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

Connecticut

U.S.
Rank

#44
Overall PPI Score:
60.1%
PPI Grade Key:
← Back to Connecticut state overview
A
B
C
D
F
  • Opportunity
  • Innovation
  • Policy Environment

Charter Schools

Score:

65%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#35

A weak law, the Yankee State limits charter school funding and creates a difficult regulatory environment for charters which also have only one route for approval. Their existence depends on who is in office and how much appetite there is to clash with the education establishment.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1996

Most recently amended: 2012

Number of charter schools: 25

Number of charter students: 10,807

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes

Virtual charters allowed? No

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: The state board and local districts can both authorize, but schools authorized by local districts must be approved by both the local district and the state board. The state board ultimately authorizes all charter in the state and there is no other entity for approval or appeals.

GROWTH: Growth in the state has decreased. It is inhibited by the cap on the number of schools allowed, funding and the lack of a blanket waiver. The cap is the lesser of 250 students or 25% of district enrollment for district authorized schools; the lesser of 300 students or 25% of district enrollment for state board authorized schools.In 2019-2020, the number of schools decreased by 2 but there was a slight enrollment increase among existing schools of 398 students.

OPERATIONS: Schools can apply to the state for waivers from regulations, but are not automatically exempt from any rules and regulations.

EQUITY: Charters have no access to the local tax base. State charter schools are funded by an annual state per pupil appropriation that modestly increases year after year, but is not equitable compared to traditional public schools, which got $20,635 in 2018 compared to $11,000 for charter schools.

Learn More:

Connecticut Charter School Law

Connecticut Charter Schools Association

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

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#47

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:

75%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#15

Working towards making connections between teacher prep programs and student outcomes, the state does score well on ensuring teachers have requisite content knowledge.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 75%
General Teacher Preparation 68%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 90%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 88%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 68%
Alternate Routes 60%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 77%
Hiring 80%
Retaining Effective Teachers 73%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 84%
Teacher and Principal Evaluation

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Charter Schools

Score:

65%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#35

A weak law, the Yankee State limits charter school funding and creates a difficult regulatory environment for charters which also have only one route for approval. Their existence depends on who is in office and how much appetite there is to clash with the education establishment.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1996

Most recently amended: 2012

Number of charter schools: 25

Number of charter students: 10,807

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes

Virtual charters allowed? No

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: The state board and local districts can both authorize, but schools authorized by local districts must be approved by both the local district and the state board. The state board ultimately authorizes all charter in the state and there is no other entity for approval or appeals.

GROWTH: Growth in the state has decreased. It is inhibited by the cap on the number of schools allowed, funding and the lack of a blanket waiver. The cap is the lesser of 250 students or 25% of district enrollment for district authorized schools; the lesser of 300 students or 25% of district enrollment for state board authorized schools.In 2019-2020, the number of schools decreased by 2 but there was a slight enrollment increase among existing schools of 398 students.

OPERATIONS: Schools can apply to the state for waivers from regulations, but are not automatically exempt from any rules and regulations.

EQUITY: Charters have no access to the local tax base. State charter schools are funded by an annual state per pupil appropriation that modestly increases year after year, but is not equitable compared to traditional public schools, which got $20,635 in 2018 compared to $11,000 for charter schools.

Learn More:

Connecticut Charter School Law

Connecticut Charter Schools Association

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

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#47

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:

75%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#15

Working towards making connections between teacher prep programs and student outcomes, the state does score well on ensuring teachers have requisite content knowledge.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 75%
General Teacher Preparation 68%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 90%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 88%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 68%
Alternate Routes 60%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 77%
Hiring 80%
Retaining Effective Teachers 73%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 84%
Teacher and Principal Evaluation

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Digital & Personalized Learning

Digital Learning:

Score:

75%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#27

The School Technology Report-Spring 2020 demonstrates the remote learning landscape across districts in Connecticut prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The report reflects statewide responses from 105 districts from every socioeconomic status, serving approx. 355,782 students. The report showed that before the pandemic, only approximately 4-35 percent of district students had broadband internet access at home, exposing digital gaps for students especially in low income populations. Additionally, one-third of districts did not have a 1:1 student to device-ratio: “while approximately a third of responding districts indicated that they do not have a 1:1 computer program, during school closures starting in March, many have sent home computers normally stored in carts.” 

Connecticut has Digital Learning Standards for Student, Educator, and Educator Leaders. This shows their commitment not only in ensuring that students are prepared for college and career in the 21st century, but also that teachers and administrators are prepared to effectively teach using technology in the classroom.  However the extent to which schools actually practice digital learning is still relatively small.

Connecticut’s Meriden Public School District is a member of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, giving digital learning opportunities to approximately 8,000 students across the state. 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: “100% of students in Connecticut can access the Internet at speeds of 100 kbps per student, and many students are connected at higher speeds.”

Personalized Learning:

Connecticut has a few policies that expand personalized learning for students. Legislation created the Innovation School Program, giving school districts flexibility in policies, budget, calendar schedule, and curriculum to allow for personalized learning.

In addition, the state has a policy in place that allows school districts to award high school graduation credit  “through a demonstration of mastery based on competency and performance standards, in accordance with guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education.” The Connecticut DOE provides numerous resources for school districts to execute mastery based learning in their schools.

Connecticut’s Meriden School District is a great example of personalized learning happening on a district level. Meriden has implemented learner profiles, where students develop profiles based on their interests, and participate in projects that reflect their profiles and prepare them for their future.

Learn More:

School Technology Report-Spring 2020

Digital Learning Standards

League of Innovative Schools

Innovation School Program

Meriden School District

COVID-19 Response

On March 12th, there was a statewide school superintendent call with Miguel Cardona, Connecticut’s Commissioner of Education, which allowed for districts to help shape the state’s response to COVID with regard to education. On March 16, Gov. Lamont first ordered all schools to close, which led to a transition from “supplemental learning” to “distance learning,” which is more long-term.. The state worked to ensure all students had internet access to be able to learn remotely. The guidance for remote learning, however, did not provide adequate encouragement or direction to continue educating all students. Several guidance documents were issued at regular intervals, with resources for teachers and parents for all grade levels, but few high expectations were set for district leaders.

Connecticut provided four different volumes of resources for remote learning, providing new materials as the pandemic evolved and new challenges arose in the spring. Additionally, Connecticut sponsored a Professional Support Series for teachers and families in order to help provide guidance to allow for successful remote learning. Learn more.

The state required districts to submit three reopening plans for review: One hybrid, one virtual, and one completely in person. Most districts began reopening on time with a hybrid model in place.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

37%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

30%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat'l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

35%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

35%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat'l average)

Graduation Rate:

89%

Average SAT Score:

1025/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.3/36

Public School Enrollment:

508,686

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

2%

Average Student Funding:

$21,346.00
Digital & Personalized Learning
Digital Learning:

Score:

75%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#27

The School Technology Report-Spring 2020 demonstrates the remote learning landscape across districts in Connecticut prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. The report reflects statewide responses from 105 districts from every socioeconomic status, serving approx. 355,782 students. The report showed that before the pandemic, only approximately 4-35 percent of district students had broadband internet access at home, exposing digital gaps for students especially in low income populations. Additionally, one-third of districts did not have a 1:1 student to device-ratio: “while approximately a third of responding districts indicated that they do not have a 1:1 computer program, during school closures starting in March, many have sent home computers normally stored in carts.” 

Connecticut has Digital Learning Standards for Student, Educator, and Educator Leaders. This shows their commitment not only in ensuring that students are prepared for college and career in the 21st century, but also that teachers and administrators are prepared to effectively teach using technology in the classroom.  However the extent to which schools actually practice digital learning is still relatively small.

Connecticut’s Meriden Public School District is a member of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, giving digital learning opportunities to approximately 8,000 students across the state. 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: “100% of students in Connecticut can access the Internet at speeds of 100 kbps per student, and many students are connected at higher speeds.”

Personalized Learning:

Connecticut has a few policies that expand personalized learning for students. Legislation created the Innovation School Program, giving school districts flexibility in policies, budget, calendar schedule, and curriculum to allow for personalized learning.

In addition, the state has a policy in place that allows school districts to award high school graduation credit  “through a demonstration of mastery based on competency and performance standards, in accordance with guidelines adopted by the State Board of Education.” The Connecticut DOE provides numerous resources for school districts to execute mastery based learning in their schools.

Connecticut’s Meriden School District is a great example of personalized learning happening on a district level. Meriden has implemented learner profiles, where students develop profiles based on their interests, and participate in projects that reflect their profiles and prepare them for their future.

Learn More:

School Technology Report-Spring 2020

Digital Learning Standards

League of Innovative Schools

Innovation School Program

Meriden School District

COVID-19 Response

On March 12th, there was a statewide school superintendent call with Miguel Cardona, Connecticut’s Commissioner of Education, which allowed for districts to help shape the state’s response to COVID with regard to education. On March 16, Gov. Lamont first ordered all schools to close, which led to a transition from “supplemental learning” to “distance learning,” which is more long-term.. The state worked to ensure all students had internet access to be able to learn remotely. The guidance for remote learning, however, did not provide adequate encouragement or direction to continue educating all students. Several guidance documents were issued at regular intervals, with resources for teachers and parents for all grade levels, but few high expectations were set for district leaders.

Connecticut provided four different volumes of resources for remote learning, providing new materials as the pandemic evolved and new challenges arose in the spring. Additionally, Connecticut sponsored a Professional Support Series for teachers and families in order to help provide guidance to allow for successful remote learning. Learn more.

The state required districts to submit three reopening plans for review: One hybrid, one virtual, and one completely in person. Most districts began reopening on time with a hybrid model in place.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

37%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

30%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat’l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

35%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

35%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat’l average)

Graduation Rate:

89%

Average SAT Score:

1025/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.3/36

Public School Enrollment:

508,686

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

2%

Average Student Funding:

$21,346.00

Leadership

Your governor:

Ned Lamont (D)

First term began in 2019 (no term limit)

Governor Ned Lamont, Democrat, is not a friend to education reform. Once upon a time he tied his experience in the private sector to common sense policies like linking teacher evaluations to test scores or abolishing life long tenure contracts, but he catered to Big Union interests to get elected. His 2020 budget proposal cuts $4.6 million from charter schools. Charter schools that serve minority and low-income students are especially penalized because funding prioritizes their district school counterparts.

State Legislature:

Both the House and Senate are Democrat controlled. Education Savings Account  bills have been introduced the past couple of years, but stalled in committee. Leadership roles in the legislature are held by anti-reform lawmakers due in part to the teachers union’s influence in state politics. In a state with no meaningful choices and many districts whose students really need them, advocates should demand more from elected officials here.

Constitutional Issues

The Connecticut Constitution contains no Blaine Amendment. Both tax credit and voucher programs are school choice options for Connecticut. They are consistent with the Connecticut Constitution and relevant Connecticut state court decisions. However there is an article that expressly prohibits “school funds” from being expended for non-public uses.

 

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Connecticut School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

Connecticut report cards are easily accessible on Connecticut’s DOE website by clicking the EdSight tab. School report cards are in a PDF format, making it easy for parents to print. Reports include student enrollment, disciplinary data, school schedule, performance and accountability data. It also includes data on educators by race, but not educator credentials or teacher quality. Educational options are accessible with school choice highlighted directly on the main page.

Connecticut does not hold school board elections during the general election cycle, which usually means lower voter turnout.

Leadership
Your governor:

Ned Lamont (D)

First term began in 2019 (no term limit)

Governor Ned Lamont, Democrat, is not a friend to education reform. Once upon a time he tied his experience in the private sector to common sense policies like linking teacher evaluations to test scores or abolishing life long tenure contracts, but he catered to Big Union interests to get elected. His 2020 budget proposal cuts $4.6 million from charter schools. Charter schools that serve minority and low-income students are especially penalized because funding prioritizes their district school counterparts.

State Legislature:

Both the House and Senate are Democrat controlled. Education Savings Account  bills have been introduced the past couple of years, but stalled in committee. Leadership roles in the legislature are held by anti-reform lawmakers due in part to the teachers union’s influence in state politics. In a state with no meaningful choices and many districts whose students really need them, advocates should demand more from elected officials here.

Constitutional Issues

The Connecticut Constitution contains no Blaine Amendment. Both tax credit and voucher programs are school choice options for Connecticut. They are consistent with the Connecticut Constitution and relevant Connecticut state court decisions. However there is an article that expressly prohibits “school funds” from being expended for non-public uses.

 

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Connecticut School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

Connecticut report cards are easily accessible on Connecticut’s DOE website by clicking the EdSight tab. School report cards are in a PDF format, making it easy for parents to print. Reports include student enrollment, disciplinary data, school schedule, performance and accountability data. It also includes data on educators by race, but not educator credentials or teacher quality. Educational options are accessible with school choice highlighted directly on the main page.

Connecticut does not hold school board elections during the general election cycle, which usually means lower 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.