How All 50 States Approach Education Policy

Last updated 2 hours ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The United States has no single national education system. Instead, 50 distinct state systems operate with different priorities, funding mechanisms, and success measures. This arrangement stems from the U.S. Constitution, which grants states primary authority over public education.

The Education Commission of the States was formed in 1965 to help states navigate their responsibilities and serve as a strategic consortium for policymakers. Its creation responded to growing federal influence, strengthening state capacity to lead on education policy.

For years, the No Child Left Behind Act imposed prescriptive federal mandates requiring states to meet nationally defined accountability standards. The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) in 2015 marked a shift, returning substantial authority to states. ESSA dismantled many rigid requirements and let state leaders design their own systems for measuring school performance, identifying struggling schools, and setting educational goals.

This renewed state control amplified existing differences. States now diverge on nearly every major policy aspect. They use vastly different funding models, creating wide resource disparities. They’ve built unique accountability systems reflecting specific values, measuring everything from college readiness to chronic absenteeism. States take widely varied approaches to academic standards, school choice, teacher workforce policies, and what is taught in the classroom.

School Funding Models

School finance methods determine resources available to students and reflect fundamental decisions about equity and local control. Investment in a child’s education varies dramatically by zip code.

Three Sources of Funding

Public school funding is shared among local, state, and federal governments, though contributions are far from equal. In fiscal year 2023, state and local governments combined provided approximately 87% of all school funding. The federal government contributed the remaining 13%.

1. Local funding: The foundation of school finance has historically been the local property tax. This reliance on local wealth drives funding disparities in American education. Districts with high property values raise substantial revenue, often with lower tax rates. Districts with less valuable property struggle to generate adequate funds, even with higher tax rates.
2. State funding: State governments provide the largest share at about 45% nationally. States use complex formulas to distribute aid to local school districts. A primary goal is mitigating inequities created by reliance on local property taxes. State aid tends to be higher in districts with low capacity to raise local revenue and those with large concentrations of high-need students.
3. Federal funding: The federal role is supplementary and targeted. Federal dollars flow through specific grant programs like Title I for students in low-income families and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act for students with disabilities. These funds narrow gaps and provide additional resources for at-risk populations, not cover basic education costs.

State Funding Formulas

The choice of a funding formula reflects a state’s core philosophy on governance and educational priorities. States primarily use two major approaches, with some adopting hybrid models.

Student-based formulas: This is the dominant model, used by 35 states and the District of Columbia. Districts receive a base amount per student. This approach, often called a “foundation program,” is used in some form by nearly all states (46) to establish a minimum per-pupil funding level that every district receives through combined state and local money. This model decentralizes power by giving local districts flexible dollars tied to student characteristics.

Resource-based allocation: Used by nine states, this model funds districts based on specific inputs like staffing positions, services, or programs. This approach implies a more centralized philosophy, where the state defines necessary ingredients for quality education and funds those inputs directly, giving the state more control over spending.

Hybrid and other models: Four states use hybrid models combining elements of both approaches, while two states have other unique systems.

State formulas were created to ensure minimum resources for property-poor districts, but they’re designed to mitigate, not eliminate, inequity. No state can fully equalize funding disparities. The system provides an “adequate” floor but doesn’t create a level playing field, as it permits wealthier districts to tax themselves to fund schools far above the state-mandated minimum.

Student-Based Funding Details

Within the dominant student-based funding model, several policy choices further differentiate states.

Counting students: States differ on how to count students for funding. The vast majority (44 states and D.C.) use enrollment figures. Six states use attendance. This distinction is critical. A district with high chronic absenteeism receives significantly less funding in a state using attendance-based formulas, creating a financial penalty for a problem that often requires more resources to solve.

Weighting for student needs: Nearly all states provide additional funds, or “weights,” for specific student populations recognized as more costly to educate.

• All 50 states and D.C. provide additional funding for students with disabilities
• 48 states and D.C. provide extra funding for English learners
• 43 states and D.C. provide supplemental funds for students from low-income backgrounds
• Many states also provide weights for gifted and talented students (37 states) or students in small or rural districts (36 states)

Per-Pupil Spending Disparities

Different funding sources, formulas, and policy choices create profound disparity in actual dollars spent per student. According to the National Center for Education Statistics for 2020–21, the national average for total expenditures per public school pupil was $18,614.

This average masks a vast range. Total per-pupil expenditures were lowest in Idaho ($11,686) and Utah ($12,301). At the other end, New York ($32,184) and the District of Columbia ($37,835) spent nearly three times as much per student. These figures illustrate the consequences of states’ differing economic capacities and policy priorities.

State Accountability Systems

How a state defines and measures school success reveals its educational priorities. For over a decade, No Child Left Behind imposed a rigid, one-size-fits-all accountability system on every state. ESSA in 2015 fundamentally altered this dynamic, granting states significant flexibility to build their own systems for identifying school strengths and weaknesses.

How ESSA Changed Accountability

ESSA dismantled the highly prescriptive “Adequate Yearly Progress” framework of NCLB, which required schools to meet escalating proficiency targets for all student subgroups, with the ultimate goal of 100% proficiency. This system was widely criticized as unrealistic and for labeling many schools as “failing.”

ESSA allowed states to establish their own goals and design accountability systems using multiple measures beyond test scores. This shift was viewed as an opportunity for states to create more holistic and locally relevant systems.

What States Measure

ESSA provides flexibility but requires states to include core indicators in their accountability systems. Real divergence appears in the additional, non-required indicators states choose.

Federally required indicators: Every state system must include academic achievement measures (based on state tests in reading, math, and science), another academic indicator for elementary and middle schools (most states use student growth), high school graduation rates, and English language learner progress toward proficiency.

State-chosen indicators: ESSA requires states to include at least one additional “School Quality or Student Success” indicator. This is where state priorities become most visible.

At least 37 states and D.C. include college and career readiness in their accountability systems. This signals widespread belief that a key purpose of K-12 education is preparing students for postsecondary life.

At least 36 states include chronic absenteeism. This choice reflects growing understanding that student engagement and being present in school are foundational to learning.

The accountability system a state designs is a public declaration of its educational values. By choosing to measure and report metrics like chronic absenteeism or college readiness, states explicitly signal that these outcomes are top priorities.

Rating Systems

After collecting data on various indicators, states must report this information to the public. States have chosen different paths, ranging from complex dashboards to simple letter grades.

Common approaches: The most prevalent methods are Descriptive Ratings (e.g., “Exceeds Expectations,” “Meets Expectations”), used in 13 states; Index Ratings (where schools earn points summed into a single score), used in 12 states and D.C.; and Federal Tiers of Support (categorizing schools by improvement needs), used in 14 states.

Letter grades and star ratings: Six states use A-F letter grades, and four states use 1-5 star ratings. These systems are often favored for simplicity and ease of understanding, though frequently criticized for oversimplifying school performance and stigmatizing schools in low-income communities.

Parallel systems: At least 16 states operate their own separate state accountability system in addition to their federal ESSA reporting system. This can create confusion for parents and educators, who may receive different or conflicting information about school performance depending on which report card they consult.

Academic Standards and Curriculum

What students should know and be able to do at each grade level is determined by state academic standards. For decades, these standards varied widely in quality and rigor. The effort to address this inconsistency through Common Core sparked one of the most intense national education debates in recent history, evolving into broader cultural battles over curriculum.

The Common Core Initiative

The Common Core State Standards Initiative launched in 2009 as a state-led effort, coordinated by the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Because federal law prohibits the federal government from creating national standards, the project was designed to be voluntary for states.

Arguments for: Proponents argued that 50 different sets of state standards were inconsistent and often lacked rigor. They contended that shared, high-quality goals in English language arts and mathematics would better prepare students for college and careers, regardless of where they lived. The standards were meant to define what students should know, not how teachers should teach, preserving local control over curriculum and instruction. The “common-ness” also offered ancillary benefits like meaningful cross-state comparisons and economies of scale for textbooks and professional development.

Arguments against: Opposition was fierce and came from across the political spectrum. A central criticism was perceived federal overreach. The Obama administration’s Race to the Top grant program provided financial incentives for states to adopt “college- and career-ready standards,” a requirement that, at the time, only Common Core could fulfill. This led many to view the “state-led” initiative as federally coerced.

Other critics argued the standards represented a “one-size-fits-all” approach, failing to meet individual student needs. The standards became entangled with new, high-stakes standardized tests and test-based teacher evaluations, leading many educators and parents to see the project as a continuation of failed NCLB policies.

The debate became a proxy war over the federal government’s proper role in an area traditionally controlled by states. The intensity of the backlash wasn’t just about pedagogical content. It was a reaction to perceived centralization of education policy that had been accelerating since NCLB’s passage.

Where States Stand Now

At its peak, over 40 states had adopted Common Core. Since then, several states have formally withdrawn or undertaken significant revisions, often rebranding the standards under state-specific names. This outcome demonstrates that even when a majority of states agree on a policy direction, the principle of state sovereignty in education remains a powerful political force.

The Common Core debate opened the door for curriculum to become a central battlefield in the nation’s culture wars. While that debate focused on pedagogy and federal control, the current landscape has shifted to social and cultural issues. In Florida, for example, recent legislation has focused on “parental rights,” banning instruction on gender ideology and rejecting the use of Critical Race Theory in curriculum. This trend shows state leaders using their authority over academic standards to address contentious social issues, moving the debate far beyond traditional discussions of math and reading instruction.

School Choice Programs

The landscape of American education is increasingly defined by choice. Over the past three decades, a powerful movement has sought to provide parents with options beyond their assigned neighborhood public school. This has led to growth of both public school choice programs, like charter schools, and a burgeoning sector of private school choice programs using public funds.

Public vs. Private Choice

School choice programs generally fall into two categories:

Public school choice: These programs provide parents with educational options within the public school sector. They include charter schools, magnet schools, and open enrollment policies allowing students to transfer to other public schools within or outside their home district.

Private school choice: These programs use public dollars to fund education options in the private sector, most often at private schools. The primary mechanisms are vouchers, tax-credit scholarships, and Education Savings Accounts.

Private School Choice Mechanisms

States have developed three main policy tools to facilitate private school choice, each with a different funding mechanism.

School vouchers: These are state-funded programs, sometimes called scholarships, that provide parents with a set amount of public money for private school tuition. The amount is often based on the state’s per-pupil funding level. Currently, 23 voucher programs exist in 13 states and D.C.

Tax-credit scholarships: These programs don’t use direct government appropriations. Instead, they provide a full or partial tax credit to individuals and businesses who donate to nonprofit Scholarship Granting Organizations. These SGOs then distribute the funds as private school scholarships to eligible students. There are 25 tax-credit scholarship programs in 21 states.

Education Savings Accounts: This is the newest and most flexible model. The state deposits public funds into a private savings account that parents manage. Parents use these funds to purchase a wide array of approved educational services like private school tuition, tutoring, online courses, therapies, and instructional materials. There are currently 17 ESA programs in 14 states.

The evolution from traditional vouchers to ESAs represents a fundamental shift in school choice philosophy. A voucher is a tool for choosing a different school. An ESA is a tool for “unbundling” education itself. It empowers parents to move beyond being consumers of schools and become managers of their child’s educational portfolio, constructing a customized learning experience from various providers.

The Trend Toward Universal Access

A major policy shift is underway. Historically, these programs targeted specific student populations like students from low-income households, students with disabilities, or those attending low-performing schools. Today, the trend is rapidly moving toward universal eligibility, where any K-12 student in a state can participate, regardless of income or need. At least 12 private school choice programs now permit universal eligibility, though actual participation may still be limited by legislative appropriations or other requirements.

This expansion is redefining the financial and political relationship between public and private education. As states like Florida move to universal eligibility and direct billions of public dollars to these programs, they are no longer supplemental remedies but parallel, publicly funded private education systems. This raises profound questions about accountability, as participating private schools often aren’t subject to the same testing, curriculum, or non-discrimination requirements as public schools.

Teacher Workforce Policies

The quality of a state’s education system is linked to the quality of its educator workforce. States exert significant control through policies governing who can teach, how they’re evaluated, and employment rules. These policies create distinct labor markets for educators in each state.

Licensing and Reciprocity

Each state sets its own requirements for earning a teaching credential, creating a complex patchwork for aspiring educators. A major divergence point is how states handle licenses from other states, a concept known as reciprocity. The lack of consistent, seamless reciprocity creates barriers at state borders, hindering efficient allocation of the national teacher workforce.

While many states have agreements to streamline the process for out-of-state teachers, conditions vary widely. A teacher moving from one state to another may face requirements to take additional state-specific tests, complete coursework on state history or laws, or meet different experience benchmarks.

For example, a teacher with years of experience might be granted a provisional one-year license in Arizona but must pass state-specific exams for a full professional certificate. California doesn’t have full reciprocity with any state, requiring most out-of-state candidates to complete extra coursework or tests. This friction can exacerbate local teacher shortages by making it difficult for qualified, experienced educators to move to areas where they’re most needed.

Teacher Unions and Policy Influence

Teachers’ unions and professional organizations play a significant role in shaping education policy, but their influence and priorities are largely determined by the political and legal context of the state. They primarily exert influence through collective bargaining at the local level and political advocacy at the state level.

States with strong collective bargaining: In states like California and Massachusetts, teachers’ unions are powerful political actors. Through collective bargaining, they negotiate contracts governing nearly every aspect of the teaching profession, from salaries and class sizes to grievance procedures and teacher assignment rules. These unions also engage in high-level political advocacy, lobbying state legislatures on major policy issues.

For example, unions in California have been central to debates over teacher misconduct and parental notification policies, while the Massachusetts Teachers Association has actively opposed legislation related to literacy instruction and charter school expansion.

States with limited or no collective bargaining: In right-to-work states like Texas and Florida, teacher organizations shift roles. Without collective bargaining power, these groups function more as professional associations and political advocates. The Texas AFT, for example, focuses on lobbying the state legislature for increased school funding, affordable healthcare for educators, and opposition to private school vouchers.

In Florida, where the political climate has become increasingly challenging for unions, the Florida Education Association often finds itself in a defensive posture, fighting legislative proposals it views as attacks on public education, teacher autonomy, and the freedom to unionize.

The political climate of a state is a primary determinant of a teachers’ union’s role, shifting its focus from a bargaining agent defining workplace rules to a political force advocating for its vision of public education or a defensive entity working to protect the profession.

Four States Compared

To understand how disparate policy choices interact, it’s useful to examine the unique educational ecosystems that four large, influential states have constructed. Each has taken a distinct path on funding, accountability, and choice.

California: Equity and Local Control

California’s education system is defined by deep commitment to equity and local control, a philosophy embedded in both its funding and accountability structures.

Funding: The cornerstone is the Local Control Funding Formula, enacted in 2013. The LCFF collapsed dozens of restrictive state-directed programs into a single, more flexible funding stream. The formula provides a base grant for every student, with significant additional “supplemental” and “concentration” grants for districts serving high-need students—defined as English learners, students from low-income families, and foster youth.

This model explicitly drives more resources to students who need them most and gives local districts broad autonomy over spending. In exchange for this flexibility, districts must develop a Local Control and Accountability Plan detailing how additional funds will improve services for high-need students.

Accountability: California’s accountability system, the California School Dashboard, is a direct reflection of the LCFF’s philosophy. Instead of assigning schools a single rating or letter grade, the Dashboard reports performance across multiple state and local measures, including academic achievement, graduation rates, chronic absenteeism, and English learner progress.

Performance is displayed using a color-coded system (from red for lowest to blue for highest) for numerous student subgroups. This multi-indicator approach is designed to provide a more holistic view of school performance and focus attention on closing equity gaps for the same student groups targeted by the LCFF.

Choice: California has a large charter school sector. Under LCFF, charter schools receive funding on par with traditional public schools. However, reflecting the state’s emphasis on local control and the well-being of the entire public system, a 2019 law gave school districts authority to consider the fiscal impact on their existing students when deciding whether to approve a new charter school petition.

Texas: Centralized Accountability and Funding Equalization

Texas has long prioritized strong state-level accountability and has one of the nation’s most powerful school finance mechanisms for equalizing resources between rich and poor districts.

Funding: The Texas school finance system is built on the Foundation School Program, which determines state and local funding amounts for each district. The system’s most famous feature is its “recapture” provision, commonly known as the “Robin Hood” plan.

This provision requires property-wealthy districts to send a portion of their local tax revenue to the state, which then redistributes those funds to property-poor districts. This is a powerful state-level intervention designed to ensure “substantially equal access to similar revenue per student at similar tax effort” across all districts.

Accountability: Texas uses a high-stakes A-F accountability system to rate its schools and districts. This system provides a clear, top-down judgment of performance based on three main domains: Student Achievement, School Progress, and Closing the Gaps. The ratings are heavily influenced by student performance on state standardized tests (STAAR) and are intended to provide parents and the public with a simple, transparent measure of school quality.

Choice: Texas has a large and growing charter school sector. All charter schools in Texas must be operated by nonprofit entities; for-profit charters aren’t permitted. Charter schools are funded based on state formulas but, critically, don’t receive local property tax revenue, which is a major source of funding inequity compared to traditional public schools. Enrollment is open to all students within a charter’s approved geographic boundary, with random lotteries used when applications exceed available seats.

Florida: Market Competition and Expanded Choice

Florida has aggressively pursued an education reform agenda centered on market-based principles, creating the nation’s most expansive school choice landscape and pairing it with a simple, consumer-friendly accountability system.

Funding: Florida funds its schools through the Florida Education Finance Program, a weighted student funding formula similar in structure to those in many other states. The formula starts with a base student allocation and then applies “cost factors” to provide additional funding for students in different programs (e.g., exceptional student education, career education) and a “District Cost Differential” to adjust for regional cost-of-living differences.

Accountability: To complement its choice-based system, Florida uses a straightforward A-F School Grades system. This system calculates a single letter grade for each school based on up to twelve components, including student achievement on state tests, learning gains, graduation rates, and college and career acceleration. The easily understandable A-F grades are designed to provide parents with a clear metric to compare schools as they navigate the state’s many choice options.

Choice: School choice is the defining feature of Florida’s education policy. The state offers a vast array of options, including charter schools, magnet schools, and home education. Most significantly, Florida has led the nation in the expansion of private school choice.

In 2023, the state passed a landmark law making its voucher programs universally available to all K-12 students, regardless of family income. This has resulted in an explosion in participation and cost, with the state now directing billions of public dollars annually to fund tuition at private schools and other educational expenses through its Family Empowerment Scholarship programs.

Massachusetts: High Investment Under Tension

Massachusetts has long been regarded as a national leader in public education, characterized by high levels of funding, strong academic results, and a complex accountability system. This high-performing ecosystem is now facing intense internal debates over resources and school choice.

Funding: The state’s school finance system is governed by the Chapter 70 formula, established by the landmark Education Reform Act of 1993. The formula calculates a “foundation budget” for each district, representing the minimum funding level needed to provide adequate education based on student enrollment and demographic characteristics.

It then determines a required local contribution based on community property values and income, with state aid making up the difference. This formula has contributed to Massachusetts having one of the highest per-pupil spending levels in the nation.

Accountability: Massachusetts uses a sophisticated accountability system that avoids simple letter grades. Instead, it places schools into categories based on their performance on a range of indicators, including MCAS test scores (achievement), student growth percentiles, English language proficiency progress, and measures of school quality like chronic absenteeism and advanced coursework completion. The system calculates an “Accountability Percentile” for each school, showing how it ranks compared to other schools serving similar grade levels.

Choice: The central tension in Massachusetts education policy today revolves around its charter school cap. State law limits the number of charter schools and the percentage of a district’s budget that can be sent to them as tuition payments.

While the cap is generally 9% of a district’s spending, it can rise to 18% in the state’s lowest-performing districts, with the goal of increasing options in high-need communities. This cap is the subject of fierce political debate, pitting charter school advocates against a powerful coalition of teachers’ unions and traditional public school supporters who argue that charter growth siphons critical funds from district schools.

Student Performance Across States

After examining wide variations in state policies on funding, accountability, and choice, a critical question remains: How do students actually perform? The National Assessment of Educational Progress, often called “The Nation’s Report Card,” provides the only nationally comparable measure of student academic achievement.

Demographically Adjusted Scores

Directly comparing raw NAEP scores between states can be misleading. States serve vastly different student populations. States like Mississippi have much higher rates of child poverty than states like New Hampshire.

To provide a fairer comparison of how well state education systems are performing, the Urban Institute publishes demographically adjusted NAEP scores. These scores show how students in each state perform relative to demographically similar students across the country, controlling for factors like race, poverty, and disability status. This adjustment provides a better proxy for the effectiveness of a state’s policies by separating the impact of the education system from pre-existing demographic advantages or challenges.

The 2024 Results

The 2024 NAEP results showed that, nationally, student achievement has not returned to pre-pandemic levels. Reading scores declined at both the 4th and 8th-grade levels compared to 2022, while 4th-grade math scores saw a slight increase and 8th-grade math scores remained flat. The results also revealed a widening gap between the nation’s highest- and lowest-performing students.

An examination of the four spotlight states reveals how their distinct policy ecosystems translate into different patterns of student achievement.

Massachusetts: Consistently a top performer, Massachusetts ranked number one among all states in raw scores on all four assessments in 2024: 4th-grade reading and math, and 8th-grade reading and math. However, the state’s demographic advantages play a role in this success. After demographic adjustment, Massachusetts remains a top performer but falls to 5th in 4th-grade math and 4th in 4th-grade reading. Despite its high overall achievement, the state also has some of the nation’s largest achievement gaps between its white students and its Black and Hispanic students.

Florida: Florida’s 2024 performance was strong, particularly in 4th-grade reading and math, where its demographically adjusted scores place it among the top states in the country. This performance is often cited by proponents of the state’s focus on early literacy and school choice reforms.

Texas: Texas presents a more mixed picture. The state’s 4th-grade math scores were a bright spot in 2024, rising two points from 2022 and outperforming the national average. However, reading scores declined, and 8th-grade math scores dropped more sharply than the national average. A deeper look reveals that Texas’s policy ecosystem may produce particularly strong results for certain subgroups. The state’s English Learner students, for example, led the nation in 8th-grade reading and math performance.

California: California’s performance on the 2024 NAEP was generally near the national average across the four assessments, both in raw scores and after demographic adjustments.

These results show there’s no single formula for success. The NAEP data acts as a diagnostic tool, revealing the differential impacts of the policy bundles states have chosen. The performance of specific student subgroups within each state suggests that the effectiveness of a policy ecosystem is not uniform, and what works for one group of students may not work as well for another.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.