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

Minnesota

U.S.
Rank

#7
Overall PPI Score:
77%
PPI Grade Key:
← Back to Minnesota state overview
A
B
C
D
F
  • Opportunity
  • Innovation
  • Policy Environment

Charter Schools

Score:

88%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#5

Even the nation’s first charter school law which pioneered the dual concept of choice and diversity in public education is under assault by special interests, limiting much needed and wanted expansion.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1991

Most recently amended: 2019

Number of charter schools: 180

Number of charter students: 65,987

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? No

Virtual charters allowed? Yes

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Local and intermediate school boards, educational district cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, public universities, and private colleges can all authorize charter schools, though they must be approved by the state education commissioner. Active university authorizers are St. Catherine University, Bethel University, and University of St. Thomas. Together they authorize 17 schools. 

GROWTH: With an increase of nearly 10,000 students since 2018, growth is steady but mainly comes from school expansions not a plethora of new schools.

OPERATIONS: Charter schools are exempt from most regulations that traditional public schools have, but the state has instituted many additional requirements by way of regulation.

EQUITY: Minnesota charter schools are funded inequitably, receiving approximately 30% less in total revenue than district schools. They do receive state support for leased facilities expenses because they cannot issue bonds or raise taxes like traditional public school districts. They also cannot use state funds to buy land or building. Minnesota law’s funding formula provides dollars for transportation to charter schools and gives charter schools the option of providing transportation and keeping the transportation funds or requesting the traditional district to provide transportation and then paying those funds to that district in which the school is physically located.

Learn More:

Minnesota Charter School Law

Minnesota Association Of Charter Schools

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

Score:

62%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#26

Opportunities to make choices over private schools do not exist here but two very old tax benefits provide modest benefits to approximately 250,000 taxpayers.

Fast Facts:

Law enacted: 1995 and 1997

Number of programs: 2

Statewide Participation: 259, 108 taxpayers

Types of programs: Individual Tax Credit / Deduction

Choice Laws & Analysis:

Individual Tax Credit/ Deduction
K-12 Education Subtraction
This individual tax deduction program was enacted in 1955, giving parents the opportunity to deduct educational expenses such as tuition, tutoring, textbooks and more. Students must attend school in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wisconsin to be eligible. There is no income limit for eligibility, and the program has no enrollment cap.

Individual Tax Credit/ Deduction
K–12 Education Credit
Minnesota’s K–12 Education Credit program was enacted in 1997, and gives families tax credits for educational expenses like tutoring, after-school programs and textbooks. This program does not allow private school tuition to be an expense, and the individual credit cap is $1,000 per student.

Learn More:

EdChoice Analysis on Minnesota

Federation for Children Choice Program Information

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Teacher Quality

Score:

72%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#28

Districts allowed to utilize quality of performance in evaluations and pay, but tenure is not driven by teacher effectiveness.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 73%
General Teacher Preparation 65%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 80%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 96%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 58%
Alternate Routes 65%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 69%
Hiring 70%
Retaining Effective Teachers 67%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 79%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Charter Schools

Score:

88%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#5

Even the nation’s first charter school law which pioneered the dual concept of choice and diversity in public education is under assault by special interests, limiting much needed and wanted expansion.

Fast Facts:

Law passed: 1991

Most recently amended: 2019

Number of charter schools: 180

Number of charter students: 65,987

Cap on the number of schools allowed:? No

Virtual charters allowed? Yes

Charter Law Analysis:

AUTHORIZERS: Local and intermediate school boards, educational district cooperatives, nonprofit organizations, public universities, and private colleges can all authorize charter schools, though they must be approved by the state education commissioner. Active university authorizers are St. Catherine University, Bethel University, and University of St. Thomas. Together they authorize 17 schools. 

GROWTH: With an increase of nearly 10,000 students since 2018, growth is steady but mainly comes from school expansions not a plethora of new schools.

OPERATIONS: Charter schools are exempt from most regulations that traditional public schools have, but the state has instituted many additional requirements by way of regulation.

EQUITY: Minnesota charter schools are funded inequitably, receiving approximately 30% less in total revenue than district schools. They do receive state support for leased facilities expenses because they cannot issue bonds or raise taxes like traditional public school districts. They also cannot use state funds to buy land or building. Minnesota law’s funding formula provides dollars for transportation to charter schools and gives charter schools the option of providing transportation and keeping the transportation funds or requesting the traditional district to provide transportation and then paying those funds to that district in which the school is physically located.

Learn More:

Minnesota Charter School Law

Minnesota Association Of Charter Schools

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

Score:

62%

Grade:

D

Rank:

#26

Opportunities to make choices over private schools do not exist here but two very old tax benefits provide modest benefits to approximately 250,000 taxpayers.

Fast Facts:

Law enacted: 1995 and 1997

Number of programs: 2

Statewide Participation: 259, 108 taxpayers

Types of programs: Individual Tax Credit / Deduction

Choice Laws & Analysis:

Individual Tax Credit/ Deduction
K-12 Education Subtraction
This individual tax deduction program was enacted in 1955, giving parents the opportunity to deduct educational expenses such as tuition, tutoring, textbooks and more. Students must attend school in Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, South Dakota, or Wisconsin to be eligible. There is no income limit for eligibility, and the program has no enrollment cap.

Individual Tax Credit/ Deduction
K–12 Education Credit
Minnesota’s K–12 Education Credit program was enacted in 1997, and gives families tax credits for educational expenses like tutoring, after-school programs and textbooks. This program does not allow private school tuition to be an expense, and the individual credit cap is $1,000 per student.

Learn More:

EdChoice Analysis on Minnesota

Federation for Children Choice Program Information

2019 ALEC Report Card on American Education

Teacher Quality

Score:

72%

Grade:

C

Rank:

#28

Districts allowed to utilize quality of performance in evaluations and pay, but tenure is not driven by teacher effectiveness.

TRAINING AND RECRUITMENT: 73%
General Teacher Preparation 65%
Elementary Teacher Preparation 80%
Secondary Teacher Preparation 96%
Special Education Teacher Preparation 58%
Alternate Routes 65%  

STAFFING AND SUPPORT: 69%
Hiring 70%
Retaining Effective Teachers 67%

TEACHER EVALUATION: 79%

TEACHER COMPENSATION: 65%

Learn More:

National Council for Teacher Quality State Teacher Policy Database

Digital & Personalized Learning

Digital Learning:

Score:

85%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#7

The Minnesota Department of Education offers public school students online learning courses; some programs support full-time students while others are only supplemental. The DOE clarifies that not all of the programs can take students across the state as some are only offered to students residing in certain districts. 

Statewide digital tools available to all K-12 public, private, and charter students include the statewide Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and Sketchup Pro 3D printing software. 

Bandwidth: “99.9% of students in Minnesota 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. 1,111 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.”

Personalized Learning:

Minnesota has policies in place that are helping the state develop personalized learning efforts, one example being the state requires every student to have a personalized learning plan. 

The Innovation Research Zones Pilot Program allows districts and charter schools to form innovative zone partnerships with higher education institutions, local government, nonprofit and for profit organizations to increase personalized learning in classrooms. 

The state also has a Flexible Learning Year Program which gives schools the power to utilize flexibility in seat time and calendar year schedules, so schools can tailor learning to what best serves individual students’ needs. 

Learn More:

Innovation Research Zones Pilot Program

Flexible Learning Year Program

COVID-19 Response

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, communications to schools and families about continued learning was often unclear and difficult to find after schools closed. While the state did encourage districts to continue instruction, it did not work to ensure that all students had access to devices and the internet. When Governor Walz closed schools on March 16th for a two week break, he was proactive in emphasizing the need for schools to use the time to develop plans in case closures were long-term: “We cannot wait until the pandemic is in our schools to figure things out.”

A website with information and resources for students, parents, teachers, and schools was created. A distance learning template was provided for schools to follow on March 26th, allowing Minnesota to be ahead of the curve of many states.

The reopening plan for the 2020-21 school year has been evolving as is the case with most other states. In late July, the state announced that schools could open for hybrid learning classes for summer school and then released guidelines in a new report, with a well-placed focus on local decision-making driven by data. Districts can decide whether or not to have in-person instruction, and can adjust as needed during the school year.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

41%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

32%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat'l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

32%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

30%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat'l average)

Graduation Rate:

84%

Average SAT Score:

1225/1600

Average ACT Score:

21/36

Public School Enrollment:

870,506

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

7.0%

Average Student Funding:

$13,603.00
Digital & Personalized Learning
Digital Learning:

Score:

85%

Grade:

B

Rank:

#7

The Minnesota Department of Education offers public school students online learning courses; some programs support full-time students while others are only supplemental. The DOE clarifies that not all of the programs can take students across the state as some are only offered to students residing in certain districts. 

Statewide digital tools available to all K-12 public, private, and charter students include the statewide Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and Sketchup Pro 3D printing software. 

Bandwidth: “99.9% of students in Minnesota 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. 1,111 students still need more bandwidth for digital learning.”

Personalized Learning:

Minnesota has policies in place that are helping the state develop personalized learning efforts, one example being the state requires every student to have a personalized learning plan. 

The Innovation Research Zones Pilot Program allows districts and charter schools to form innovative zone partnerships with higher education institutions, local government, nonprofit and for profit organizations to increase personalized learning in classrooms. 

The state also has a Flexible Learning Year Program which gives schools the power to utilize flexibility in seat time and calendar year schedules, so schools can tailor learning to what best serves individual students’ needs. 

Learn More:

Innovation Research Zones Pilot Program

Flexible Learning Year Program

COVID-19 Response

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, communications to schools and families about continued learning was often unclear and difficult to find after schools closed. While the state did encourage districts to continue instruction, it did not work to ensure that all students had access to devices and the internet. When Governor Walz closed schools on March 16th for a two week break, he was proactive in emphasizing the need for schools to use the time to develop plans in case closures were long-term: “We cannot wait until the pandemic is in our schools to figure things out.”

A website with information and resources for students, parents, teachers, and schools was created. A distance learning template was provided for schools to follow on March 26th, allowing Minnesota to be ahead of the curve of many states.

The reopening plan for the 2020-21 school year has been evolving as is the case with most other states. In late July, the state announced that schools could open for hybrid learning classes for summer school and then released guidelines in a new report, with a well-placed focus on local decision-making driven by data. Districts can decide whether or not to have in-person instruction, and can adjust as needed during the school year.

Fast Facts

4th Grade Math Proficiency:

41%

8th Grade Math Proficiency:

32%

12th Grade Math Proficiency:

24% (nat’l average)

4th Grade Reading Proficiency:

32%

8th Grade Reading Proficiency:

30%

12th Grade Reading Proficiency:

37% (nat’l average)

Graduation Rate:

84%

Average SAT Score:

1225/1600

Average ACT Score:

21/36

Public School Enrollment:

870,506

Percent Enrolled in Charter Schools:

7.0%

Average Student Funding:

$13,603.00

Leadership

Your governor:

Tim Walz (D)

First term began in 2019 (no term limit)

Tim Walz was first elected in 2019 and has been re-elected in 2022.  It was a closer race than expected but after four years of a lackadaisical approach to education, we aren’t holding our breath.

State Legislature:

As of 2020, the House is Democrat and the Senate is Republican,  where a scholarship tax credit program was passed, but failed to advance in the House. The governor was outspoken in his opposition to it. The Senate will have to keep pushing to expand educational opportunities for families here, and they face significant headwinds in both the House and Executive Branch.

Constitutional Issues

Minnesota’s Blaine Amendment is less restrictive. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court let stand, but not reviewing it, “a decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals that held that neither the state’s Compelled Support Clause nor its Blaine Amendment are violated by government programs aimed at helping students, even if those programs incidentally aid religious organizations.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Minnesota School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

School report cards are easy to find from the Minnesota DOE homepage under Data Center. Reports are comprehensive; they include academic measures on student achievement, student progress, graduation, and college enrollment, as well as non-academic measures such as attendance, safety, and disciplinary data which give parents a sense of school culture and climate. Educational options are also easy to find from the main page, which further increases transparency and accountability in the state.

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

Leadership
Your governor:

Tim Walz (D)

First term began in 2019 (no term limit)

Tim Walz was first elected in 2019 and has been re-elected in 2022.  It was a closer race than expected but after four years of a lackadaisical approach to education, we aren’t holding our breath.

State Legislature:

As of 2020, the House is Democrat and the Senate is Republican,  where a scholarship tax credit program was passed, but failed to advance in the House. The governor was outspoken in his opposition to it. The Senate will have to keep pushing to expand educational opportunities for families here, and they face significant headwinds in both the House and Executive Branch.

Constitutional Issues

Minnesota’s Blaine Amendment is less restrictive. Recently, the Minnesota Supreme Court let stand, but not reviewing it, “a decision of the Minnesota Court of Appeals that held that neither the state’s Compelled Support Clause nor its Blaine Amendment are violated by government programs aimed at helping students, even if those programs incidentally aid religious organizations.” (Institute for Justice)

Learn More:

Institute for Justice: Minnesota School Choice and State Constitution

Transparency

School report cards are easy to find from the Minnesota DOE homepage under Data Center. Reports are comprehensive; they include academic measures on student achievement, student progress, graduation, and college enrollment, as well as non-academic measures such as attendance, safety, and disciplinary data which give parents a sense of school culture and climate. Educational options are also easy to find from the main page, which further increases transparency and accountability 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.