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

District of Columbia

U.S.
Rank

#8
Overall PPI Score:
76.5%
PPI Grade Key:
← Back to District of Columbia state overview
A
B
C
D
F
  • Opportunity
  • Innovation
  • Policy Environment

Charter Schools

Score:

88%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#3

While the Nation’s Capital has enjoyed enormous success with charter schools, which nearly 50% of students attend, efforts to undermine their autonomy and success have been fast and furious in recent years, compromising their ability to focus on their natural constituency – students. Despite the continued opposition, the charter sector in DC remains robust.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1996

Most recently amended: N/A

Number of charter schools: 128

Number of charter students: 43,556

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes.

Virtual charters allowed? No

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Currently the only authorizer is the DC Public Charter School Board (DCPCSB) though the original law allowed for the school board and entities such as museums and universities to be selected by the City Council.

GROWTH: Although there is a cap of 10, they carry over from one year to the next, so this is not necessarily limiting. The political struggles between the DCPCSB and the city council are a much bigger threat to growth.

OPERATIONS: The congressional act establishing charter schools in the District granted the DCPCSB authority to authorize as well as independence from all city and “state” activities. Charters here operate free from typical rules and regulations, although that has been threatened by city council members and others in recent years. But in 2019 were numerous attempts by union opponents and others to micromanage and interfere with charter autonomy. Additionally, several regulations have been proposed in the last couple of years to increase oversight by local entities not involved in chartering.

EQUITY: DC charters have more equitable funding than most states and also have the most robust per-pupil funding program in the country. The law stipulates that charter school students be funded the same as traditional district students under the uniform per-pupil funding formula, but this provision applies only to operating funding from the District’s general fund. However, the school district receives significant additional operating funds through other city and federal agencies that charter schools cannot access.

Learn More:

District of Columbia Charter School Law

DC Charter School Alliance

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

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#15

The District of Columbia’s choice program, funded by the federal SOAR Act, offers a limited number of students, approximately 2,000, to attend the private school of choice.

Fast Facts:

Law enacted: 2004

Number of programs: 1

Statewide Participation: 1,732

Types of programs: Voucher

Choice Laws & Analysis:

Voucher
Opportunity Scholarship Program
The Opportunity Scholarship Program is a federally-funded voucher program that began in 2004, and serves students from low-income households. Eligibility guidelines state that students must be current DC residents, and receive SNAP benefits or have a household income that is at or below the 185% federal poverty level.

Learn More:

EdChoice Analysis on District of Columbia 

Federation for Children Choice Program Information

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Teacher Quality

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#36

The District’s teacher comp program which factors in student performance & evaluation for bonuses is widely recognized. Content knowledge also factors strongly in teacher prep programs.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 72%
General Teacher Preparation 62%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 78%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 80%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 85%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 78%
Hiring 93%
Retaining Effective Teachers 63%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 61%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 62%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Charter Schools

Score:

88%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#3

While the Nation’s Capital has enjoyed enormous success with charter schools, which nearly 50% of students attend, efforts to undermine their autonomy and success have been fast and furious in recent years, compromising their ability to focus on their natural constituency – students. Despite the continued opposition, the charter sector in DC remains robust.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1996

Most recently amended: N/A

Number of charter schools: 128

Number of charter students: 43,556

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes.

Virtual charters allowed? No

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Currently the only authorizer is the DC Public Charter School Board (DCPCSB) though the original law allowed for the school board and entities such as museums and universities to be selected by the City Council.

GROWTH: Although there is a cap of 10, they carry over from one year to the next, so this is not necessarily limiting. The political struggles between the DCPCSB and the city council are a much bigger threat to growth.

OPERATIONS: The congressional act establishing charter schools in the District granted the DCPCSB authority to authorize as well as independence from all city and “state” activities. Charters here operate free from typical rules and regulations, although that has been threatened by city council members and others in recent years. But in 2019 were numerous attempts by union opponents and others to micromanage and interfere with charter autonomy. Additionally, several regulations have been proposed in the last couple of years to increase oversight by local entities not involved in chartering.

EQUITY: DC charters have more equitable funding than most states and also have the most robust per-pupil funding program in the country. The law stipulates that charter school students be funded the same as traditional district students under the uniform per-pupil funding formula, but this provision applies only to operating funding from the District’s general fund. However, the school district receives significant additional operating funds through other city and federal agencies that charter schools cannot access.

Learn More:

District of Columbia Charter School Law

DC Charter School Alliance

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

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#15

The District of Columbia’s choice program, funded by the federal SOAR Act, offers a limited number of students, approximately 2,000, to attend the private school of choice.

Fast Facts:

Law enacted: 2004

Number of programs: 1

Statewide Participation: 1,732

Types of programs: Voucher

Choice Laws & Analysis:

Voucher
Opportunity Scholarship Program
The Opportunity Scholarship Program is a federally-funded voucher program that began in 2004, and serves students from low-income households. Eligibility guidelines state that students must be current DC residents, and receive SNAP benefits or have a household income that is at or below the 185% federal poverty level.

Learn More:

EdChoice Analysis on District of Columbia 

Federation for Children Choice Program Information

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Teacher Quality

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#36

The District’s teacher comp program which factors in student performance & evaluation for bonuses is widely recognized. Content knowledge also factors strongly in teacher prep programs.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 72%
General Teacher Preparation 62%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 78%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 80%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 85%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 78%
Hiring 93%
Retaining Effective Teachers 63%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 61%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 62%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Digital & Personalized Learning

Digital Learning:

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#39

In efforts to promote digital learning, DCPS has a Digital Learning and Innovation Team to plan and scale the District’s efforts to improve the quality of its schools. DCPS encourages blended learning models and offers schools access to education technology platforms like Canvas, Clever, ISTE, and Office 365. DCPS has Digital Learning Standards for students and educators. 

The District of Columbia is making an effort to close the digital divide by investing in technology.

As part of the FY 2020 budget, Mayor Bowser implemented the Empowered Learners Initiative (ELi), a three- year plan designed to give equitable access to innovation. Under ELI’s three year technology integration roadmap, every student in grades 3-12 will have access to technology through a 1:1 student-to-device ratio. More than 16,400 devices will be given to students in the first year. Teachers will also receive comprehensive professional development to enhance their digital literacy and help them effectively integrate technology into their daily instructional practices.  However, many families in the District struggle with lack of access to high speed internet and devices.

Bandwidth: “The traditional D.C. public school system estimates that about 30 percent of its 52,000 students lack Internet access or computers at home. For some schools, that percentage is far higher.”

Personalized Learning:

The KIPP DC network has a Personalized Learning Pilot Project cohort. In 2019, KIPP teachers spent months piloting a personalized learning software solution and tracking its effectiveness with their students. Participants worked with KIPP DC’s personalized learning and data teams to assess the impact of software on student engagement and academic growth. Pilots were as wide ranging as providing on grade level listening and speaking texts to English language learners to software that created a digital art portfolio for students to grow during their time in school.

Learn More:

Digital Learning and Innovation Team

Empowered Learners Initiative (ELi)

Personalized Learning Pilot Project

COVID-19 Response

The response to the COVID-19 crisis in Washington, DC has been somewhat effective. The District government respected public charter schools’ freedom and allowed them to decide their own courses of action. DCPS and public charter schools closed. In a March 12th newsletter, D.C.’s state superintendent provided resources for school leaders to begin using for a potential transition to remote learning. They were encouraged to continue instruction for all students:  “Continuous education takes place when both instruction and learning occur seamlessly across different learning environments, including in-person and remote settings. It requires the development of a coherent and thoughtful plan to ensure that students experience the equivalent levels of rigor and quality, whether engaged in full-time distance learning, full-time in-person learning, or in a hybrid or blended approach, alternating between remote and in-person environments. Continuous education also includes periods of emergency when distance learning may be required for all students.”

Early in the crisis the city promised that “all high school students without access to a device at home will now receive one,” and later included K-8 students in their device distribution plan. Public charter schools handled their own equipment distribution and school reopening plans.

DC’s traditional public schools started the year fully remote.

When Mayor Bowser announced DCPS school closures in March, she moved up spring break so that students would not lose days of school while teachers made the transition to distance learning.  When announcing schools would stay closed the remainder of the school year on Apr. 17th, the Mayor noted that D.C. schools had had no contact with some students/families since the district shifted to distance learning, showing the limits of D.C.’s delivery of education in the spring.  There were also stumbles with regard to a solid reopening plan being developed in a timely manner.

D.C. public charter schools were permitted to continue to set their own course with regard to reopening, with the vast majority choosing virtual education and a handful opting for a hybrid approach. D.C. traditional public schools decided to remain fully remote until Nov. 6 but stumbled early in ensuring that all families had consistent WIFI access, hampering District children and their ability to continue learning.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

24%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

17%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat'l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

26%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

23%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat'l average)

Graduation Rate:

69%

Average SAT Score:

985/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.9/36

Public School Enrollment:

88,908

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

43.3%

Average Student Funding:

$22,856.00
Digital & Personalized Learning
Digital Learning:

Score:

68%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#39

In efforts to promote digital learning, DCPS has a Digital Learning and Innovation Team to plan and scale the District’s efforts to improve the quality of its schools. DCPS encourages blended learning models and offers schools access to education technology platforms like Canvas, Clever, ISTE, and Office 365. DCPS has Digital Learning Standards for students and educators. 

The District of Columbia is making an effort to close the digital divide by investing in technology.

As part of the FY 2020 budget, Mayor Bowser implemented the Empowered Learners Initiative (ELi), a three- year plan designed to give equitable access to innovation. Under ELI’s three year technology integration roadmap, every student in grades 3-12 will have access to technology through a 1:1 student-to-device ratio. More than 16,400 devices will be given to students in the first year. Teachers will also receive comprehensive professional development to enhance their digital literacy and help them effectively integrate technology into their daily instructional practices.  However, many families in the District struggle with lack of access to high speed internet and devices.

Bandwidth: “The traditional D.C. public school system estimates that about 30 percent of its 52,000 students lack Internet access or computers at home. For some schools, that percentage is far higher.”

Personalized Learning:

The KIPP DC network has a Personalized Learning Pilot Project cohort. In 2019, KIPP teachers spent months piloting a personalized learning software solution and tracking its effectiveness with their students. Participants worked with KIPP DC’s personalized learning and data teams to assess the impact of software on student engagement and academic growth. Pilots were as wide ranging as providing on grade level listening and speaking texts to English language learners to software that created a digital art portfolio for students to grow during their time in school.

Learn More:

Digital Learning and Innovation Team

Empowered Learners Initiative (ELi)

Personalized Learning Pilot Project

COVID-19 Response

The response to the COVID-19 crisis in Washington, DC has been somewhat effective. The District government respected public charter schools’ freedom and allowed them to decide their own courses of action. DCPS and public charter schools closed. In a March 12th newsletter, D.C.’s state superintendent provided resources for school leaders to begin using for a potential transition to remote learning. They were encouraged to continue instruction for all students:  “Continuous education takes place when both instruction and learning occur seamlessly across different learning environments, including in-person and remote settings. It requires the development of a coherent and thoughtful plan to ensure that students experience the equivalent levels of rigor and quality, whether engaged in full-time distance learning, full-time in-person learning, or in a hybrid or blended approach, alternating between remote and in-person environments. Continuous education also includes periods of emergency when distance learning may be required for all students.”

Early in the crisis the city promised that “all high school students without access to a device at home will now receive one,” and later included K-8 students in their device distribution plan. Public charter schools handled their own equipment distribution and school reopening plans.

DC’s traditional public schools started the year fully remote.

When Mayor Bowser announced DCPS school closures in March, she moved up spring break so that students would not lose days of school while teachers made the transition to distance learning.  When announcing schools would stay closed the remainder of the school year on Apr. 17th, the Mayor noted that D.C. schools had had no contact with some students/families since the district shifted to distance learning, showing the limits of D.C.’s delivery of education in the spring.  There were also stumbles with regard to a solid reopening plan being developed in a timely manner.

D.C. public charter schools were permitted to continue to set their own course with regard to reopening, with the vast majority choosing virtual education and a handful opting for a hybrid approach. D.C. traditional public schools decided to remain fully remote until Nov. 6 but stumbled early in ensuring that all families had consistent WIFI access, hampering District children and their ability to continue learning.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

24%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

17%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat’l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

26%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

23%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat’l average)

Graduation Rate:

69%

Average SAT Score:

985/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.9/36

Public School Enrollment:

88,908

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

43.3%

Average Student Funding:

$22,856.00

Leadership

Your governor:

Muriel Bowser (D)

Second Term (Mayor)

Mayor Muriel Bowser is neutral on charter schools but supportive of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, the District’s federally created scholarship program.  She has publicly supported efforts to reauthorize the program first as a member of the City Council and now as Mayor.  The City Council continues to pass legislation that increases regulations on charter schools and the Deputy Mayor denies them access to facilities.

State Legislature:

Constitutional Issues

As the District of Columbia is not a state, the issue of a Blaine Amendment is not applicable.

Learn More:

Transparency

The District of Columbia has two sets of report cards that are issued for parents to review school performance. The Office of the State Superintendent of Schools has the DC STAR Report Card System which gives a report on all traditional and public charter schools. For public charter schools the DC Public Charter School Board has the Performance Management Framework (PMF). 

Both of these report platforms give parents a solid amount of information.  The charter school profiles provided by the DC Charter School Board provide more context on their reports, and have data on student achievement, student progress, school environment, student makeup, and funding provided in large graphics making it easier to read.

Leadership
Your governor:

Muriel Bowser (D)

Second Term (Mayor)

Mayor Muriel Bowser is neutral on charter schools but supportive of the Opportunity Scholarship Program, the District’s federally created scholarship program.  She has publicly supported efforts to reauthorize the program first as a member of the City Council and now as Mayor.  The City Council continues to pass legislation that increases regulations on charter schools and the Deputy Mayor denies them access to facilities.

State Legislature:
Constitutional Issues

As the District of Columbia is not a state, the issue of a Blaine Amendment is not applicable.

Learn More:
Transparency

The District of Columbia has two sets of report cards that are issued for parents to review school performance. The Office of the State Superintendent of Schools has the DC STAR Report Card System which gives a report on all traditional and public charter schools. For public charter schools the DC Public Charter School Board has the Performance Management Framework (PMF). 

Both of these report platforms give parents a solid amount of information.  The charter school profiles provided by the DC Charter School Board provide more context on their reports, and have data on student achievement, student progress, school environment, student makeup, and funding provided in large graphics making it easier to read.

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.