Choice Programs (Scholarships, Vouchers, Tax Credits, etc.)

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#43

There are no choice programs in this state.

Fast Facts:
Choice Laws & Analysis:
Learn More:

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Teacher Quality

Score:

66%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#42

While the state does well in rewarding teachers for teaching high needs areas or subjects and gives districts latitude to tie pay to performance in various ways, it fails to meet teacher prep requirements and content knowledge goals.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 60%
General Teacher Preparation 58%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 62%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 60%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 65%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 58%
Hiring 60%
Retaining Effective Teachers 55%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 59%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 88%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Charter Schools

Score:

72%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#25

California’s charter law took a plunge this year because of the passage in September, 2019 of AB1505, which gives districts sole power to authorize and make arbitrary decisions about their existence and operations. It was the biggest roll back since the law was first enacted in 1992, a result of increased political power of opponents.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1992

Most recently amended: 2019

Number of charter schools: 1,336

Number of charter students: 652,933 students

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes, but in essence it is very high. 100 new schools per year are permitted and total current total cap is 2,250 statewide.

Virtual charters allowed? Yes, but a two-year moratorium on virtuals started in 2020

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Whereas, prior to 2019, authorizers included local districts and county boards as well as the state board of education, the board can no longer act as an authorizer and is only an appeals board if the charter being denied can prove the district violated the law.

The new 2019 law also set back California’s charter law by giving broad authority that gives school district authorizers arbitrary, subjective power to deny a charter school that “would substantially undermine” existing schools in a neighborhood, that they can use to deny charter schools.

GROWTH: A modest increase of 48 schools and approximately 24,000 more students since 2018, the state with the most charter schools and students in the U.S. over time has slowed, with restrictions and attacks by prominent school boards. The 2019 changes further deterred applicants, and larger districts like Los Angeles have banned expansions. The Los Angeles union contract requires the school board to delay any approvals until they “study” charter school impacts, a proxy for banning charter school growth.

OPERATIONS: Charter schools have a blanket waiver from most regulations under the law, but in practice, district authorizers had and now have increased power to impose additional constraints. New virtuals are not allowed.

EQUITY: Charter schools are funded using the same formula as traditional district schools for state and local funds. Instead of local tax dollars, though, they may request a transfer of funds from their local district. This leads to inequity, as local districts generally do not provide equitable local tax funding to charters. Also, the new 2019 law allows districts to block a charter if they claim that approving it would push the district’s budget projections into deficit. While California is supposed to provide charters access to public buildings, there are limited funds ($800 million) for charter school facilities development due to the size of the state and number of charter schools.

Learn More:

California Charter School Law

California Charter School Association

Choice Programs (Scholarships, Vouchers, Tax Credits, etc.)

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#43

There are no choice programs in this state.

Fast Facts:
Choice Laws & Analysis:
Learn More:

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Teacher Quality

Score:

66%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#42

While the state does well in rewarding teachers for teaching high needs areas or subjects and gives districts latitude to tie pay to performance in various ways, it fails to meet teacher prep requirements and content knowledge goals.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 60%
General Teacher Preparation 58%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 62%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 60%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 65%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 58%
Hiring 60%
Retaining Effective Teachers 55%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 59%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 88%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Digital & Personalized Learning

Digital Learning:

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#38

In April 2020, the Superintendent announced the creation of the Closing the Digital Divide Task Force, which focuses on closing the digital gap for millions of students across the state of California. The program is especially focused on low-income and rural populations. 

The pandemic has revealed that California has an ongoing digital divide, especially in rural and low income communities—and the urgent need for devices is on a continuous rise. “California needs at least 708,400 laptops and 322,100 Wi-Fi hotspots to connect all students to the internet from home, a significant jump from previous estimates, according to data from the California Department of Education shared with EdSource on June 17.”

California has 18 school districts that are members of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, giving more than 850,000 students access to digital learning opportunities. The League of Innovative Schools is a network of school leaders in 114 districts in 34 states that aim to enhance and scale digital learning opportunities for students across the nation.  

Bandwidth: “99.1% of students in California can access the Internet at speeds of 100 kbps per student, and many students are connected at higher speeds. But there is still work to be done. 50,927 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.”

Personalized Learning:

There are no statewide commitments or requirements for personalized learning, though some districts and charters have made great strides in this area. Some innovative school districts and charters offer completely personalized instruction, such as Lindsay Unified, Summit Charter Schools and others.

Learn More:

Closing the Digital Divide Task Force

League of Innovative Schools

COVID-19 Response

California’s response to educating its students during the COVID-19 crisis has not always prioritized students’ needs. The communications and distance learning guidelines were released quickly — March 17, 2020 — and Gov. Newsom ordered each district to develop their own remote learning plan. But that resulted in the two massive districts of Los Angeles and San Francisco negotiating that teachers not be required to provide instruction for more than 4 hours per day, and to not have to deliver live instruction. San Francisco and other areas had similar agreements.

Across the state, thousands of students went weeks with no instruction at all while others received online learning from day one.

Governor Newsom never officially ordered schools to be closed.

California did provide information for how families could gain affordable internet access during the pandemic, but the state did not directly expand internet access for at need families. Learn more.

California requires all schools – public, private or charter – to return only with remote learning. However they also issued guidelines that small groups of students in need of in-person support could be organized with non-school oversight.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

30%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

23%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat'l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

31%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

30%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat'l average)

Graduation Rate:

85%

Average SAT Score:

1115/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.5/36

Public School Enrollment:

5,960,120

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

11%

Average Student Funding:

$14,031.00
Digital & Personalized Learning
Digital Learning:

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#38

In April 2020, the Superintendent announced the creation of the Closing the Digital Divide Task Force, which focuses on closing the digital gap for millions of students across the state of California. The program is especially focused on low-income and rural populations. 

The pandemic has revealed that California has an ongoing digital divide, especially in rural and low income communities—and the urgent need for devices is on a continuous rise. “California needs at least 708,400 laptops and 322,100 Wi-Fi hotspots to connect all students to the internet from home, a significant jump from previous estimates, according to data from the California Department of Education shared with EdSource on June 17.”

California has 18 school districts that are members of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, giving more than 850,000 students access to digital learning opportunities. The League of Innovative Schools is a network of school leaders in 114 districts in 34 states that aim to enhance and scale digital learning opportunities for students across the nation.  

Bandwidth: “99.1% of students in California can access the Internet at speeds of 100 kbps per student, and many students are connected at higher speeds. But there is still work to be done. 50,927 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.”

Personalized Learning:

There are no statewide commitments or requirements for personalized learning, though some districts and charters have made great strides in this area. Some innovative school districts and charters offer completely personalized instruction, such as Lindsay Unified, Summit Charter Schools and others.

Learn More:

Closing the Digital Divide Task Force

League of Innovative Schools

COVID-19 Response

California’s response to educating its students during the COVID-19 crisis has not always prioritized students’ needs. The communications and distance learning guidelines were released quickly — March 17, 2020 — and Gov. Newsom ordered each district to develop their own remote learning plan. But that resulted in the two massive districts of Los Angeles and San Francisco negotiating that teachers not be required to provide instruction for more than 4 hours per day, and to not have to deliver live instruction. San Francisco and other areas had similar agreements.

Across the state, thousands of students went weeks with no instruction at all while others received online learning from day one.

Governor Newsom never officially ordered schools to be closed.

California did provide information for how families could gain affordable internet access during the pandemic, but the state did not directly expand internet access for at need families. Learn more.

California requires all schools – public, private or charter – to return only with remote learning. However they also issued guidelines that small groups of students in need of in-person support could be organized with non-school oversight.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

30%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

23%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat’l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

31%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

30%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat’l average)

Graduation Rate:

85%

Average SAT Score:

1115/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.5/36

Public School Enrollment:

5,960,120

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

11%

Average Student Funding:

$14,031.00

Leadership

Your governor:

Gavin Newsom (D)

First term began in 2019 (two-term limit)

With the re-election of Governor Gavin Newsom we can expect more of the same attacks on charter schools that came in 2019 during his first term.  Newsom’s reference to “real choices” were to newly enacted programs that will expand options for parents in traditional public schools: transitional kindergarten for all 4-year-olds, before and after-school programs and summer school guaranteed for all low-income children, universal school breakfasts and lunches, child savings accounts for college seeded by a $500 contribution by the state, and free tuition to community college.  “That’s the California way,” he said.  Sounds like a broken record that parents are tired of listening to and have decided to move east for more opportunity.

State Legislature:

Like the Governor, both the House and Senate are highly responsive to unions and not in favor of increasing education opportunities for families in California. Passing education reform legislation is not only an uphill battle here, but staving off efforts to further limit choice also has to be a big focus.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction (an elected position) is Tony Thurmond.

The appointed chair of the state board is Linda Darling-Hammond. Neither are pro-reform.

 

Constitutional Issues

California has a very strict interpretation of its Blaine Amendments. “That interpretation prevents any public body from the state down to the local school board from allowing any public money from any source whatsoever to go to a religious or private school. California courts have explicitly rejected the distinction between aiding students versus aiding schools.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: California School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

California is transparent with their school and accountability data. School report cards are easily found on the California DOE website under the Testing and Accountability subheading, by clicking California School Dashboard. This takes you to the California School Dashboard site where you can view school and district reports. Report cards are extremely busy, making it hard to use and understand. Data is displayed in multiple speedometers that are color coded by student groups, and you must click to another page with more speedometers and lots of text.

Information about educational options are accessible in one click under Specialized Programs, where you can find information on charter schools and independence study.

California holds school board elections during the general election cycle, which gives parents more power in their decision making because of higher voter turnout.

Leadership
Your governor:

Gavin Newsom (D)

First term began in 2019 (two-term limit)

With the re-election of Governor Gavin Newsom we can expect more of the same attacks on charter schools that came in 2019 during his first term.  Newsom’s reference to “real choices” were to newly enacted programs that will expand options for parents in traditional public schools: transitional kindergarten for all 4-year-olds, before and after-school programs and summer school guaranteed for all low-income children, universal school breakfasts and lunches, child savings accounts for college seeded by a $500 contribution by the state, and free tuition to community college.  “That’s the California way,” he said.  Sounds like a broken record that parents are tired of listening to and have decided to move east for more opportunity.

State Legislature:

Like the Governor, both the House and Senate are highly responsive to unions and not in favor of increasing education opportunities for families in California. Passing education reform legislation is not only an uphill battle here, but staving off efforts to further limit choice also has to be a big focus.

The State Superintendent of Public Instruction (an elected position) is Tony Thurmond.

The appointed chair of the state board is Linda Darling-Hammond. Neither are pro-reform.

 

Constitutional Issues

California has a very strict interpretation of its Blaine Amendments. “That interpretation prevents any public body from the state down to the local school board from allowing any public money from any source whatsoever to go to a religious or private school. California courts have explicitly rejected the distinction between aiding students versus aiding schools.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: California School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

California is transparent with their school and accountability data. School report cards are easily found on the California DOE website under the Testing and Accountability subheading, by clicking California School Dashboard. This takes you to the California School Dashboard site where you can view school and district reports. Report cards are extremely busy, making it hard to use and understand. Data is displayed in multiple speedometers that are color coded by student groups, and you must click to another page with more speedometers and lots of text.

Information about educational options are accessible in one click under Specialized Programs, where you can find information on charter schools and independence study.

California holds school board elections during the general election cycle, which gives parents more power in their decision making because of higher voter turnout.

Download State Rankings

State Organizations

PPI Resources

Evaluate Your Schools

Stay Informed

Select Your State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Charter Schools

Charter schools are public schools, open by choice, free from most rules and regulations that hamper traditional public schools and held accountable for results.

Since 1991, when charter schools were first established in Minnesota, the principle has remained the same — increased operational autonomy in exchange for increased accountability for outcomes. This freedom to innovate allows academically excellent charter schools to flourish.

As of 2020, there were more than 7,300 charter schools across the country with more than 3.3 million students, with demand higher everywhere they are located. Forty-six states, including Washington, D.C. have charter school laws. West Virginia enacted the most recent law in 2019. All charter laws are not created equal, however, and in fact, many are so flawed that they allow for only minimal opportunity for parents. PPI draws from CER’s newest Charter School Law Rankings and Scorecard, produced in the summer of 2020. For the US as a whole, the glass is more empty than full when it comes to meaningful charter choices.

Since 1996, CER has researched, analyzed, and ranked charter school laws, taking the content of each law into consideration as well as how it impacts charter schools on the ground. This Parent Power Index looks at four main areas of each state’s law:

If it allows for multiple authorizers, and if applicants have the ability to appeal a denial; whether it allows for growth, particularly with no caps on number of schools or enrollment; if schools and teachers have freedom to innovate; and if there is equitable funding of schools, including for facilities and transportation.

Charter schools are the most analyzed public school reform in decades. Since 1996, CER has studied their impact, their environment, and their practice and made recommendations for how to improve each law. The Parent Power Index charter score is based on whether the law allows for freedom and flexibility that can ensure parents, teachers and the general public are able to build vibrant, successful charter schools without undue interference from flawed state regulators, with equitable funding and parents in the driver’s seat. More about how this works can be found in CER publications, most notably Charting a New Course and The Future of School.

In addition, past rankings document how states have grown or confined charter schools and what best practices should be followed. Finally CER has provided a model charter school law for policymakers that is the standard bearer for advocates who believe that parents, not systems, should drive education.

Choice Programs

Educational choice is best defined as the availability of a multitude of public programs that provide parents with the ability to include private and religious entities – schools, tutoring, and other organizations – in their choices. Those programs are enacted at the state level, allowing in a wide variety of ways that the funds allocated for education in a state either follow the student to the institution the parent chooses or, as in the case of tax credits, public funds are redistributed to support the choices parents make, rather than automatically going to government based school districts.

These options are often referred to as scholarship programs, vouchers, tax credits, education accounts and more.

The existence of a higher degree of educational choice in a community or state, particularly for lower income students, has been found to be a significant factor in improving education and ensuring all students have access to the best school that meets their individual needs. Where once private options were only available to the more advantaged, most choice programs today ensure that those without resources have the power to shape their student’s education and invest in their future.

PPI 2020 assesses the extent to which every state gives families better and more abundant educational options through various mechanisms. Choice programs are analyzed and evaluated on their potential to reach all children across a state and for the degree to which they can actually support the full choice of parents, as opposed to only providing a modest amount of financial support. Programs where a significant population of parents can obtain scholarships or vouchers to send their children to the school of their choice score higher than those that have limitations based on geography, income, and student eligibility constraints.

To determine scores, PPI relies on well-established organizations which study, advance and support such programs. The scores were developed with this lens, and on information and ratings from EdChoice’s School Choice in America Dashboard, American Legislative Exchange Council’s Report Card on American Education: 23rd Edition, and American Federation for Children’s School Choice Interactive Map.

Teacher Quality

Teacher Quality is an equally important facet of ensuring greater educational opportunity. There is a direct correlation between quality teachers and student achievement, and teachers have the power to foster highly effective learning environments and leave a lasting impact on the future of their students. State teacher policies are critical in ensuring that students have the opportunity to receive the best education possible. Without schools full of well-prepared teachers who are held accountable either directly to the parent or to taxpayers for student achievement, opportunity can be meaningless. Most states vary widely in the criteria used to train, hire, retain, evaluate, reward and advance teachers, and local rules also influence that criteria greatly, as do teachers unions. PPI looked again to the expert analysis of the National Council of Teacher Quality, and from several aspects of their work PPI extrapolated final teacher quality scores. (NCTQ does not grade each state.)

Relying solely on the rich data collected from the National Council on Teacher Quality, states are measured by across a wide range of policy categories: Training and Recruitment, Staffing and Support, Evaluation, and Compensation. The score is by no means comprehensive about teacher quality across every community and state, but it is based on the extent to which states rigorously expect, manage and measure different aspects of teacher training, hiring, evaluation and compensation. States score higher when they have strong, data-driven, performance-based accountability systems that ensure teachers are rewarded, retained, and advanced based on their effectiveness. Likewise, states that establish rigorous teacher preparation programs and offer alternative licensing programs earn higher scores.

For more information about the Teacher Quality landscape, please see the National Council on Teacher Quality’s detailed analysis in their State Teacher Policy Database.

Innovation

States are measured on their increasing commitment to and practice of innovative approaches to education that include digital learning models and pathways, full or in part, encouraging personalized learning through focus on competency and mastery – even on a pilot level – or by allowing flexibility in schools and school districts that want to do it. Personalized learning models value mastery of material over traditional subject matter time tests, and competency over end of course grades. While these practices are best decided locally, closest to the student, states can motivate, incentivize, fund, discourage or encourage.

To determine scores, the PPI drew heavily from ExcelinEd’s 2019 State Progress Toward Next Generation Learning, Aurora Institute’s 2020 Future-Focused State Policy Actions to Transform K-12 Education, and KnowledgeWorks’ 2019 State Policy Framework for Personalized Learning.

COVID-19 Response

When COVID-19 reached our shores in early 2020, states were forced to close their schools for in-person instruction. Whether and how to continue teaching and set expectations for continued learning outside of the classroom was a big debate. Many states and schools quickly pivoted to delivering education remotely, either through technology enabled tools or with low-tech paper packets and phone calls, or a combination of both. The response from schools and school districts varied widely, with some being willing to adapt and some actually discouraging both teaching and learning. CER tracked those responses (and continues to do so, given the fluidity of the situation). States that were encouraging, set expectations, and demanded that schools figure out whatever they could to keep moving students forward, tended to have more schools and districts that responded well and worked to deliver education regardless of challenges. Many states that had digital or virtual learning programs in place were able to make a more seamless shift. Innovative leaders at local and state levels rose to the occasion. But many states and localities dragged their feet and, in some cases, outright discouraged schooling to keep going, including forbidding teachers in some areas to be required to do any face to face teaching via technology.

States were evaluated based on reviewing their official notices and declarations, and by reviewing a broad array of surveys and data many groups have been maintaining. This score also factors in states’ prior commitments to expanding broadband and internet access and how they worked to provide devices to keep students learning and engaged.

What was, and is, a challenging and unprecedented time for schools, teachers, and parents was also an opportunity to look at states’ and schools’ abilities to adapt, be flexible, and innovate.

For more on Education Innovation, check out the CER ACTION Series:

  • Virtual Events & Videos
  • Key Data
  • Resources
  • Publications

Leadership

Improving education opportunity and innovation requires leaders who boldly and courageously push forward to create or expand successful programs that allow a wide variety of educational choice and individualized programs to thrive. Governors and state legislators are the most important entities in each state to pave the way, or deter, expanded parent power. Some leaders pay lip service to issues, while others wake up with a fire in their belly to ensure that they are doing what they can every day to push through conventional wisdom and demand 21st century schooling opportunities for all students.

Whether or not your governor is the bold, fire-in-the-belly kind, or a passive applauder of others’ efforts, is evaluated to help you push or prod or applaud. PPI looks at their positions AND actions on charter schools, choice programs, innovation, and commitment to increasing educational opportunities for all students at every level and summarizes it for you here. You have the power to elect leaders who prioritize parents and students!

Constitutional Issues

The ability for states to enact educational change can be significantly limited depending on certain provisions in state constitutions.

The most common clause that limits educational opportunity in most states are “Blaine Amendments” – named after 19th century Congressman James Blaine nearly 150 years ago. Historically, these provisions in 37 state constitutions were either interpreted to restrict educational choice programs that include private schools or have been a deterrent for many programs being considered, let alone enacted.

This issue received a great deal of press leading up to and following the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 30, 2020 decision in the case of Espinoza vs Montana Department of Revenue, a case that dealt with Montana’s Blaine Amendment. That landmark decision found that the U.S. Constitution “forbids states from excluding religious schools as options for families participating in educational choice programs, including through Blaine Amendments.”

As a result, most states have a new path to enact programs that provide options for families, including religious schools. Their individual versions of Blaine Amendments can either be nullified with attorney generals’ opinions, with legislation or with both. Additional restrictions on expanded opportunity are often dedicated by what is called a Compelled Support Clause where dated constitutional language restricts public funding to government entities.

We look at each state’s particular constitutional issues, utilizing a number of sources, CER attorney analysis and the Institute for Justice’s research as our guide. Additional information about Espinoza and Blaine Amendments can be found here.

In addition, if states have other constitutional barriers to more opportunity, they are evaluated in this area.

Transparency

Transparency is a key element of providing great opportunities for students. Every parent needs and deserves full transparency of school-level data to allow them to make informed decisions and drive changes in how their students are educated. School report cards empower parents in their decision making by giving them access to meaningful and quality education data about a particular school or district. Report cards often provide information on student performance, student growth, attendance, graduation rates, demographics, teacher quality, school environment, assessments, and more. States that have greater transparency and accountability provide the public with data that is current, readily available, and easy to understand.

States are measured based on the transparency and accessibility of data for the average person looking to learn about their child’s school. States have more gas in the tank when school report cards are easily accessible from their state DOE homepage; report cards are comprehensive, user-friendly, and easy to understand; and information about educational options are readily available. Additionally, states score higher when they hold School Board Elections during the General Election cycle, as opposed to off-times of the year when turnout is low, because this tends to afford parents more power in their decision-making.