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

Massachusetts

U.S.
Rank

#28
Overall PPI Score:
65.2%
PPI Grade Key:
← Back to Massachusetts state overview
A
B
C
D
F
  • Opportunity
  • Innovation
  • Policy Environment

Charter Schools

Score:

78%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#14

Some of the best charter schools in the country are in Boston, serving large numbers of disadvantaged and minority students and boosting test scores, college graduation rates and more.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1993

Most recently amended: 2015

Number of charter schools: 78

Number of charter students: 47,978

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes. Maximum of 120 total schools, with 72 of those for commonwealth charter schools, and 48 reserved for Horace Mann charter schools.

Virtual charters allowed? No*

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Only allows one authorizer – Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for the main type of charter schools in Massachusetts, Commonwealth charter schools and Horace Mann charter schools, which are traditional public schools or programs which operate under a charter approved by the district board of education and the local collective bargaining unit in the district in which the school is located. They also must have secondary approval from the State Board.

GROWTH: The cap of 72 Commonwealth charter schools has been reached, and both legislative efforts and a 2018 ballot initiative to lift the cap were unsuccessful. 48 charters are reserved for Horace Mann charter schools.  However, a funding cap also limits growth – districts may send no more than 9% of per-pupil funding to charter schools. 

OPERATIONS: Charter schools operate free from most regulations that apply to traditional public schools, one of the main reasons for the success of charter schools in the Commonwealth. *Regarding virtual charter schools, while they are not permitted by law, groups of 2 or more school committees or boards of trustees of charter schools are allowed to submit proposals to establish a virtual school.

EQUITY: Charter schools are supposed to have equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding, including for pre-K. School districts are eligible to receive full or partial reimbursement of charter school expenses from state appropriations. In 2019, charter received an increase of facilities funding from $893 per student to $938 in 2019, and a law passed to make it the state’s goal to fully fund charter school tuition reimbursement by 2023. 

Commonwealth charter schools receive a tuition amount which is the sum of the per-pupil amount from each district sending students to the charter school. Tuition amounts for each sending district must be adjusted to reflect the actual per-pupil spending amount that would be expended in the district if the students attended the district schools. 

Horace Mann charter schools receive a tuition amount that is determined annually as part of their local school committee budget process. Funding levels deemed inequitable can be appealed to the commissioner.

Additionally, Massachusetts law requires school districts to provide transportation to charter school students on the same basis as it is provided to regular public school students in the district.

Learn More:

Massachusetts Charter School Law

Massachusetts Charter Public School Association

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

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#40

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:

74%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#20

“Vaguely ties performance to pay…” but requires teachers to pass subject matter tests.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 84%
General Teacher Preparation 92%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 83%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 85%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 88%
Alternate Routes 70%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 67%
Hiring 65%
Retaining Effective Teachers 69%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 79%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 62%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Charter Schools

Score:

78%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#14

Some of the best charter schools in the country are in Boston, serving large numbers of disadvantaged and minority students and boosting test scores, college graduation rates and more.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1993

Most recently amended: 2015

Number of charter schools: 78

Number of charter students: 47,978

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? Yes. Maximum of 120 total schools, with 72 of those for commonwealth charter schools, and 48 reserved for Horace Mann charter schools.

Virtual charters allowed? No*

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Only allows one authorizer – Massachusetts Board of Elementary and Secondary Education for the main type of charter schools in Massachusetts, Commonwealth charter schools and Horace Mann charter schools, which are traditional public schools or programs which operate under a charter approved by the district board of education and the local collective bargaining unit in the district in which the school is located. They also must have secondary approval from the State Board.

GROWTH: The cap of 72 Commonwealth charter schools has been reached, and both legislative efforts and a 2018 ballot initiative to lift the cap were unsuccessful. 48 charters are reserved for Horace Mann charter schools.  However, a funding cap also limits growth – districts may send no more than 9% of per-pupil funding to charter schools. 

OPERATIONS: Charter schools operate free from most regulations that apply to traditional public schools, one of the main reasons for the success of charter schools in the Commonwealth. *Regarding virtual charter schools, while they are not permitted by law, groups of 2 or more school committees or boards of trustees of charter schools are allowed to submit proposals to establish a virtual school.

EQUITY: Charter schools are supposed to have equal access to all applicable categorical federal and state funding, including for pre-K. School districts are eligible to receive full or partial reimbursement of charter school expenses from state appropriations. In 2019, charter received an increase of facilities funding from $893 per student to $938 in 2019, and a law passed to make it the state’s goal to fully fund charter school tuition reimbursement by 2023. 

Commonwealth charter schools receive a tuition amount which is the sum of the per-pupil amount from each district sending students to the charter school. Tuition amounts for each sending district must be adjusted to reflect the actual per-pupil spending amount that would be expended in the district if the students attended the district schools. 

Horace Mann charter schools receive a tuition amount that is determined annually as part of their local school committee budget process. Funding levels deemed inequitable can be appealed to the commissioner.

Additionally, Massachusetts law requires school districts to provide transportation to charter school students on the same basis as it is provided to regular public school students in the district.

Learn More:

Massachusetts Charter School Law

Massachusetts Charter Public School Association

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

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#40

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:

74%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#20

“Vaguely ties performance to pay…” but requires teachers to pass subject matter tests.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 84%
General Teacher Preparation 92%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 83%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 85%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 88%
Alternate Routes 70%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 67%
Hiring 65%
Retaining Effective Teachers 69%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 79%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 62%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Digital & Personalized Learning

Digital Learning:

Score:

72%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#31

Massachusetts does not require individual technology plans, but expects schools to incorporate educational technology into their existing school improvement & funding plans. Massachusetts adopted Digital Literacy and Computer Science Standards to prepare students for critical workforce needs.

Massachusetts DOE provides free digital learning resources for both teachers and students; students have access to resources such as the 3D printing program SketchUp. Teachers have the opportunity to take professional development courses with the eLearning system. 

The state currently has two K-12 virtual schools that are open to public school students. Massachusetts lawmakers established the Digital Learning Advisory Council to assist the DOE board of directors and commissioner to advise how the state implements digital education and create policies for virtual schools.  

Bandwidth: “97.2% of students in Massachusetts 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. 24,684 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.”

Personalized Learning:

Massachusetts’ Innovation School Initiative allows districts to create autonomous schools that have flexibility and freedom for increased creativity in areas such as curriculum, budget, school calendar, and staffing policies. 

The state also has the Massachusetts Personalized Learning Edtech Consortium (MAPLE) which is a part of the New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC) to further expand personalized learning opportunities for students. 

In 2016, The Center for Collaborative Education created the Massachusetts Personalized Learning Network, which partners with district leaders, principals, and educators across the state to design personalized learning programs in their schools.

Learn More:

Digital Learning Advisory Council

Innovation School Initiative

Massachusetts Personalized Learning Edtech Consortium (MAPLE)

Massachusetts Personalized Learning Network

COVID-19 Response

On Wednesday, March 25, Governor Baker announced that schools would remain closed until at least Monday, May 4, and the following day, DESE released remote learning recommendations.  Districts were encouraged to develop remote learning plans with guidance on how to make them the most useful for their students and while many districts followed these guidelines and ensured continued instruction for all students, not all did. In Boston, the teachers’ union negotiated a four day work week, and teachers were not allowed to be required to do anything on video.

Education Commissioner Jeff Riley wrote on March 26th: “We must all pull together to help students continue their learning over this extended period.” Commissioner Riley continued to make weekly updates that were easily accessible on the DoE website and stayed involved in monitoring decisions.

While planning for reopening for the 2020-21 school year, the state education department has communicated weekly with school leaders from all public and private schools and convened a working group to develop a plan. They released an initial guidance on returning to school in late June, and required all districts to develop three plans: in-person with new safety measure, a hybrid of in-person and virtual, and a virtual-only model.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

43%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

35%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat'l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

43%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

39%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat'l average)

Graduation Rate:

88%

Average SAT Score:

1129/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.5/36

Public School Enrollment:

921,180

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

5.1%

Average Student Funding:

$18,733.00
Digital & Personalized Learning
Digital Learning:

Score:

72%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#31

Massachusetts does not require individual technology plans, but expects schools to incorporate educational technology into their existing school improvement & funding plans. Massachusetts adopted Digital Literacy and Computer Science Standards to prepare students for critical workforce needs.

Massachusetts DOE provides free digital learning resources for both teachers and students; students have access to resources such as the 3D printing program SketchUp. Teachers have the opportunity to take professional development courses with the eLearning system. 

The state currently has two K-12 virtual schools that are open to public school students. Massachusetts lawmakers established the Digital Learning Advisory Council to assist the DOE board of directors and commissioner to advise how the state implements digital education and create policies for virtual schools.  

Bandwidth: “97.2% of students in Massachusetts 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. 24,684 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.”

Personalized Learning:

Massachusetts’ Innovation School Initiative allows districts to create autonomous schools that have flexibility and freedom for increased creativity in areas such as curriculum, budget, school calendar, and staffing policies. 

The state also has the Massachusetts Personalized Learning Edtech Consortium (MAPLE) which is a part of the New England Secondary Schools Consortium (NESSC) to further expand personalized learning opportunities for students. 

In 2016, The Center for Collaborative Education created the Massachusetts Personalized Learning Network, which partners with district leaders, principals, and educators across the state to design personalized learning programs in their schools.

Learn More:

Digital Learning Advisory Council

Innovation School Initiative

Massachusetts Personalized Learning Edtech Consortium (MAPLE)

Massachusetts Personalized Learning Network

COVID-19 Response

On Wednesday, March 25, Governor Baker announced that schools would remain closed until at least Monday, May 4, and the following day, DESE released remote learning recommendations.  Districts were encouraged to develop remote learning plans with guidance on how to make them the most useful for their students and while many districts followed these guidelines and ensured continued instruction for all students, not all did. In Boston, the teachers’ union negotiated a four day work week, and teachers were not allowed to be required to do anything on video.

Education Commissioner Jeff Riley wrote on March 26th: “We must all pull together to help students continue their learning over this extended period.” Commissioner Riley continued to make weekly updates that were easily accessible on the DoE website and stayed involved in monitoring decisions.

While planning for reopening for the 2020-21 school year, the state education department has communicated weekly with school leaders from all public and private schools and convened a working group to develop a plan. They released an initial guidance on returning to school in late June, and required all districts to develop three plans: in-person with new safety measure, a hybrid of in-person and virtual, and a virtual-only model.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

43%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

35%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat’l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

43%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

39%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat’l average)

Graduation Rate:

88%

Average SAT Score:

1129/1600

Average ACT Score:

26.5/36

Public School Enrollment:

921,180

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

5.1%

Average Student Funding:

$18,733.00

Leadership

Your governor:

Maura Healey (D)

First term begins in 2023 (no term limit)

Your Governor: Governor-elect Maura Healey is a believer that money for public schools is the key to improving them.  The two-term attorney general turned Governor opposed a 2016 ballot measure that would have shifted millions of dollars from public schools, by expanding the number of charter schools in the state. The MTA, which is the state’s largest educators union with roughly 117,000 members, endorsed Healey in the governor’s race during the campaign. With public school enrollment dropping by 14% in Massachusetts over the past five years, leadership must take a look at how to better serve parents, opting for an alternative. 

State Legislature:

Despite having some of the best charter schools in the country  and many highly selective schools of choice that pick and choose their kids, the  Commonwealth’s legislature  has dug in its heels against opening up more options. The state’s constitution has strict language that has been  interpreted as being prohibitive of private school choice options.

Constitutional Issues

“The Massachusetts Constitution contains an extremely restrictive Blaine Amendment. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has interpreted that Blaine Amendment broadly and allowed public funds to flow to private school students only under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for transportation.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Massachusetts School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

Massachusetts provides crisp and transparent school data. School and district report cards are easily accessible from Massachusetts DOE homepage under the Data and Accountability subheading. Report cards are filled with important data for parents, and are easy to navigate and understand. Additionally, educational options are easy to find from the DOE homepage which further increases transparency in the state.

School board elections are not held during the general election cycle, which usually means lower voter turnout.

Leadership
Your governor:

Maura Healey (D)

First term begins in 2023 (no term limit)

Your Governor: Governor-elect Maura Healey is a believer that money for public schools is the key to improving them.  The two-term attorney general turned Governor opposed a 2016 ballot measure that would have shifted millions of dollars from public schools, by expanding the number of charter schools in the state. The MTA, which is the state’s largest educators union with roughly 117,000 members, endorsed Healey in the governor’s race during the campaign. With public school enrollment dropping by 14% in Massachusetts over the past five years, leadership must take a look at how to better serve parents, opting for an alternative. 

State Legislature:

Despite having some of the best charter schools in the country  and many highly selective schools of choice that pick and choose their kids, the  Commonwealth’s legislature  has dug in its heels against opening up more options. The state’s constitution has strict language that has been  interpreted as being prohibitive of private school choice options.

Constitutional Issues

“The Massachusetts Constitution contains an extremely restrictive Blaine Amendment. The Massachusetts Supreme Court has interpreted that Blaine Amendment broadly and allowed public funds to flow to private school students only under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and for transportation.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Massachusetts School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

Massachusetts provides crisp and transparent school data. School and district report cards are easily accessible from Massachusetts DOE homepage under the Data and Accountability subheading. Report cards are filled with important data for parents, and are easy to navigate and understand. Additionally, educational options are easy to find from the DOE homepage which further increases transparency in the state.

School board elections are not held 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.