Page 1 of 31
The Network for Public Education
A 50 STATE REPORT CARD
2016
Valuing Public Education:
A 50 STATE REPORT CARD
Page 2 of 31
Introduction.................................................................................................. 1
Letter from Diane Ravitch, President
Executive Summary ...................................................................................... 2
Why This Report Card Matters ........................................................................... 2
Approach and Methodology .............................................................................. 3
Major Findings................................................................................................... 4
State Grades...................................................................................................... 5
2016 Report Card ....................................................................................6-16
No High Stakes Testing....................................................................................6-7
Professionalization of Teaching....................................................................... 8-9
Resistance to Privatization ...........................................................................10-11
School Finance............................................................................................12-13
Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely................................................................14-15
Chance for Success.....................................................................................16-17
State Grades by Category ................................................................................ 18
Appendix ...............................................................................................19-28
No High Stakes Testing..................................................................................... 19
Professionalization of Teaching....................................................................20-22
Resistance to Privatization ...........................................................................23-24
School Finance................................................................................................. 25
Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely................................................................26-27
Chance for Success.......................................................................................... 28
Acknowledgements ................................................................................... 29
The Network for Public Education • Table of Contents
table of contents
The Network for Public Education
Page 3 of 31
The Network for Public Education
believes that public education is
a pillar of our democratic society.
We believe that public schools can
serve all students well, inspire their
intrinsic motivation, and prepare
them to make responsible choices
for themselves and for our society. Public education
creates citizens. Its doors are open to all, regardless of
their race, religion, gender, ethnicity, or disability status.
It teaches young people to live with others who may be
different from themselves.
Educating all children is a
civic responsibility, not a
consumer good. Sustaining
a public education system
of high quality is a job
for the entire community,
whether or not they have children in public schools
and even if they have no children. An investment in the
community’s children is an investment in the future,
a duty we all share.
Our report, Valuing Public Education: A 50 State Report
Card, evaluates how well each of the fifty states and the
District of Columbia support their public schools, based
on objective and measurable factors aligned with our
values. We promote specific policies that will help make
our public schools vibrant and strong—a well-trained,
professional teaching force, adequate and equitable
funding wisely spent, and policies that give all students
a better opportunity for success.
These measures are not always easy to quantify, but in
the current environment, it is important to find a way to
recognize those states that have invested in their public
schools in positive ways.
And it is also important to identify states that have
weakened public education—by seeking to privatize
their schools or turn them into profit-making ventures,
as well as states that have aggressively instituted a
regime of high stakes testing that unfairly sorts, ranks
and demoralizes students, educators and schools.
Unlike other organizations such as The American
Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Michelle
Rhee’s StudentsFirst, whose report cards rank states in
relation to their willingness
to privatize public education
and weaken the status of
the teaching profession, we
take another path. We give
low marks to states that
devalue public education,
attack teachers and place high stakes outcomes on
standardized tests.
It is our hope as advocates for public education that
this report will rally parents, educators, and other
concerned citizens to strengthen their commitment to
public schools. It is time to turn away from policies that
are clearly harmful to children. Sustaining our system
of free, equitable and democratically-controlled public
schools that serve all children, we believe, is the civil
rights issue of our time.
Public education creates
citizens. It teaches young people
to live with others who may be
differentfrom themselves.
Diane Ravitch
Co-founder and President
Network for Public Education
introduction
The Network for Public Education • 1
The Network for Public Education
Page 4 of 31
Why This Report Card Matters
The Network for Public Education created this report card because it is time to focus
the national debate on research-based strategies to improve education and create equal
opportunities for all children. Our report card, Valuing Public Education: A 50 State
Report Card, evaluates how well each of the fifty states and the District of Columbia are
working to achieve that goal.
NPE values specific policies that will make our public schools vibrant and strong—a well- trained, professional teaching force, adequate and equitable funding wisely spent, and
policies that give all students a better opportunity for success, such as integrated schools
and low stakes attached to any standardized tests they take. We applaud those states
that have resisted the forces of privatization and profiteering that in recent years have
been called “reforms.”
Our hope is that this report card will steer us away from policies that undermine our
public schools and toward policies that will make our public schools better for all
children. It is both a roadmap and a yardstick for citizens and policymakers to guide
them and measure their states’ efforts at making public schools more equitable places
for students to learn.
Our hope is that this report card will steer
us away from policies that undermine
ourpublic schools and toward policies
that will make our public schools better for
all children.
The Network for Public Education • 2
executive summary
The Network for Public Education
Page 5 of 31
Approach and Methodology
We evaluated states on six criteria aligned with our values. Laws, policies and practices
that impact these criteria were rated. We also considered the measurable effects those
laws and policies have on schools. For example, although there are no longer laws that
allow racial segregation, a state’s housing and school choice laws affect the student
demographics of schools.
With the assistance of Francesca Lopez, Ph.D. and her research team at the University of
Arizona, we identified 29 measurable factors that guided the ratings of the six criteria.
The Arizona team worked to find the best, most contemporary sources of information,
created a 0-4 scale for ratings, and then evaluated each state on the 29 factors. The
factors that comprised each criterion were then averaged to create a letter grade.
Throughout the process, we updated sources when they became available, adjusting
grades to align with the changing landscape of laws.
The average of the six letter grades was then used to create a GPA, which was
converted into an overall state letter grade. As a matter of principle, NPE does not
believe in assigning a single letter grade for evaluation purposes. We are opposed to
such simplistic methods when used, for example, to evaluate schools. In this case,
our letter grades carry no stakes. No state will be rewarded or punished as a result of
our judgment about their support or lack of support for public education. We assign
the grade, and provide the sources from which it is derived, to alert the public about
whether their state is acting as a responsible guardian of its public schools.
A full explanation of our methodology along with the research rationale for the factors
that we chose to include can be found in this report and its appendix.
We assign the grade, along with the
sources from which it is derived, to alert
the public about whether their state is
acting as a responsible guardian of its
public schools.
The Network for Public Education • 3
executive summary
The Network for Public Education
Page 6 of 31
Major Findings
State policies and laws enacted since the beginning of the No Child Left Behind Act have
taken a toll on our public schools. Prior to NCLB, nearly every state would have earned
a grade of “A” in the criteria, No High Stakes Testing. This year, only 5 states earned a
grade of “A.” Grades in the criteria Chance for Success are lower than they would have
been a decade ago, due to rising numbers of students living in poverty and increased
racial isolation in schools. And when it comes to school finance, our national grade is a
dismal “D.”
Still there are bright spots. Seven states have rejected charters, vouchers and other
“reforms” that undermine community public schools. Three states — Alabama,
Montana and Nebraska — each earn an “A” for their rejection of both high stakes
testing and privatization. No state, however, received high grades across the board.
For example, although Alabama scored high in resistance to high stakes testing and
privatization, its schools are underfunded and far too many students live in poverty or
near poverty in the state.
At the end of this summary, the states are ranked by their overall GPAs. Throughout
the report you can see each state’s grade for each criteria. On our website, www.
networkforpubliceducation.org, we provide an interactive map to allow readers to see
the full landscape of grades at a glance.
Admittedly, we were tough graders. No state overall grade exceeded a “C.” We
did not assign scores based simply on comparative measures, but rather against the
values we hold and research supports. There are no “silver bullets” when it comes
to improving schools. The myth that “three great teachers in a row” can close the
achievement gap has always been a ploy. However, if states are willing to invest time
and money guided by the right values, we will see steady progress for our public
schools and our nation’s children. We hope that the citizens of each state reflect on
areas where their state needs to improve, and promote those reforms that will result
in a better grade next year.
If we are willing to invest time and
money guided by the right values, we
will see steady progress for our public
schools and our nation’s children.
The Network for Public Education • 4
executive summary
The Network for Public Education
Page 7 of 31
Iowa 2.50 C
Nebraska 2.50 C
Vermont 2.50 C
Montana 2.33 C
West Virginia 2.33 C
Alaska 2.17 C
Massachusetts 2.17 C
New Hampshire 2.17 C
New Jersey 2.17 C
North Dakota 2.17 C
South Dakota 2.17 C
Connecticut 2.00 C
Maryland 2.00 C
Illinois 1.83 D
Kansas 1.83 D
Kentucky 1.83 D
New York 1.83 D
Rhode Island 1.83 D
Wisconsin 1.83 D
Wyoming 1.83 D
DC 1.80 D
Alabama 1.67 D
Hawaii 1.67 D
Maine 1.67 D
Minnesota 1.67 D
South Carolina 1.67 D
Delaware 1.50 D
Michigan 1.50 D
Pennsylvania 1.50 D
Utah 1.50 D
California 1.33 D
Missouri 1.33 D
Ohio 1.33 D
Oregon 1.33 D
Virginia 1.33 D
Washington 1.33 D
Louisiana 1.17 D
Arkansas 1.00 D
Colorado 1.00 D
Nevada 1.00 D
New Mexico 1.00 D
Oklahoma 1.00 D
Tennessee 1.00 D
Florida 0.83 F
Georgia 0.83 F
Indiana 0.83 F
North Carolina 0.83 F
Arizona 0.67 F
Idaho 0.67 F
Texas 0.67 F
Mississippi 0.50 F
State Grades
Each state received an overall grade, as well as grades on each of the following
six criteria: No High Stakes Testing, Professionalization of Teaching, Resistance to
Privatization, School Finance, Spend Taxpayer Resources Wisely, and Chance for Success.
The six letter grades, which ranged from “A” to “F”, were averaged1
to create the overall
GPA and letter grade for each state. States are ranked by their GPAs in the list below.
States with GPAs below 1.0 received a grade of “F”; those with GPAs between 1.0-1.99
received a grade of “D”; and states with GPAs between 2.0 and 2. 5 received a grade of
“C.” There were no GPAs that exceeded 2.5; therefore no overall grades of “A” or “B”
were awarded in 2016.
State GPA Grade State GPA Grade State GPA Grade
1
The six letter grades were converted to numbers as follow: “A”=4, “B”=3, “C”=2, “D”=1, “F”=0.
The Network for Public Education • 5
executive summary
The Network for Public Education
Page 8 of 31
No High Stakes Testing
Tests become “high stakes” when they are used to make critical decisions about
students, teachers or schools. Every time high stakes are attached to test scores to
determine grade retention, high school graduation, the dismissal of a teacher, or a
school closing, there are negative consequences for students. The scores themselves
become less reliable as diagnostic measures of learning, curriculum and instruction.
The results of high stakes tests are an especially unfair and often arbitrary method to
make important and irrevocable decisions about a student’s future – and can have
discriminatory impacts on particular racial and ethnic groups.1
The reliance on standardized tests as instruments by which to make decisions about
students, schools, and educators has accelerated since No Child Left Behind, and even
more alarmingly, with the Race to the Top grant program and federal waivers.
High school exit exams, which became popular during NCLB, have been shown to lower
graduation rates.2
Their negative impact is likely to increase as Common Core exams
are phased in as graduation requirements. Even in those cases where exit exams do not
appear to affect overall graduation rates, they can have disparate and devastating effects
on particular groups of students, such as English Language Learners.
Some states also use tests to decide whether students are promoted or retained,
especially during the elementary years. Although retaining students in order to increase
their achievement has popular appeal, it has no conclusive evidence of effectiveness.
The National Research Council’s review of the literature3
on retention concluded that:
retention leads to higher drop-out rates and ultimately lower achievement; more boys
are retained than girls; black and Latino students are far more likely to be retained
than white students by ages 9-11, and the retention gap increases as students progress
through the grades.
1 For an excellent summary of the discriminatory effects of tests see FairTest. (2010). Racial Justice and Standardized Educational Testing. Retrieved from
http://fairtest.org/sites/default/files/racial_justice_and_testing_12-10.pdf
2 Warren, J., Jenkins, K., & Kulick, R. (2006) High school exit examinations and state-level completion and GED rates, 1975 through 2002. Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(32): 131-152. http://epa.sagepub.com/content/28/2/131.abstract doi:10.3102/01623737028002131
3 See Chapter 6 of Heubert J., & Hauser, R. Editors. Committee on Appropriate Test Use, National Research Council. (1999). High stakes: Testing for
tracking, promotion and graduation. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press http://www.nap.edu/catalog/6336/high-stakes-testing-for-tracking- promotion-and-graduation DOI: 10.17226/6336
The Network for Public Education • 6
GRADE DISTRIBUTION
D
22%
C
39%
B
27%
A
10%
F 2%
report card
The Network for Public Education
Page 9 of 31
Alabama A
Alaska C
Arizona C
Arkansas D
California B
Colorado C
Connecticut B
Delaware C
DC B
Florida D
Georgia C
Hawaii C
Idaho D
Illinois B
Indiana D
Iowa B
Kansas B
Kentucky C
Louisiana D
Maine C
Maryland D
Massachusetts C
Michigan C
Minnesota B
Mississippi F
Missouri C
Montana A
Nebraska A
Nevada C
New Hampshire A
New Jersey C
New Mexico D
New York D
North Carolina C
North Dakota B
Ohio D
Oklahoma D
Oregon C
Pennsylvania C
Rhode Island B
South Carolina B
South Dakota B
Tennessee C
Texas C
Utah B
Vermont A
Virginia D
Washington C
West Virginia B
Wisconsin C
Wyoming B
No High Stakes Testing continued
High stakes testing now includes the evaluation of teachers and principals, as a result
of Race to the Top grants and NCLB waivers. Both required that student test scores be
linked to educators’ evaluations. The common method of doing so is to create a value
added measure (VAM) or growth score, which attempts to comparatively measure the
influence of a teacher or principal on the test results of students. This radical departure
from traditional evaluation has occurred despite a lack of evidence of its validity and
reliability. Peer-reviewed studies point out the potentially negative impacts of this
practice, including the dismissal of quality teachers and the undermining of morale.4
High stakes testing has also caused the narrowing of the curriculum and excessive
classroom time devoted to preparing for tests. Teachers are incentivized to teach
students they believe are likely to test well, or show more test score growth.
4 An excellent summary of the research and problems with the practice. Teacher Evaluation Should Not Rest on Student Test Scores (Revised 2014).
FairTest: National Center for Fair and Open Testing. Retrieved from http://www.fairtest.org/teacher-evaluation-fact-sheet-2014
The Network for Public Education • 7
State Grade State Grade State Grade State Grade
STATES THAT RECEIVED
A GRADE OF “A”:
Alabama
Montana
Nebraska
New Hampshire
Vermont
We give high grades to states that reject high stakes testing for students and teachers. We used the
following three factors to determine each state’s grade for its reliance on high stakes testing:
1. Rejection of the use of exit exams to determine high school graduation
2. Rejection of the use of test results to determine student promotion
3. Educator evaluation systems that do not include student test results
State Grade
report card
The Network for Public Education
Page 10 of 31
Professionalization of Teaching
Countries with model education systems value their teachers. In Finland, teaching
is not only the most highly respected profession; elementary school teaching is
the most sought-after job.5
Teacher preparation is university-based and rigorous.
Professional development and classroom autonomy are integral features of a
teacher’s work.
Many of the current popular American reforms give lip service to the
professionalization of teaching while displaying an appalling lack of understanding
of what professionalization truly means. Teachers are viewed as interchangeable
— experience is discounted, even viewed as a flaw. Courses that provide potential
teachers with a deep understanding of the history of the profession, learning theory
or cognitive development are regarded as fluff. Instead, current reforms promote
online teacher preparation, on the job training and summer training that push
inexperienced young people, with inadequate preparation, into classrooms.
Yet research tells us that fast track teacher preparation and licensure programs
serve to lower professional status.6
5 Center on International Educational Benchmarking (2015). Teacher and principal quality: Finland. NCEE. Retrieved from http://www.ncee.org/ programs- affiliates/center-on-international-education-benchmarking/top-performing-countries/finland-overview/finland-teacher-and-principal-quality/
6 Milner, H. R. (2013). Policy reforms and de-professionalization of teaching. NEPC. Boulder, CO: National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://
nepc.colorado.edu/files/pb-deprof-teaching_0.pdf
The Network for Public Education • 8
D
49%
C
35%
B 4%
F
12%
GRADE DISTRIBUTION
report card
The Network for Public Education
