Report Card on American Education

Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform
© 2015 American Legislative Exchange CouncilAll rights reserved. Except as permitted under the UnitedStates Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication maybe reproduced or distributed in any form or by any meansor stored in a database or retrieval system without the priorpermission of the publisher.
About Global Documents

Global Documents provides you with documents from around the globe on a variety of topics for your enjoyment.
Global Documents utilizes edocr for all it's document needs due to edocr's wonderful content features. Thousands of professionals and businesses around the globe publish marketing, sales, operations, customer service and financial documents making it easier for prospects and customers to find content.
State School ucation Charter School Student Program
Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform
About Global Documents

Global Documents provides you with documents from around the globe on a variety of topics for your enjoyment.
State School ucation Charter School Student Program
<p>Report Card on American Education:
Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform
© 2015 American Legislative Exchange Council
All rights reserved. Except as permitted under the United
States Copyright Act of 1976, no part of this publication may
be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means
or stored in a database or retrieval system without the prior 
permission of the publisher.
Published by:
American Legislative Exchange Council
2900 Crystal Drive
Suite 600
Arlington, VA 22202
Phone: (202) 725-7764
Fax: (703) 373-0927
www.alec.org
For more information, contact 
the ALEC Public Affairs office.
Dr. Matthew Ladner
Lindsay Russell, director, Task Force on Education and Workforce 
Development
Daniel Turner, legislative analyst, Task Force on Education and 
Workforce Development
Report Card on American Education: K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform is published by the American Legislative Exchange 
Council (ALEC) as part of its mission to promote limited government, free markets and federalism. ALEC is the nation’s largest 
nonpartisan, voluntary membership organization of state legislators, industry representatives, research analysts and policy 
think tanks. ALEC is governed by a board of directors of state lawmakers, which is advised by the Private Enterprise Advisory 
Council representing business leaders and entrepreneurs.
The American Legislative Exchange Council is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, public policy organization. Contributions are tax deductible.
Table of Contents
About the Author 
v
Acknowledgements 
vi
Foreword: Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin 
vii
CHAPTER 1 : Education Reform: A Year in Review  ....................................................................................... 1
Silver State Lawmakers Strike K-12 Reform Gold 
2
Vergara vs. California Decision: Potential Watershed 
4
Georgia and Texas Become the 16th and 17th States to Adopt “A” through “F” School Letter Grades 
4
Multiple States Introduce Education Savings Account Legislation 
5
Nevada, Florida, Mississippi and Tennessee Join Arizona in the ESA Family 
7
States and Districts Expand Weighted Student Funding Systems  
8
States Continue to Improve Digital Learning Opportunities 
9
Lawmakers Introduce Multiple Scholarship Tax Credit Bills 
10
School Voucher Programs Continue to Advance 
11
After the 2015 Sessions a Majority of States Have a Private Choice Program 
13
State Tests Align More Closely to NAEP in 20 States, Lowered in Eight 
13
Charter School Parents Win Showdown with New York Mayor Bill de Blasio 
14
Charter Schools Continue Nationwide Advance 
16
Reform is Rolling But Has Much Farther to Go 
19
CHAPTER 2: Appropriately Equipping Our Students Today for a Prosperous Tomorrow ..............................21
NAEP Reading Scores as a Predictor of College Success 
25
State-Level Pipelines: Linking Eighth- and 12th-Grade NAEP Scores by Cohort 
27
Sending Students to College Without Necessary Reading Skills 
32
Detailed Data from Arizona: What Happens When Unprepared Students Attend College 
34
Conclusion: Light at the End of the Tunnel or Oncoming Train? 
35
CHAPTER 3: Student Performance and State Education Policy Grades .........................................................37
Ranking States on the Performance of General Education Low-Income Students  
38
Grading Education Policies 
39
Overall Education Policy Grade  
39
Policy Categories 
39
Academic Standards 
39
Charter Schools 
39
Homeschooling Regulation Burden Level 
40
Private School Choice  
40
Teacher Quality Policies 
40
Digital Learning 
40
Policy Grade Methodology 
40
Additional Information 
40
STATE SNAPSHOTS ...................................................................................................................................... 43
CHAPTER 4: Cost Versus Outcomes – The Importance of Educational Efficiency ..........................................95
The Example of Wyoming 
97
Educational Efficiency 
99
Mismanaged Resources 
103
Putting Students Above Money 
103
APPENDICES ................................................................................................................................................ 106
Appendix A: Change in NAEP Scores for All Students 
106
Appendix B: Education Policy Grade Components 
108
ABOUT THE AMERICAN LEGISLATIVE EXCHANGE COUNCIL ..................................................................... 110
www.alec.org  v
DR. MATTHEW LADNER
Dr. Matthew Ladner is the Senior Advisor of Policy and Research for the Foundation for Excellence 
in Education. He previously served as Vice President of Research at the Goldwater Institute. Prior 
to joining Goldwater, Ladner was director of state projects at the Alliance for School Choice. Ladner 
has written numerous studies on school choice, charter schools and special education reform and 
coauthored Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress and Reform 
for the American Legislative Exchange Council. Ladner has testified before Congress, the United States 
Commission of Civil Rights and numerous state legislative committees. Ladner is a graduate of the 
University of Texas at Austin and received both a Masters and a Ph.D. in Political Science from the 
University of Houston. Ladner is a Senior Fellow with the Foundation for Educational Choice and the 
Goldwater Institute. Dr. Ladner lives in Phoenix, Arizona.
About the Author
vi  Report Card on American Education
The author would like to thank the following for making this Report Card on American Education possible:
First, the Allegheny Foundation and the Gleason Family Foundation for their generous support for the 
creation and promotion of this book.
The author would like to specifically thank David J. Myslinki at Achieve and Lindsay Russell and Daniel 
Turner of the ALEC Task Force on Education for their tireless work and guidance in the production of 
this publication.
We also wish to thank Lisa B. Nelson, Bartlett Cleland, Bill Meierling, Molly Drenkard, Christine Phipps, 
Shana Sally and the professional staff of ALEC for all aspects of this publication.
Acknowledgments
www.alec.org  vii
The United States of America is at a crit-
ical moment in its history. In the 21st 
century our nation faces economic, po-
litical, and cultural challenges across the globe. 
To maintain our competitive advantages in inno-
vative technology, advanced agriculture, manu-
facturing, and scientific research we need every 
student to have a world class education and leave 
school ready compete in the global economy.
 
In Wisconsin we have responded to this chal-
lenge through a number of education reforms. 
We made systematic changes to education gov-
ernance and finance through Act 10, to free 
school districts from unfair agreements with 
unions over benefits and wages. In the process 
we saved taxpayers millions of dollars.
 
In addition to the financial benefits of Act 10, we 
also created opportunities for long overdue ed-
ucational reforms. School districts can now hire 
and fire teachers based upon merit, not seniority. 
Districts have instituted performance based pay 
programs and experimented with new schedul-
ing formats. Our reforms moved education from 
a bureaucratic, top down approach to a local-
ly based system that gives communities control 
over their schools. This has given school districts 
the independence to decide how to best organize 
and manage their schools based on what their 
students need and what gets results.
 
We have also increased options for students 
who want to attend schools outside the tradi-
tional public school system. Wisconsin was the 
first state to create a modern school choice pro-
gram in Milwaukee in 1989. Since then, Wiscon-
sin’s parental choice program has grown signifi-
cantly from its beginnings as a limited program in 
Milwaukee to a statewide program that is grow-
ing every year. Today, more than 27,000 students 
are attending approximately 150 participating 
schools, exercising choices these parents didn’t 
have before. 
 
With an eye toward providing even more options 
for parents and students, we have open enroll-
ment policies, charter schools, and tax deduc-
tions for private school tuition. We are deter-
mined to ensure that a child’s education is not 
limited due to their zip code but to what fits best 
with that student’s individual educational needs 
and skills.
 
The University of Wisconsin’s Flexible Options 
program is our innovative approach to high-
er education in the 21st Century. Now students 
can earn degrees based upon previous work, 
Foreword
by Scott Walker, Governor of Wisconsin 
viii  Report Card on American Education
education or life experiences in an individualized, 
competency based program. This is designed 
to give students an alternative to the tradition-
al classroom model that is difficult and time con-
suming for working or non-traditional students. 
It is vital that we give our citizens the ability to 
be lifelong learners in the constantly changing na-
tional and global economy.
 
The opponents of reform often claim that any 
changes will lead to dire consequences for schools 
and student outcomes. In Wisconsin we have shat-
tered that myth.
  
Since we implemented our reforms, school dis-
tricts have saved millions of taxpayer dollars, used 
new innovative teaching methods and instituted 
merit pay to reward successful teachers. Our stu-
dents reaped the benefits; high school gradua-
tion rates are up, third grade reading scores are 
up, and our students are ranked 2nd in the nation 
for ACT scores. 
 
The American Legislative Exchange Council’s Re-
port Card on American Education is a vital tool 
that helps states measure their education reform 
progress and learn from other states’ success-
es and failures. Often, education reform efforts 
are met with vigorous public debate and can face 
powerful opponents. Too often these opponents 
are the very groups that benefit from the status 
quo. We must not be discouraged by these spe-
cial interests.  Instead, we must continue to de-
mand all students have access to a high quality 
education that prepares them for higher learning, 
service in the military, and the workforce. In Wis-
consin, we have shown that reform is possible.  
  
Sincerely,  
 
 
Scott Walker 
Governor of Wisconsin
FOREWORD
1
CHAPTER
Education Reform: 
A Year in Review 
2  Report Card on American Education
EDUCATION REFORM MAKES SIGNIFICANT  
ADVANCES IN 2014-15
Since the publication of the 19th edition of the 
ALEC Report Card on American Education, law-
makers have been active around the country in 
passing K-12 reforms. Laws that give more stu-
dents public and private schooling options have 
advanced, and lawmakers have improved pub-
lic school transparency. For instance, the United 
States Department of Education broke out Amer-
ican scores on the Programme for Internation-
al Student Assessment (PISA) reading exam by 
ethnicity. The Department study found levels of 
reading achievement for American Black and His-
panic students similar to countries such as Tur-
key, Chile and Mexico.1 These nations spend a 
fraction of the American spending per pupil and 
have far greater absolute poverty problems. De-
spite continuing policy progress, many American 
children still significantly underperform in com-
parison to their global peers.
When addressing reform strategies to meet the 
individual state needs, policymakers should in-
vestigate the following best practices already ex-
ecuted in a number of states and also view the ex-
tensive information produced by legislators from 
every state and housed at the American Legisla-
tive Exchange Council (ALEC).  
SILVER STATE LAWMAKERS STRIKE K-12  
REFORM GOLD
Nevada has more than its share of education chal-
lenges. Long among the fastest growing states on 
a percentage basis, overcrowding remains an en-
demic problem in its public schools. A 2014 New 
York Times piece on Clark County (Las Vegas area) 
noted that the district had the equivalent of 40 
elementary schools of students housed in por-
table buildings. “I could build 23 elementary 
schools today, and they would open up full and 
overcrowded,” said Clark County Superintendent 
of Schools Pat Skorkowsky at a neighboring Hen-
derson County Chamber of Commerce breakfast, 
according to the paper.2 Since schools are burst-
ing at the seams due to enrollment growth and 
are failing to reach average levels of academ-
ic achievement, Nevada lawmakers face both gi-
gantic quantity and substantial quality problems.
In 2015, they took dramatic action to address 
both problems simultaneously when Nevada 
Governor Brian Sandoval signed multiple K-12 re-
form bills into law. Collectively, these new laws 
constitute a comprehensive approach, including 
broad parental choice and district reform efforts. 
Most notably, Nevada created the nation’s stron-
gest parental choice program to date in terms of 
both student eligibility and in the allowed uses 
of funds. In addition, lawmakers took action to 
end social promotion and increase charter school 
offerings.
Signed into law June 2, 2015, Senate Bill 302, cre-
ated Nevada’s Education Savings Account (ESA) 
program in which participating parents manage 
a state-funded account for each student with 
multiple but restricted uses under a system of 
state oversight. Sponsored by state Senator Scott 
Hammond and signed by Sandoval, SB 302 makes 
all Nevada students with previous public school 
attendance eligible for an ESA. 
The Nevada Office of the State Treasurer will ad-
minister the program. Students with disabilities 
and those from families with incomes at or below 
Education Reform:  
A Year in Review 
www.alec.org  3
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
185 percent of the federal poverty level will re-
ceive an amount equal to 100 percent of the 
statewide average basic support per pupil—cur-
rently around $5,700. Other students will receive 
a level of funding equal to 90 percent of this fig-
ure—currently around $5,100.
 
Parents opting into the program can use funds for:
• 
Tuition and fees at an approved private 
school
• 
Textbooks required for a student at an 
approved private school
• 
Tutoring or other services provided 
by a tutor or tutoring facility that is a 
participating entity
• 
Tuition and fees for a distance-learning 
program
• 
Fees for any national norm-referenced 
achievement examination, advanced 
placement or similar examination, or 
standardized examination required for 
admission to college or university
• 
Fees for any special instruction or special 
services if the child is a pupil with a 
disability
• 
Fees and tuition for a college or university 
in Nevada if that student utilizes those 
expenses for dual credit
• 
Textbooks for a college or university in 
Nevada, also if that student utilizes those 
expenses for dual credit
• 
Transportation to school up to $750.00
• 
Purchases of curriculum or any 
supplemental materials
• Management fees 
The state treasurer will oversee the program and 
is able to deduct up to 3 percent from the ap-
propriated ESA funds to cover the costs of ad-
ministration. The treasurer has the authority to 
remove either a vendor or a student from the 
program for failure to comply with the legal re-
quirements of the program and refer cases to the 
state attorney general for criminal prosecution. 
Participating students must complete a nation-
ally norm-referenced test annually in mathemat-
ics and English; and report the results to the Ne-
vada Department of Education. The department 
will aggregate the data according to grade level, 
gender, race and family income level. After three 
years, it will report ESA student graduation rates.3
 
Nevada’s program sets unprecedented education 
policy. No existing private choice program can 
match the state’s combination of broad student 
eligibility and multiple educational uses. As with 
most all-choice programs, the new Nevada ESA 
program remains a work in progress. Future areas 
of improvement could be the inclusion of funding 
weights for children with disabilities and English 
language learners to mirror the public school for-
mula. Currently, the legislation allows the rolling 
over of unused funds from year to year and the 
earning of college credit through dual enrollment 
and advanced placement.
The state’s bold new choice law, however, was 
not the only big advancement, as lawmakers 
passed other substantial reforms. Nevada’s Sen-
ate Bill 391 -Read by Three Act will create pro-
grams to aggressively address early childhood il-
literacy through early identification and parental 
notification of reading deficiencies, intensive in-
terventions for students and retention at the end 
of third grade, as a last resort.
Nevada’s SB 491 appropriated $10 million for 
the creation and operation of high-quality char-
ter schools to serve students who live in pover-
ty. Assembly Bill 448 created an Achievement 
School District to identify low-performing dis-
trict schools and convert them into public char-
ter schools. 
Assembly Bill 483 requires school districts to set 
aside funding for additional performance pay for 
highly effective teachers and administrators. The 
law prioritizes student achievement and is not 
subject to change through collective bargaining. 
Senate Bill 92 took the further step of requiring 
all layoff decisions for teachers and administra-
tors be guided by the statewide evaluation sys-
tem, ending the pernicious practice of “last in, 
first out,” whereby teachers get laid off accord-
ing to seniority rather effectiveness.4 
In addition to these crucial public school reforms, 
Nevada lawmakers created two private choice 
programs. Assembly Bill 165 created a corporate 
4  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
scholarship tax credit program for students from 
low and middle-income households. The pro-
gram has an initial $5 million cap on credits with 
a provision to increase the cap annually.
The Nevada Constitution guarantees public edu-
cation, so it will always be available. Due to the 
constant pressure of current and projected en-
rollment growth, the Nevada public school sys-
tem needs all the help it can get. These legislative 
efforts ensure Nevada schools are moving in the 
right direction. The consistent experience of pre-
vious choice programs demonstrates that, there 
will not be a mad exodus out of the Nevada pub-
lic school system, even with the ESA program’s 
broad eligibility. Instead, the program will reduce 
the strain on the public school system due to en-
rollment growth and create a crucial exit option 
that will provide positive motivation for the pub-
lic schools to improve. Nevada lawmakers have 
made history by initiating an audacious experi-
ment in liberty that gives parents the ability to 
customize the education of their children. Big 
problems require bold leadership.
VERGARA VS. CALIFORNIA DECISION:  
POTENTIAL WATERSHED 
In 2012, nine California students filed suit against 
the State of California claiming that state poli-
cies—such as granting tenure after 18 months 
on the job, extremely complex appeals process-
es that make it nearly impossible to terminate an 
ineffective teacher and “last in, first out” —vio-
lated their opportunity to obtain a quality educa-
tion. On June 11, 2014, the Superior Court of the 
State of California County of Los Angeles ruled in 
favor of the students, saying:
Plaintiffs claim that the Challenged Statutes 
result in grossly ineffective teachers obtain-
ing and retaining permanent employment, 
and that these teachers are disproportion-
ately situated in schools serving predomi-
nantly low-income and minority students. 
Plaintiffs’ equal protection claims assert that 
the Challenged Statutes violate their funda-
mental rights to equality of education by ad-
versely affecting the quality of the education 
they are afforded by the state.
This court is asked to directly assess how the 
Challenged Statutes affect the educational 
experience. It must decide whether the Chal-
lenged Statutes cause the potential and/or 
unreasonable exposure of grossly ineffective 
teachers to all California students in general 
and to minority and/or low-income students 
in particular, in violation of the equal protec-
tion clause of the California Constitution.5
This Court finds that the Plaintiffs have met 
their burden of proof on all issues presented.  
This landmark decision amounted to a political 
earthquake. Despite having the full resources of 
the State of California and the California Teach-
ers Association (CTA), the defendants proved in-
capable of defending the indefensible. The rul-
ing notes: “Evidence has been elicited in this trail 
of the specific effect of the grossly ineffective 
teachers on students. The evidence is compel-
ling. Indeed, it shocks the conscience.”
The ruling resulted in an inevitable appeal that 
will take years to resolve in the California court 
system. In the meantime, other groups have filed 
similar lawsuits in other states. The decision re-
veals just how deeply discredited practices like 
unconditional tenure and “last in, first out” have 
become. Both sides put their best case forward 
on these issues, and the court used both sides’ 
testimonies to reach their ruling. 
GEORGIA AND TEXAS BECOME THE 16TH AND 
17TH STATES TO ADOPT “A” THROUGH “F” 
SCHOOL LETTER GRADES
Georgia lawmakers made Georgia the latest state 
to pass transparent A through F letter grades to 
describe public school academic performance. 
The use of letter grades in state accountability 
systems began in Florida in 1999, followed by Ari-
zona, Indiana, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, 
Utah, Alabama, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, 
South Carolina, Arkansas, Maine, West Virgin-
ia—and most recently the Peach State—between 
1999 and 2015.
The Texas legislature also adopted campus-lev-
el A through F school grades in 2015, although it 
www.alec.org  5
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
uses a formula that includes a number of non-ac-
ademic grading factors. It also allows districts to 
choose some of their own grading criteria. This 
means that the grading system will not be com-
parable across districts. The previous system of 
campus labels, however, amounted to a “pass/
fail” with 91 percent of schools receiving a “met 
standard” label in 2013 according to state crite-
ria. Simultaneously only 28 percent to 41 percent 
of Texas students scored “proficient or better” 
on the 2013 fourth and eighth-grade Nation-
al Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 
math and reading exams. Texas still has room for 
improvement in the area of test-based school 
accountability.
School grading policies suffered setbacks in plac-
es such as New York City, where Mayor Bill de Bla-
sio ended the use of letter grades. Lawmakers in 
Virginia also chose to cancel the adoption of the 
policy in the face of opposition from Governor 
Terry McAuliffe. The Virginia law passed in 2013, 
but state officials never actually implement-
ed the law. School grading proponents chose to 
support the Virginia repeal rather than see the 
grades enacted without fidelity to the principles 
of the policy.
MULTIPLE STATES INTRODUCE EDUCATION 
SAVINGS ACCOUNT LEGISLATION
Arizona became the first state to pass a new 
variety of parental choice program in 2011 
with the passage of the Empowerment Schol-
arship Account Program, which introduced ed-
ucation savings accounts. This model has sev-
eral advantages over the traditional school 
voucher mechanism. First, it has proved more 
robust to court challenge in Arizona than pre-
vious voucher programs. It survived legal chal-
lenge, whereas two previous voucher programs 
were ruled unconstitutional under Arizona’s 
Blaine Amendment. It is possible that a pro-
gram following this model might have a similar 
FIGURE 1 | STATES WITH “A” THROUGHT “F” SCHOOL LETTER GRADE LAWS, 2015
  STATES WITH “A” THROUGH “F” SCHOOL LETTER GRADE LAWS
  STATES WITHOUT “A” THROUGH “F” SCHOOL LETTER GRADE LAWS 
6  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
advantage under other state constitutions.
The ESA model also provides more flexibili-
ty to parents than a voucher does. Parents use 
vouchers to choose among schools, and vouch-
ers broaden their possible choices to include par-
ticipating private schools. ESA programs give par-
ents choices not just among schools, but also 
among education methods and programs. Par-
ents can choose to enroll students in a school full-
time, but they also have other options, including 
hiring private tutors and therapists, online edu-
cation programs and even purchasing individual 
classes at schools or community colleges. 
The ESA model also allows parents to save mon-
ey for future higher education expenses. This cre-
ates an incentive for parents to carefully choose 
providers not only according to perceived quality 
but also cost. Providers thereby are motivated to 
provide high-quality services at affordable pric-
es—the exact opposite of the trend seen in the 
district system in which spending surges and out-
comes largely stagnate.
Arizona lawmakers originally crafted their schol-
arship legislation to serve only students with dis-
abilities. Subsequently, however, lawmakers have 
made additional students eligible—children in 
public schools in districts with D or F grades, stu-
dents who have been through the foster care sys-
tem and the dependents or survivors of parents 
in the military. In 2014, Arizona Governor Jan 
Brewer signed legislation making the siblings of 
already eligible students eligible for the Empow-
erment Scholarship Accounts. This change made 
it possible, for instance, for a family with two chil-
dren—one of whom was eligible for the program 
with an Individual Education Plan—to educate 
both children in the same fashion or send both to 
the same school.
In 2015, Arizona State Senator Carlyle Begay 
sponsored legislation making children residing 
FIGURE 2 | STATES INTRODUCING EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT LEGISLATION IN 2015
  STATES THAT INTRODUCED EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT LEGISLATION
  STATES THAT DID NOT INTRODUCE EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNT LEGISLATION
www.alec.org  7
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
on Arizona American Indian reservations eligible 
for the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Pro-
gram. Arizona has 55,000 American Indian chil-
dren, and NAEP shows that their levels of academ-
ic achievement rank consistently below those of 
their peers in other states and among the lowest 
for any student subgroup in the nation. 
Following the adoption of the Arizona program in 
2011, ALEC adopted model ESA policy that was lat-
er updated to reflect significant changes in 2015.
NEVADA, FLORIDA, MISSISSIPPI AND 
TENNESSEE JOIN ARIZONA IN THE ESA FAMILY
Lawmakers in a number of other states began to 
introduce account-based choice programs in 2012. 
In 2014, Florida lawmakers succeeded in passing 
the Personal Learning Savings Accounts (PLSA) 
program—the second of its kind in the nation. 
The PLSA program initially focused on children 
with relatively severe disabilities and was launched 
in the fall of 2014. The innovative Florida program 
is administered by nonprofit groups with state 
oversight. (The Arizona Department of Education 
and Office of the Treasury administer the original 
program). Florida lawmakers initially appropriated 
$18 million in 2014 for the PLSA program but in-
creased the appropriation to $53 million in 2015. 
In Mississippi, the fight for ESAs for special-needs 
children began in 2014, but problems have exist-
ed for decades. Jackson Clarion Ledger noted Feb. 
2, 2014 that the graduation rate for special needs 
students is the worst in the nation. Despite billions 
in federal funding since the late 1990s, teachers 
are still ill-trained, and graduation rates for stu-
dents with special needs have raised a mere 6 per-
cent since then. In 1997, the same paper noted a 
graduation rate of just 17 percent for special needs 
students.6 
Mississippi lawmakers and parents fought hard 
FIGURE 3 | STATES WITH EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS PROGRAMS, 2015
  STATES WITH EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS PROGRAMS
  STATES WITHOUT EDUCATION SAVINGS ACCOUNTS PROGRAMS
8  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
for an account-based choice program, very near-
ly passing it in 2014 and finally achieving success 
the following year. Governor Phil Bryant signed 
the measure into law in 2015, making Mississippi 
the third state to enact an account-based choice 
program.
Choice advocates in Tennessee did not have to wait 
long for the fourth program, as lawmakers passed, 
and Governor William Haslam signed, ESA legisla-
tion for students with special needs just weeks af-
ter Mississippi. Montana legislators passed an ESA 
bill as well, but the measure was vetoed by Gover-
nor Stephen Bullock.
STATES AND DISTRICTS EXPAND WEIGHTED 
STUDENT FUNDING SYSTEMS
School funding methods can give schools a strong 
incentive to respond positively to competition. In-
diana, for example, until recently had a district 
funding formula that included “ghost students.” 
Through this method, the state continued to al-
locate funds to districts for students the schools 
were no longer educating.7 Lawmakers wisely re-
placed this formula with current-year funding 
when they introduced school vouchers. Without 
making this change, the state would have double-
funded these students while reducing the incen-
tive of districts to respond to competition.
Weighted Student Funding (WSF) represents an 
important, if commonly misunderstood, reform. 
Most states fund districts according to a formu-
la, but the details are important. Many states fund 
districts rather than schools, and they base it on 
the previous year’s student count rather than the 
current count.
Arizona has run parallel traditional and WSF sys-
tems for decades. For 20 years, Arizona has fund-
ed charter schools at the campus level using cur-
rent-year counts. All the while, the state has 
funded its school districts based on the previous 
year’s count—and has funded districts rather than 
schools. 
WSF has not proved a magic bullet to guarantee 
school quality—many Arizona charter schools have 
closed, and more will likely close at the expiration 
of their original charter. Comparisons between dis-
trict and charter schools have difficulty account-
ing for the many possible external causes for ap-
parent differences in outcomes. For example, 
Harvard University scholar Paul Peterson noted 
that students typically take a temporary academ-
ic hit when transferring between schools, and new 
schools typically have a “shakedown” period dur-
ing which they have yet to hit peak performance. 
Charter sectors with large numbers of new schools 
full of newly transferred students can negatively 
bias a snapshot comparison of charter schools.
Arizona’s school grading system, however, which 
equally weighs overall proficiency and academ-
ic growth over time, shows a clear advantage for 
charter schools. In 2013-2014, 40 percent of Arizo-
na charter schools earned an A grade compared to 
only 28 percent of district schools that earned an 
A. Arizona charters were also relatively underrep-
resented at the low end, with 7 percent receiving 
D grades compared to 9 percent of district schools 
earning a D. 
Hawaii implemented WSF during the 2006-2007 
school year. Between 2007 and 2013, Hawaii dou-
bled or tripled the national average for progress 
on the four main NAEP examinations (fourth- and 
eighth-grade reading and mathematics). While no 
one can prove that WSF was the sole or even pri-
mary cause of this high level of improvement, a 
general trend toward decentralization seems to 
have served the state well.
In an American Institute for Research evalua-
tion of Hawaii’s WSF program, a survey of school 
principals revealed a consensus that WSF had in-
creased equity, transparency and campus auton-
omy. While many principals expressed the desire 
for greater resources to be at their disposal, some 
principals noted that greater control over budgets 
would prove far more meaningful if they also had 
control over staffing.8
The move to directly fund schools rather than dis-
tricts gives school principals more control over 
their budgets, better enabling them to compete. 
Imagine being tasked with running a school with 
little control over either the budget or staff. If 
we want to hold school leaders accountable for 
www.alec.org  9
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
results, it makes sense to give them the authority 
they need to succeed.
STATES CONTINUE TO IMPROVE DIGITAL 
LEARNING OPPORTUNITIES
Digital learning has opened opportunities for stu-
dents to take courses that would otherwise be un-
available. Online learning has the potential to con-
nect more students to high-quality teachers and 
increase the number of students that highly effec-
tive instructors can serve. Students can access ev-
erything from technical and career education to 
advanced science and mathematics instruction 
to foreign language opportunities through digital 
learning. 
Digital Learning Now, an initiative of the Founda-
tion for Excellence in Education, produces an an-
nual Digital Learning Report Card to measure 
state laws against the 10 Elements of High-Quality 
Digital Learning. By 2014, states had implemented 
and refined the 422 laws touching on digital learn-
ing—some far more effectively than others. Over-
all, the report card noted progress in 2014, with 
half of the states improving their grades overall, 14 
states moving up one letter grade and nine states 
earning their way out of the F category since the 
2013 report.
State policymakers play a critical role in acceler-
ating the adoption of new models of learning en-
abled by technology. State policy can either re-
move barriers to innovative approaches or it can 
stifle them with restrictions and red tape to pro-
tect the status quo.
Despite the progress of recent years, only two 
states—Florida and Utah—earned an A in the 2014 
Digital Learning Report Card.9 Lawmakers have 
made strides, but many miles remain ahead in the 
journey.
FIGURE 4 | DIGITAL LEARNING NOW GRADES BY STATE, 2014
 Grading Key
A B C D F
10  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
LAWMAKERS INTRODUCE MULTIPLE 
SCHOLARSHIP TAX CREDIT BILLS
Arizona lawmakers created the first scholarship 
tax credit program in 1997 when they approved 
a dollar-for-dollar credit against the state individ-
ual income tax for donations to nonprofit groups 
that provide scholarships for children to attend 
private schools. Pennsylvania and Florida fol-
lowed suit in 2001 with corporate scholarship 
credits.
The 2014 legislative sessions were relatively un-
eventful in terms of school choice, although Kan-
sas lawmakers created the Tax Credit for Low In-
come Students Scholarship Program. The tax 
credit allows corporations to claim a 70 percent 
tax credit for contributions to approved nonprof-
its that grant private school scholarships. The to-
tal amount of tax credits awarded statewide is 
limited to $10 million.
FIGURE 5 | STATES INTRODUCING SCHOLARSHIP TAX CREDIT LEGISLATION, 2015
Lawmakers were anything but inactive in 2015, 
however, with 23 states introducing scholarship 
tax credit legislation. In addition to the aforemen-
tioned Nevada scholarship tax credit program, 
Arizona lawmakers included subchapter S corpo-
rations in the state’s preexisting corporate schol-
arship credit, which expanded the universe of po-
tential donors. Montana lawmakers also created 
a modest scholarship tax credit program in 2015.
 
Although it remains unresolved at the time of 
this writing, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo 
took the lead in a bipartisan push for tax cred-
its in 2015. Win or lose, history was made with 
a prominent Democrat governor aggressively ad-
vocating for a private choice program. The New 
York Times reported the following from a public 
appearance Cuomo made to promote tax credit 
legislation:
  STATES THAT INTRODUCED SCHOLARSHIP TAX CREDIT LEGISLATION       
  STATES THAT DID NOT INTRODUCE SCHOLARSHIP TAX CREDIT LEGISLATION
www.alec.org  11
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
“There are some areas, frankly, where the 
public schools are not places where you 
would want to send your children,” he said 
at the Shrine Church of St. Jude in Canarsie, 
Brooklyn. He added that “sending your child 
to one of these failing public schools is in 
many ways condemning your child to get a 
second-class education.”10
“We want you to have the ability to choose 
where to send your child,” Mr. Cuomo told 
churchgoers, asking them to contact their 
legislators.
Mr. Cuomo said his father, former Governor 
Mario M. Cuomo, chose to send him to pa-
rochial school, believing that “I needed the 
nuns to keep me on the straight and narrow.”
On the other hand, Mr. Cuomo said he sent 
his three daughters to public school, citing 
FIGURE 6 | STATES WITH TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS, 2015
the quality of the public schools in Westches-
ter County. (He did not mention that after at-
tending public school, two of his daughters 
went on to graduate from Deerfield Acade-
my, a boarding school in Massachusetts.)
“There’s no right or wrong,” he said. “But it 
should be your choice.”  
SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAMS CONTINUE TO 
ADVANCE
Lawmakers continued to debate school voucher 
legislation in 2015, with Arkansas legislators pass-
ing a new school voucher program for children 
with disabilities. Lawmakers in Wisconsin and 
Ohio significantly expanded pre-existing voucher 
programs. Most notably, lawmakers removed the 
cap from Wisconsin’s statewide voucher program 
and created a new program for special needs 
children.
  STATES WITH TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS       
  STATES WITHOUT TAX CREDIT PROGRAMS
12  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
FIGURE 7 | STATES INTRODUCING SCHOOL VOUCHER LEGISLATION IN 2015
FIGURE 8 |  STATES WITH ONE OR MORE SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAMS, 2015
  STATES THAT INTRODUCED SCHOOL VOUCHER LEGISLATION       
  STATES THAT DID NOT INTRODUCE SCHOOL VOUCHER LEGISLATION
  STATES WITH ONE OR MORE SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAMS    
  STATES WITHOUT SCHOOL VOUCHER PROGRAMS
www.alec.org  13
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
With the addition of Arkansas, Figure 8 presents 
states having one or more school voucher pro-
gram. Florida, Louisiana and Ohio have multiple 
school voucher programs.
AFTER THE 2015 SESSIONS A MAJORITY OF 
STATES HAVE A PRIVATE CHOICE PROGRAM
First, the good news: a majority of states (26) 
have one or more private choice programs. In 
2015, a person could drive from Key West, Fla., 
to the California border near Lake Tahoe and nev-
er once enter a state without a private choice 
program, as displayed in Figure 9. Many of these 
states contain multiple programs, including Ala-
bama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, 
Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, Ohio, Okla-
homa, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.
On the other hand, more than 28 percent of 
American school children live in California, Texas 
FIGURE 9 | STATES WITH ONE OR MORE PRIVATE CHOICE PROGRAMS 2015
or New York, states in which no children have ac-
cess to a private choice program. To put this in 
perspective, California’s 6.2 million school chil-
dren equal the combined student enrollments of 
the 22 smallest states combined. The more than 
five million students in Texas equal the combined 
enrollments of the smallest 20 states.
STATE TESTS ALIGN MORE CLOSELY TO NAEP IN 
20 STATES, LOWERED IN EIGHT
Fifty years have passed since Congress enacted the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1965. 
Congress renamed and revised the statute in 2002, 
now known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB). As a 
condition of receiving federal education dollars, 
NCLB requires states to test students in grades 
three through eight and again in high school on 
math and reading achievement. Each state test 
sets a cut score for what constitutes “proficient” 
achievement on these math and reading tests. At 
  STATES WITH ONE OR MORE PRIVATE CHOICE PROGRAMS    
  STATES WITHOUT PRIVATE CHOICE PROGRAMS
14  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
the time of this writing, Congress is considering 
legislation to reauthorize this law, which has stood 
unchanged since 2002 despite having been sched-
uled for renewal in 2007. 
NCLB requires state participation in fourth-grade 
and eighth-grade math and reading exams as part 
of NAEP. NAEP tests have performance level cut 
scores roughly equivalent to those set by interna-
tional organizations that estimate student profi-
ciency worldwide.11 In other words, if students are 
proficient according to NAEP, they likely have a lev-
el of content mastery that is globally competitive.
Paul Peterson and Matthew Ackerman compared 
the proficiency standards of state tests to those of 
NAEP, thus serving as a measure of “truth in adver-
tising” for state accountability exams.
Their Summer 2015 contained good news overall:
In this paper we extend the five prior analy-
ses by identifying the changes in state profi-
ciency standards between 2011 and 2013, 
the last year for which the relevant informa-
tion is available. We show that many states 
have raised their proficiency bars since 2011. 
Indeed, the 2013 data reveal that for the first 
time, substantially more states have raised 
their proficiency standards than have let those 
standards slip to lower levels. Overall, 20 
states strengthened their standards, while just 
8 loosened them.12  
Peterson and Ackerman found that Florida, Idaho, 
Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Michi-
gan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, North Car-
olina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah, South Dakota, 
Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming improved 
their alignment with NAEP from 2011 to 2013. Ar-
kansas, Louisiana, Minnesota, Mississippi, New 
Hampshire, New Mexico and Oklahoma lowered 
the rigor of their state tests.
Figure 10 presents state grades by year, with A 
grades denoting close alignment with NAEP profi-
ciency standards, F grades signifying a large gap—
much higher student performance on state tests 
than NAEP.
The rigor of state tests fluctuates over time in 
a dynamic fashion. The Peterson and Ackerman 
study takes a snapshot of the 2011 to 2013 pe-
riod, but things will continue to change state by 
state each year. In the end, state policymakers 
(usually a state board of education) will make de-
cisions regarding state standards and proficiency 
cut scores. Policymakers in states with low grades 
should take action to provide truth in advertising 
for their students, parents and taxpayers. 
Many disagreements surround the process of 
adopting and maintaining state academic stan-
dards and tests. No one, however, should support 
using taxpayer dollars to create what amounts 
to a state-sponsored system of smoke and mir-
rors. The ultimate victims of a state testing sys-
tem that labels illiterate and innumerate children 
“proficient” are the children themselves.
CHARTER SCHOOL PARENTS WIN SHOWDOWN 
WITH NEW YORK MAYOR BILL DE BLASIO
Former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg sup-
ported a policy of co-location for charter schools. 
Given the considerable expense of Gotham real 
estate and the availability of empty space in city-
owned school buildings, this represented a vital 
enabling reform in the creation of charter schools. 
Current New York City Mayor de Blasio, however, 
made an effort to evict three highly effective char-
ter schools from their city-provided facilities, cre-
ating a showdown between charter supporters 
and the new mayor.
Governor Cuomo and the New York legislature 
resolved this dispute in favor of the charter par-
ents in a decisive fashion. With the active and vo-
cal support of the governor, a bipartisan majori-
ty of the New York legislature passed a state law 
governing co-location policy. Chalkbeat New York, 
a web site covering New York education, provid-
ed the following description of the impact of the 
legislation:
The new law requires the city to provide new 
charter schools with free space inside the city’s 
www.alec.org  15
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
Strength of State Proficiency 
Standards 2013
Overall Averages by Year
Change in 
Difference 
Between State 
and NAEP
Rank State 
4th Grade
8th  Grade
2003
2005
2007
2009
2011
2013
2011–
2013**
2005–
2013** 
Math Reading Math
Reading
1
New York
A
A
A
A
B-
C
C+
D+
B-
A
31.5
35.3
2
Wisconsin
A
A
A
A
D+
C-
C-
D+
D+
A
28.8
38.7
3
Utah
A
A
A
A
D+
D+
C-
D+
A
31.6
40.2
4
North Carolina
A
A
A
A
D-
F
D
C-
C-
A
40.6
50.2
5
Pennsylvania
A
A
A
A
C+
C
C
C
C
A
9.7
24.6
6
Massachusetts
A
A
A
B-
A
A
A
A
A
A
6.9
-9.6
7
Kentucky
A
A
B+
A
B
B-
C
C
C
A
13.7
15.5
8
Missouri
B+
A
B+
A
A
A
A
A
B+
A
-7.0
-12.9
9
Tennessee
A
A
C+
A
F
F
F
F
A
A
40.9
47.5
10
Florida
B-
B+
B-
B+
B-
C+
C+
C
C
B
17.7
9.1
11
Washington
B+
C+
B+
B
B-
C
B-
B-
B
B
11.8
11.2
12
Colorado
B-
B
B+
B-
D+
D
B-
B-
B
B
30.1
28.0
13
Michigan
A
C
A
C+
C
C-
D
D
D-
B
26.1
18.2
14
Illinois
B-
B
C+
B
C+
C
D
D
D
B-
-4.9
10.5
15
Minnesota
B+
C+
B
C+
B-
B-
B
B-
-34.7
0.9*
16
New Mexico
B+
B+
D+
B+
B-
B-
C+
B
B-
2.0
-0.8
17
New Jersey
C
A
B-
C
C
C
C
C+
C+
B-
20.8
9.5
18
California
D+
C
A
B-
A
B
B+
C+
C+
C+
3.0
-5.1
19
Maine
B
C+
C+
C
A
A
B-
C+
C+
C+
-5.0
-24.3
20
Virginia
C+
B
C+
C
C-
D+
D+
D
D
C+
4.1
15.7
21
New Hampshire
B
C+
C+
C
B-
B-
B
C+
-35.6
-4.6*
22
Nevada
D+
C-
B+
B+
C+
C
C
C+
C+
-8.2
-0.2
23
Rhode Island
B-
B-
C+
C
B+
B
B-
C+
C+
C+
11.5
-6.8
24
Oregon
C+
C
C
C+
C
C-
C-
C-
C
-7.6
-0.7
25
Maryland
C
C
C+
C
B
C
C-
C-
C-
C
14.8
3.5
26
Hawaii
B
B-
D+
C-
A
A
A
C+
C
C
0.3
-19.6
27
Iowa
C
C
D+
B-
D+
C-
D+
D+
C
13.9
7.9
28
North Dakota
C
C+
C
C
C+
C
C
C-
C
C
12.0
1.7
29
Montana
B-
D+
C+
C-
C
C+
C
C
C
C
9.4
-6.2
30
District of Columbia
C
B-
D-
C
C
C
C
C
-3.3
-5.9
31
Nebraska
C
C
C
C-
D-
F
F
C
C
23.3
15.0
32
Wyoming
C
C
C
C
A
A
C
C
C-
C
-11.5
-30.5
33
Delaware
C
C
D+
C
C
C
C-
D+
C+
C
-11.8
-0.6
34
Arizona
C+
D+
C
C-
B+
D+
C-
D+
C
C
18.6
6.3
35
South Dakota
C
C-
C-
C
C
D+
D+
C
C-
C
13.5
5.9
36
Indiana
C
C-
D
C
C
C-
C
C
C-
C-
11.2
-1.1
37
Connecticut
C-
C+
D-
C
C
C
C
C
C-
C-
8.9
-3.9
38
Texas
C+
C-
D+
D-
F
D+
D-
F
D-
C-
17.4
3.9
39
Ohio
C
D
C-
D+
B-
C
C-
C
C-
C-
6.5
-7.0
40
Mississippi
D
C
F
C
D
D-
D-
C
C
C-
18.2
10.2
41
Kansas
C
D+
C-
D
C
C-
C-
D
D
D+
-6.5
-1.7
42
Alaska
C-
D+
C-
D
C-
D+
D
D+
D+
D+
13.9
0.8
43
South Carolina
D
D
D+
C
A
A
A
C-
D+
D+
-20.8
-39.8
44
Arkansas
D
D
D+
D+
B
B
C+
C-
D+
D
-8.2
-25.4
45
Oklahoma
D+
C-
D-
D-
D-
D-
F
C
C-
D
19.4
3.8
46
Louisiana
D
D-
D
D+
C
C
C-
D+
D+
D
5.2
-10.8
47
Idaho
D
D-
D
D-
C-
D
D+
D
D-
D
15.1
-1.3
48
Georgia
D
F
F
F
D-
D-
F
F
F
F
15.7
-4.7
49
Alabama
F
F
F
F
D-
D-
F
F
F
13.7
-7.0
Vermont
B
B
B-
B-
West Virginia
F
D-
C
B
FIGURE 10 |  THE STRENGTH OF STATE PROFICIENCY STANDARDS
* 2005 data are missing; change is calculated from 2007
** A positive number indicates narrowing the difference between the NAEP and state exams
NOTE: Grades are blue in states with rising standards
Source: Paul Peterson’s and Matthew Ackerman’s calculations base on state tests and NAEP
16  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
own buildings or public funding to cover rent 
in a private facility. The legislation is a rebuke 
from state lawmakers of de Blasio’s criticism 
of charter schools during the mayoral cam-
paign and his early months in office.
One challenge the law poses for de Blasio is 
that it makes financial sense to keep charter 
schools in city buildings. If the city doesn’t pro-
vide space, the law provides for charters to re-
ceive an extra funding allowance for each stu-
dent, which in 2015 would be $2,775, from the 
city.
Thirteen charter schools have already been 
approved to open that year, serving 2,000 stu-
dents at first and 5,800 at full capacity. Private 
space for those schools would cost as much as 
$5 million in the 2015-16 school year and $16 
million once they are all at capacity, based on 
enrollment estimates.
In addition, the city is planning to spend $5.4 
million next year for three displaced Success 
Academy schools, which will have fewer than 
500 students next year, to operate in Catholic 
school buildings.13 
The bipartisan victory of the New York charter 
school community, with the benefit of hindsight, 
may be viewed as a watershed moment for the en-
tire parental choice movement. New York parents 
want more choice in education, and state lawmak-
ers delivered a decisive victory to them. 
CHARTER SCHOOLS CONTINUE NATIONWIDE 
ADVANCE
The number of states without a charter school law 
on the books continues to shrink to a handful of 
rural states. In 2013, Mississippi passed new char-
ter school legislation. In 2015, Alabama Governor 
Robert Bentley made Alabama the latest state to 
join the charter school family.
FIGURE 11 |  STATES WITH A CHARTER SCHOOL LAW, 2015
  STATES WITH A CHARTER SCHOOL LAW
  STATES WITHOUT A CHARTER SCHOOL LAW
www.alec.org  17
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
Minnesota lawmakers passed the nation’s first 
charter school law in 1991, and at the time of this 
writing, almost three million students attend-
ed public charter schools in 42 states around the 
country. Only a handful of states, however, have 
FIGURE 12a  |  ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS, 2014-15
State
New 
Charters, 
Fall 2014
Closed 
Charters,
Spring 2014
Net Gain 
Charters,
2014-15
Total Charter
Schools,
2014-15
Charter
School
Growth
Estimated
Enrollment,
2014-15
Charter
Enrollment
Growth
AK
0
0
0
27
0%
6,300
2%
AR
6
0
6
45
15%
23,100
41%
AZ
31
13
18
623
3%
225,000
20%
CA
88
36
52
1,184
5%
547,800
7%
CO
16
2
14
214
7%
98,000
5%
CT
4
0
4
22
22%
8,200
17%
DC
5
(+2 campuses)
4
(+2 campuses)
0
61 (on 112
Campuses)
0%
35,300
16%
DE
3
0
3
24
14%
12,500
13%
FL
56
28
28
653
4%
275,000
20%
GA
11
4
7
103
7%
80,600
16%
HI
1
0
1
34
3%
10,400
6%
IA
0
0
0
3
0%
300
-4%
ID
3
2
1
48
2%
19,600
-4%
IL
3
(+2 campuses)
2
2
66 (on 148
campuses)
3%
63,000
6%
IN
6
2
4
79
5%
44,300
25%
KS
0
0
0
11
0%
2,700
6%
LA
18
6
12
129
10%
74,000
25%
MA
3
6
-3
78
-4%
35,700
3%
MD
3
2
1
53v
2%
18,600
5%
ME
1
0
1
6
20%
900
135%
passed what studies rank as strong charter laws. 
One sign of weak laws is an inability of charter 
school operators to satisfy demand for charter 
school seats. Nationwide, more than a million stu-
dents sit on charter school waiting lists.14
The Center for Education Reform annually grades 
state charter school laws on an A through F scale. 
In 2015 they gave the charter school laws of four 
states—Arizona, Indiana, Michigan and Minneso-
ta, plus the District of Columbia—an A grade. An 
additional eight states—California, Colorado, Flor-
ida, Idaho, Missouri, Nevada, South Carolina and 
Utah—received B Grades.
The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools list-
ed 10 states that enacted legislation to strengthen 
their authorizing environments in 2014, drawing 
attention especially to Alaska, New York, South 
Carolina and Tennessee
While a large majority of states now have char-
ter school laws, a majority of these laws still con-
tain significant weaknesses and departures from 
best practices—such as caps on the number of 
schools, single authorizers and district-only autho-
rizing. Figure 13 shows that only distinct minori-
ties of states have relatively strong charter laws, 
18  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER TWO
State
New 
Charters, 
Fall 2014
Closed 
Charters,
Spring 2014
Net Gain 
Charters,
2014-15
Total Charter
Schools,
2014-15
Charter
School
Growth
Estimated
Enrollment,
2014-15
Charter
Enrollment
Growth
MI
17
7
10
307
3%
159,000
16%
MN
10
1
9
158
6%
47,900
11%
MO
2
1
1
51
2%
20,000
8%
NC
25
1
24
151
19%
70,800
22%
NH
4
0
4
23
21%
3,000
43%
NJ
5
5
0
87
0%
41,000
27%
NM
4
2
2
97
2%
24,400
14%
NV
4
0
4
38
12%
28,200
15%
NY
17
2
15
248
6%
106,000
17%
OH
11
27
-16
384
-4%
146,000
18%
OK
3
1
2
27
8%
18,700
40%
OR
2
1
1
125
1%
32,000
12%
PA
4
4
0
176
0%
128,000
-1%
RI
3
0
3
21
17%
7,100
19%
SC
10
3
7
66
12%
27,400
18%
TN
14
5
9
80
13%
20,900
72%
TX
2
(+53 campuses)
7
(+18 campuses
35
275 (on 721
campuses)
15%
280,000
18%
UT
15
0
15
110
16%
65,400
19%
VA
1
0
1
7
17%
46,800
7%
WA
1
0
1
1
45
WI
22
22
0
245
0%
46,800
7%
WY
0
0
0
4
0%
600
27%
Total
491
216
278
6,724
4%
2,890,000
14%
FIGURE 12b  |  ESTIMATED NUMBER OF PUBLIC CHARTER SCHOOLS AND STUDENTS, 2014-15
Public charter school data can be found on the Public Charter School Dashboard: 
http://dashboard.publiccharters.org/dashboard/home
www.alec.org  19
EDUCATION REFORM: A YEAR IN REVIEW
FIGURE 13 |  STATES WITH A- OR B- GRADED CHARTER SCHOOL LAWS
and hundreds of thousands of children sit on the 
waiting lists of charter schools in the states with 
“strong” laws.
REFORM IS ROLLING BUT HAS MUCH FARTHER 
TO GO 
While reform momentum continues, the accom-
plishments to date only represent critical steps in 
a long journey. Average children continue to face 
waiting lists if they want to attend high-quality 
charter schools and have limited access to private 
choice programs. They also attend schools gov-
erned by human resource policies of the sort de-
cried in the Vergara. 
  STATES WITH A- OR B- GRADED CHARTER SCHOOL LAWS         
  STATES WITHOUT A- OR B- GRADED CHARTER SCHOOL LAWS
Nevertheless, decades of K-12 practice have begun 
a fundamental shift. Lawmakers are now think-
ing far more deeply about what it will take to im-
prove academic outcomes after decades of re-
form strategies that amounted to sending school 
districts more money and hoping for the best. Pa-
rental choice has proved both successful and pop-
ular with parents. Lawmakers have begun serious 
efforts to address injurious human resource issues 
that threaten students. The political forces invest-
ed in maintaining the status quo remain incredibly 
powerful, but over the past decade it has become 
increasingly common for dedicated lawmakers to 
prevail. Reformers are not only seeing more victo-
ries, but also increasingly able to obtain strong bi-
partisan for their efforts.
20  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER ONE
ENDNOTES 
  
1. 
Fleischman, H.L. et al. 2010. “Highlights From PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in Reading, Math-
ematics, and Science Literacy in an International Context.” National Center for Education Statistics. Available at http://
nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011004.pdf.
2. Nagourney, Adam. 2014. “Las Vegas Schools Groan From Growing Pains.” The New York Times Oct. 6, 2014.” Available 
at http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/07/us/las-vegas-schools-groan-from-growing-pains.html.
3. 
Chartier, Michael. 2015. “Everything You Need to Know About Nevada’s Universal ESA Bill.” Friedman Foundation for 
Educational Choice. Available at http://www.edchoice.org/Blog/May-2015/Everything-You-Need-to-Know-About-
Nevada-s-Univers.
4. 
Foundation for Excellence in Education. 2015. “Nevada Becomes National Leader in Education Reform.” Available at 
http://excelined.org/news/nevada-becomes-national-leader-in-education-reform/.
5. Decision available at http://studentsmatter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/Tenative-Decision.pdf.
6. 
Editorial Board. 2014. “Special Ed Vouchers Would Give Parents Some Choices.” The Clarion-Ledger http://archive.
clarionledger.com/article/20140225/OPINION01/302250022.
7. Hayden, Maureen. 2011. “Formula to fund Indiana public schools gets overhauled.” Indiana Economic Digest Apr. 
30, 2011. Available at http://www.indianaeconomicdigest.net/main.asp?SectionID=31&subsectionID=135&article
ID=59770.
8. 
Levin, Jesse et al. 2013. “Evaluation of Hawaii’s Weighted Student Funding.” American Institutes for Research, June 
2013. Available at https://www.hawaiipublicschools.org/DOE%20Forms/WSF/WeightedStudentFormulaEval061913.
pdf.
9. 
Foundation for Excellence in Education. 2014. “Digital Learning Report Card 2014.” Available at http://excelined.
org/2014DLNReportCard/offline/download.pdf.
10. Kaplan, Thomas. 2015. “Cuomo Promotes Tax Credits for Families of Students at Private Schools.” The New York Times, 
May 17, 2015. Available at http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/18/nyregion/cuomo-promotes-tax-credits-for-families-
of-students-at-private-schools.html?_r=0.
11. Peterson, Paul E. and Matthew Ackerman. 2015. “States Raise Proficiency Standards in Math and Reading.” Education 
Next Summer 2015, Available at http://educationnext.org/states-raise-proficiency-standards-math-reading/.
12. 
Ibid.
13. Decker, Geoff. 2014. “As Charter Sector Continues to Swell, a Space Dilemma Grows for De Blasio.” Chalkbeat New York 
Jun. 6, 2014. Available at http://ny.chalkbeat.org/2014/06/06/as-charter-sector-continues-to-swell-a-space-dilemma-
grows-for-de-blasio/#.VYmjV_lVikq.
14. Kern, Nora and Wentana Gebru. 2014. “Waiting Lists to Attend Charter Schools Top 1 Million Names.” National Alliance 
for Public Charter Schools, May 2014.  Available at http://www.publiccharters.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/
NAPCS-2014-Wait-List-Report.pdf.
2
CHAPTER
Appropriately Equipping 
Our Students Today for a 
Prosperous Tomorrow
22  Report Card on American Education
Appropriately Equipping Our 
Students Today for a Prosperous 
Tomorrow
Education policy cannot hope to solve the prob-
lem alone, but it can contribute. Current age de-
mographic projections foretell an impending fu-
ture in which the demand for public dollars in 
the form of health care, public pension outlays 
and education expenses exceeds the likely sup-
ply of public dollars—absent a substantial and 
sustained period of above-average econom-
ic growth. Better-educated students today will 
translate into growth and innovation tomorrow.
Appropriately equipping the America of to-
morrow must start today. Academic achieve-
ment and attainment both strongly predict fu-
ture earnings. Improved mastery of reading and 
mathematics strongly influences future college 
and career success for students in both low- and 
high-income households. For instance, the Na-
tional Center for Education Statistics recently 
completed a tracking study of 2002 high school 
sophomores and their success in earning bach-
elors’ degrees by 2012. Figure 2 shows the dif-
ferences in college success among students from 
low-income families by their mathematics per-
formance quartile.
Among students from low-income households, 
those scoring in the highest 25 percent of overall 
mathematics achievement were more than eight 
times more likely to have completed a bache-
lor’s degree than those who scored in the low-
est performing mathematics quartile. Students 
from low-income families in the lowest quartile 
of achievement, meanwhile, had only a one-in-20 
rate of obtaining a bachelor’s degree. 
Over the next 15 years public pensions will 
be strained and tax revenues may shift 
as many baby boomers move from their 
prime earning years to fixed incomes. In addition, 
demands for public health spending, at the state 
level primarily through the Medicaid program, 
will rise as the elderly population increases.
  
In 2010, the nation’s largest retirement desti-
nation, Florida, had the nation’s largest elderly 
population as a percentage of its total. However, 
looking forward in census projections to the year 
2030, the vast majority of states will have a larg-
er percentage of elderly population than Amer-
ica’s prime retirement destination does today. 
Figure 1 shows the projections by state for pop-
ulations of people 65 and older in 2030, along 
with Florida’s percentage of the same in 2010.
Many states face increased spending pressures 
from both ends of the age spectrum due to the 
large increase in the retired populations coupled 
with large projected increases in their youth pop-
ulation. The percentage of the population in the 
prime working years (ages 18 to 64) will shrink in 
all 50 states as both the elderly and youth pop-
ulations increase. The youth of today will face 
considerable challenges as they become middle-
aged taxpayers supporting an increasingly aging 
populace. Much of the working-age population 
in 2030 and beyond, those primarily tasked with 
keeping vital public services viable, sit in K-12 
classrooms now. One major responsibility of pol-
icymakers today is to ensure the policies enacted 
now increase return on K-12 investment. 
www.alec.org  23
APPROPRIATELY EQUIPPING OUR STUDENTS TODAY FOR A PROSPEROUS TOMORROW
FIGURE 1 | PROJECTIONS FOR THE PERCENTAGE  OF POPULATION AGED 65+ IN 2030
Source: United States Census Bureau
13.2%	
  
14.7%	
  
15.6%	
  
15.9%	
  
16.5%	
  
17.6%	
  
17.8%	
  
17.8%	
  
17.8%	
  
18.0%	
  
18.1%	
  
18.1%	
  
18.2%	
  
18.3%	
  
18.6%	
  
18.8%	
  
18.9%	
  
19.2%	
  
19.4%	
  
19.5%	
  
19.7%	
  
19.7%	
  
19.8%	
  
20.0%	
  
20.1%	
  
20.2%	
  
20.2%	
  
20.3%	
  
20.4%	
  
20.5%	
  
20.6%	
  
20.9%	
  
21.3%	
  
21.3%	
  
21.4%	
  
21.4%	
  
21.5%	
  
22.0%	
  
22.1%	
  
22.3%	
  
22.4%	
  
22.6%	
  
23.1%	
  
23.5%	
  
24.4%	
  
24.8%	
  
25.1%	
  
25.8%	
  
26.4%	
  
26.5%	
  
26.5%	
  
27.1%	
  
0.0%	
  
5.0%	
  
10.0%	
  
15.0%	
  
20.0%	
  
25.0%	
  
30.0%	
  
Utah	
  
Alaska	
  
Texas	
  
Georgia	
  
Colorado	
  
Maryland	
  
California	
  
North	
  Carolina	
  
2010	
  Florida	
  (NaGon's	
  Highest	
  in	
  2010)	
  
Illinois	
  
Washington	
  
Indiana	
  
Oregon	
  
Idaho	
  
Nevada	
  
Virginia	
  
Minnesota	
  
Tennessee	
  
Oklahoma	
  	
  
Michigan	
  	
  
Louisiana	
  
United	
  States	
  
Kentucky	
  
New	
  Jersey	
  
New	
  York	
  
Missouri	
  
Kansas	
  
Arkansas	
  
Ohio	
  
Mississippi	
  
Nebraska	
  
Massachuse[s	
  
Wisconsin	
  
Alabama	
  
New	
  Hampshire	
  
Rhode	
  Island	
  
ConnecGcut	
  
South	
  Carolina	
  	
  
Arizona	
  
Hawaii	
  
Iowa	
  
Pennsylvania	
  
South	
  Dakota	
  
Delaware	
  
Vermont	
  
West	
  Virginia	
  
North	
  Dakota	
  
Montana	
  
New	
  Mexico	
  
Maine	
  
Wyoming	
  	
  
Florida	
  
24  Report Card on American Education
CHAPTER TWO
FIGURE 2 | LOW-INCOME SPRING 2002 SOPHOMORES WHO EARNED A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR 
HIGHER BY 2012
FIGURE 3 | HIGH-INCOME SPRING 2002 SOPHOMORES WHO EARNED A BACHELOR’S DEGREE OR 
HIGHER BY 2012
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
Source: National Center for Education Statistics
5%	
  
12%	
  
23%	
  
41%	
  
Lowest	
  Quar2le	
  
Second	
  Quar2le	
  
Third	
  Quar2le	
  
Highest	
  Quar2le	
  
21%	
  
41%	
  
61%	
  
74%	
  
Lowest	
  Quar2le	
  
Second	
  Quar2le	
  
Third	
  Quar2le	
  
Highest	
  Quar2le	
  
NAEP Mathematics Quartile
NAEP Mathematics Quartile
www.alec.org  25
APPROPRIATELY EQUIPPING OUR STUDENTS TODAY FOR A PROSPEROUS TOMORROW
dropouts, in essence, begin with the problems of 
the K-12 system. Fixing the leaks in America’s bro-
ken human capital pipeline is a matter of utmost 
urgency for lawmakers. 
NAEP READING SCORES AS A PREDICTOR OF 
COLLEGE SUCCESS
How well-prepared are students to face the chal-
lenges of tomorrow? The National Center for Ed-
ucation Statistics recently conducted a study that 
sheds light on this question. The National Assess-
ment Governing Board established a commis-
sion to study the use of 12th-grade NAEP read-
ing and mathematics exams to estimate college 
readiness. The commission conducted a series 
of technical studies and reached the following 
conclusion:
Students who are considered ready for college 
are generally expected to be academically pre-
pared for entry-level college coursework. A 
combination of factors contributes to students’ 
readiness for college, including content knowl-
edge, cognitive strategies, learning skills, and 
transitioning skills.4 As a measure of students’ 
knowledge in core subject areas, the potential 
use of NAEP results as an indicator of students’ 
academic preparedness for postsecondary ed-
ucation and training is being explored by the 
Governing Board. 
A series of studies conducted since 2008 sup-
ported inferences about performance on the 
grade 12 NAEP mathematics and reading as</p>