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

Michigan

U.S.
Rank

#23
Overall PPI Score:
69.9%
PPI Grade Key:
← Back to Michigan state overview
A
B
C
D
F
  • Opportunity
  • Innovation
  • Policy Environment

Charter Schools

Score:

88%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#4

A pioneer in authorizing with strong university participation, Michigan’s charters are serving diverse populations and bringing families needed choices, but they get heat for the multiple approaches and providers they deploy and are regularly attacked by the unions and many in the media despite their success.  

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1993

Most recently amended: 2018

Number of charter schools: 377

Number of charter students: 144,258

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? No

Virtual charters allowed? Yes

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Variety of authorizers, including local school boards, intermediate school boards, community colleges, and state public universities which authorize the majority of charter schools here. Active university authorizers in Michigan are Bay Mills Community College, Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, Ferris State University, Grand Valley State University, Lake Superior State University, Northern Michigan University, Oakland University, and Saginaw Valley State University. Together they authorize 224 schools. All authorized charters are subject to review by the state board of education for compliance with the law.

GROWTH: The number of charter schools increased from 300 to 377 between 2018 and 2020 but enrollment went down, though, from 146,000 to 144,000. The law allows a virtual/cyber school to serve up to 2,500 students in its first year of operation, not more than 5,000 students in its second year of operation, and not more than 10,000 students in its third and subsequent years of operation. The law provides that the total statewide enrollment in virtual schools may not exceed 2% of the state’s public school student population.

OPERATIONS: Schools must request a waiver from specific regulations as opposed to a blanket waiver. Most requests are granted, however. Authorizers are free from the laws and regulations of the state education department also.

EQUITY: Charters receive the same allowance per pupil as traditional public schools, but no per-pupil or local facilities funding. Per statute, charter schools receive a “foundation allowance” from the state and generally have equal access to categorical funding. These provisions should result in 100% of state and school district operations funding following each student. In reality, the amount of foundation allowance is dependent on the district in which the charter school is located, as Michigan law provides that charter schools must receive the same foundation as the district in which they are located or a state maximum foundation allowance, whichever is less. This approach results in the majority of charters receiving a smaller foundation allowance from the state than the local district in which they are located. Michigan law requires intermediate school districts to share regional enhancement property tax dollars with charter schools on an equitable basis.

Michigan law does not provide transportation funding to either school districts or charter schools.

Learn More:

Michigan Charter School Law

Michigan Charter School Association

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

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#39

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:

#21

Generally lacking in teacher preparation rigor, including subject-matter knowledge requirements. Collects student growth data to measure effectiveness of teacher prep programs.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT:                 72%
General Teacher Preparation 78%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 60%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 78%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 88%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 79%
Hiring 75%
Retaining Effective Teachers 83%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 81%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Charter Schools

Score:

88%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#4

A pioneer in authorizing with strong university participation, Michigan’s charters are serving diverse populations and bringing families needed choices, but they get heat for the multiple approaches and providers they deploy and are regularly attacked by the unions and many in the media despite their success.  

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1993

Most recently amended: 2018

Number of charter schools: 377

Number of charter students: 144,258

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? No

Virtual charters allowed? Yes

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Variety of authorizers, including local school boards, intermediate school boards, community colleges, and state public universities which authorize the majority of charter schools here. Active university authorizers in Michigan are Bay Mills Community College, Central Michigan University, Eastern Michigan University, Ferris State University, Grand Valley State University, Lake Superior State University, Northern Michigan University, Oakland University, and Saginaw Valley State University. Together they authorize 224 schools. All authorized charters are subject to review by the state board of education for compliance with the law.

GROWTH: The number of charter schools increased from 300 to 377 between 2018 and 2020 but enrollment went down, though, from 146,000 to 144,000. The law allows a virtual/cyber school to serve up to 2,500 students in its first year of operation, not more than 5,000 students in its second year of operation, and not more than 10,000 students in its third and subsequent years of operation. The law provides that the total statewide enrollment in virtual schools may not exceed 2% of the state’s public school student population.

OPERATIONS: Schools must request a waiver from specific regulations as opposed to a blanket waiver. Most requests are granted, however. Authorizers are free from the laws and regulations of the state education department also.

EQUITY: Charters receive the same allowance per pupil as traditional public schools, but no per-pupil or local facilities funding. Per statute, charter schools receive a “foundation allowance” from the state and generally have equal access to categorical funding. These provisions should result in 100% of state and school district operations funding following each student. In reality, the amount of foundation allowance is dependent on the district in which the charter school is located, as Michigan law provides that charter schools must receive the same foundation as the district in which they are located or a state maximum foundation allowance, whichever is less. This approach results in the majority of charters receiving a smaller foundation allowance from the state than the local district in which they are located. Michigan law requires intermediate school districts to share regional enhancement property tax dollars with charter schools on an equitable basis.

Michigan law does not provide transportation funding to either school districts or charter schools.

Learn More:

Michigan Charter School Law

Michigan Charter School Association

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

Score:

50%

Grade:

F

Rank:

#39

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:

#21

Generally lacking in teacher preparation rigor, including subject-matter knowledge requirements. Collects student growth data to measure effectiveness of teacher prep programs.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT:                 72%
General Teacher Preparation 78%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 60%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 78%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 55%
Alternate Routes 88%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 79%
Hiring 75%
Retaining Effective Teachers 83%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 81%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Digital & Personalized Learning

Digital Learning:

Score:

75%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#23

The Michigan Department of Education has a few statewide initiatives to support the transformation to digital learning. These include educational technology grants, the Michigan Integrated Technology Competencies for Students (MITECS), MI Roadmap, MI Future Ready Schools, and #GoOpenMichigan to promote the collaboration between schools across the state to share and access open education resources (OER). 

The Michigan State Education Network was established with the goal  to “connect 100% of Michigan’s ISDs, LEAs, and PSAs with the networking capacity needed to ensure that teachers and students never see bandwidth as a barrier to achieving their goals in the classroom.”

Michigan Virtual is a statewide virtual school that opened in 2001, and serves middle and high school students. Michigan Virtual does not award students with credits or diplomas, but grants certificates that are accepted in school districts.The school offers over 200 online high school courses, and 40 middle school courses, including world languages, forensic science, and leadership development.16,919 students were enrolled in the 2018-19 school year.

Michigan’s Utica Community Schools are a part of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, giving over 28,000 students digital learning opportunities. The League of Innovative Schools is a network of school leaders in 114 districts in 34 states that aim to enhance and scale digital learning opportunities for students across the nation. 

Bandwidth: 95.2% of students in Michigan 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. 62,021 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.

Personalized Learning:

Grants to promote personalized learning are helping districts evolve and empowering parents. In 2017, Michigan launched the Competency-Based Education Grant Pilot so districts can explore ways to promote competency-based learning and help build career and college readiness in high school students. 

Additionally, one of the goals in Michigan’s statewide Top10In10Years Framework is to “develop and implement a collaborative, integrated, and transparent P-20 personalized learning system for each student in districts and schools.”

Learn More:

Michigan State Education Network

Michigan Virtual

League of Innovative Schools

Competency-Based Education Grant Pilot

Top10In10Years

COVID-19 Response

Gov. Whitmer announced on March 12th that schools would close for four weeks. This closure was extended on April 2nd for the remainder of the school year. Guidelines were issued on March 18th.

State officials took steps to ensure students were continuing to learn and have access to devices and the internet. They also offered professional development for teachers, gave guidance on learning plans, including ESL and special needs, and provided resources on a new website.

As part of their COVID resource page, a Family Engagement toolkit was provided to help distance learning. Michigan lacked a statewide plan to expand device/internet access.

The reopening plan for the 2020-21 school year was developed by a working group that started meeting in early May. The guidelines are published here.

Amidst union protests, Gov. Whitmer permitted schools to reopen for the fall; and some districts opted into online learning for the beginning of the fall term.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

32%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

26%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat'l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

28%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

28%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat'l average)

Graduation Rate:

81%

Average SAT Score:

1000/1600

Average ACT Score:

24.6/36

Public School Enrollment:

1,440,090

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

10.1%

Average Student Funding:

$13,072.00
Digital & Personalized Learning
Digital Learning:

Score:

75%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#23

The Michigan Department of Education has a few statewide initiatives to support the transformation to digital learning. These include educational technology grants, the Michigan Integrated Technology Competencies for Students (MITECS), MI Roadmap, MI Future Ready Schools, and #GoOpenMichigan to promote the collaboration between schools across the state to share and access open education resources (OER). 

The Michigan State Education Network was established with the goal  to “connect 100% of Michigan’s ISDs, LEAs, and PSAs with the networking capacity needed to ensure that teachers and students never see bandwidth as a barrier to achieving their goals in the classroom.”

Michigan Virtual is a statewide virtual school that opened in 2001, and serves middle and high school students. Michigan Virtual does not award students with credits or diplomas, but grants certificates that are accepted in school districts.The school offers over 200 online high school courses, and 40 middle school courses, including world languages, forensic science, and leadership development.16,919 students were enrolled in the 2018-19 school year.

Michigan’s Utica Community Schools are a part of the Digital Promise League of Innovative Schools, giving over 28,000 students digital learning opportunities. The League of Innovative Schools is a network of school leaders in 114 districts in 34 states that aim to enhance and scale digital learning opportunities for students across the nation. 

Bandwidth: 95.2% of students in Michigan 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. 62,021 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.

Personalized Learning:

Grants to promote personalized learning are helping districts evolve and empowering parents. In 2017, Michigan launched the Competency-Based Education Grant Pilot so districts can explore ways to promote competency-based learning and help build career and college readiness in high school students. 

Additionally, one of the goals in Michigan’s statewide Top10In10Years Framework is to “develop and implement a collaborative, integrated, and transparent P-20 personalized learning system for each student in districts and schools.”

Learn More:

Michigan State Education Network

Michigan Virtual

League of Innovative Schools

Competency-Based Education Grant Pilot

Top10In10Years

COVID-19 Response

Gov. Whitmer announced on March 12th that schools would close for four weeks. This closure was extended on April 2nd for the remainder of the school year. Guidelines were issued on March 18th.

State officials took steps to ensure students were continuing to learn and have access to devices and the internet. They also offered professional development for teachers, gave guidance on learning plans, including ESL and special needs, and provided resources on a new website.

As part of their COVID resource page, a Family Engagement toolkit was provided to help distance learning. Michigan lacked a statewide plan to expand device/internet access.

The reopening plan for the 2020-21 school year was developed by a working group that started meeting in early May. The guidelines are published here.

Amidst union protests, Gov. Whitmer permitted schools to reopen for the fall; and some districts opted into online learning for the beginning of the fall term.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

32%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

26%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat’l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

28%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

28%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat’l average)

Graduation Rate:

81%

Average SAT Score:

1000/1600

Average ACT Score:

24.6/36

Public School Enrollment:

1,440,090

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

10.1%

Average Student Funding:

$13,072.00

Leadership

Your governor:

Gretchen Whitmer (D)

First term began in 2019 (two-term limit)

Governor Gretchen Whitmer is solidly pro education establishment and anti-parent power though her actions post Covid-19 were promising. But when Republicans in the Legislature attempted to pass a voucher plan Whitmer vetoed the bills, arguing the plan violates the Michigan Constitution and the 1970 Blaine Amendment, which prohibits public money from going to private schools.  Clearly, the Governor is not up on her Supreme Court decisions regarding education and religious freedom.

State Legislature:

Michigan’s legislature is supportive of education opportunity. Both houses have had to combat the Governor’s attempts to defund charter schools, for example. The state’s constitution has been interpreted to prohibit parental choice among private schools so the legislature should refocus itself on more Innovative approaches to teaching and learning across the state.

Constitutional Issues

Michigan has two Blaine Amendments, including one of the strictest in the country that has historically been interpreted to foreclose the enactment of educational choice programs.  

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Michigan School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

School report cards are easily accessible from the Michigan DOE homepage under School Performance and Supports. The Parent Dashboard for School Transparency provides important data on student performance, student progress, graduation, college & career readiness, and more. Data is formatted in clear, colorful charts and easy to understand. Charts also include data from previous school years, a great feature for measuring annual school progress. Additionally, educational options are directly on the DOE homepage under Flexible Learning Options which is a plus for transparency.  

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

Leadership
Your governor:

Gretchen Whitmer (D)

First term began in 2019 (two-term limit)

Governor Gretchen Whitmer is solidly pro education establishment and anti-parent power though her actions post Covid-19 were promising. But when Republicans in the Legislature attempted to pass a voucher plan Whitmer vetoed the bills, arguing the plan violates the Michigan Constitution and the 1970 Blaine Amendment, which prohibits public money from going to private schools.  Clearly, the Governor is not up on her Supreme Court decisions regarding education and religious freedom.

State Legislature:

Michigan’s legislature is supportive of education opportunity. Both houses have had to combat the Governor’s attempts to defund charter schools, for example. The state’s constitution has been interpreted to prohibit parental choice among private schools so the legislature should refocus itself on more Innovative approaches to teaching and learning across the state.

Constitutional Issues

Michigan has two Blaine Amendments, including one of the strictest in the country that has historically been interpreted to foreclose the enactment of educational choice programs.  

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Michigan School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

School report cards are easily accessible from the Michigan DOE homepage under School Performance and Supports. The Parent Dashboard for School Transparency provides important data on student performance, student progress, graduation, college & career readiness, and more. Data is formatted in clear, colorful charts and easy to understand. Charts also include data from previous school years, a great feature for measuring annual school progress. Additionally, educational options are directly on the DOE homepage under Flexible Learning Options which is a plus for transparency.  

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

Download State Rankings

State Organizations

PPI Resources

Evaluate Your Schools

Stay Informed

Select Your State

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

California

Colorado

Connecticut

Delaware

District of Columbia

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

Texas

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

Washington

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

Charter Schools

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Choice Programs

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

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

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

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

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

Teacher Quality

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

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

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

Innovation

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

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

COVID-19 Response

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

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

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

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

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

Leadership

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

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

Constitutional Issues

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

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

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

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

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

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

Transparency

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

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