Archives for category: Funding
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

“The Grades Are In!” Support Our Public Schools!

By dianeravitch
June 23, 2026 //
3

The organization called “In the Public Interest” is a valuable source of information on the creeping (or galloping) privatization of public goods and services. Headed by Donald Cohen, ITPI keeps tabs on takeovers by billionaires and equity services of public services that we all need and squeezing a profit out of them.

ITPI reported on the report created by the Network for Public Education to evaluate state support for public schools.

We’ve long argued that increased funding for alternatives to public education usually comes at the expense of public education. While some politicians have insisted that it’s a “yes, and,” not an “either/or” proposition, we’ve known that, since the 1960s, the long game has been to slowly defund public schools while increasing high-stakes consequences through reliance on standardized testing and sanctions against schools and educators to justify further defunding. As schools are increasingly labeled as “failing,”  privatization in the guise of “school choice” becomes the only alternative. 

Now a new, comprehensive study from our friends at the Network for Public Education (NPE), a nonprofit public education advocacy organization, brings the receipts. 

Public Schooling in America: 2026 Report Card studied all 50 states, plus DC, reviewing nearly forty factors across four categories: Privatization, Protections for Homeschooled Students, School Funding, and Conditions for Teaching and Learning.

The study makes a clear case that the more states invest in private education alternatives, the less they invest in public education.

“The data confirm what we have long suspected: privatization and disinvestment go hand in hand,” says Carol Burris, Executive Director of NPE and the report’s author. “These are not states struggling with limited resources. They have made deliberate choices to abandon their public schools while directing billions in public dollars to private alternatives.”

The full report, a must-read for anyone who cares about education in the United States, is available here, or you can start with the executive summary here.

Donald Cohen
Executive Director

Categories Budget Cuts, Education Industry, Funding, Network for Public Education, Privatization, School Choice, Supporting public schools

If Iran and Oman Put Tolls on the Strait of Hormuz, They Will Strike It Rich

By dianeravitch
June 19, 2026 //
27

Blogger G.F. Brandenburg is upset about Trump’s disastrous deal with Iran. All the sanctions on this rogue state will be lifted, and Iran agreed to keep the Strait of Hormuz open for only 60 days. After 60 days, Iran and Oman will decide about the management of that vital body of water, through which moves about 20% of the world’s oil.

Brandenburg calculates how much money these two nations will haul in if they require ships to pay a toll. Annually, we are talking of revenues worth billions.

Categories Accountability, Funding, International, Trump

NPE Rates States for Support of Their Public Schools: 17 States Get an F! How Did Your State Rank?

By dianeravitch
June 15, 2026 //
7

The Network for Public Education, which I co-founded with science teacher Anthony Cody in 2012-2013, supports the improvement of public schools and opposes privatization of public funding for schooling. Nearly 90% of children in the U.S. are enrolled in public schools. Their schools should be staffed by qualified teachers and fully funded. NPE works with state organizations that share our commitment to the principle: Public funds for public schools.

The following report was produced by NPE Executive Director Carol Burris and staff. Burris retired as a career teacher and award-winning high school principal.

NEW REPORT GIVES 17 STATES FAILING GRADES FOR ABANDONING PUBLIC SCHOOLS

Network for Public Education’s Most Comprehensive Report Card Finds Privatization and Disinvestment Go Hand in Hand

New York, New York

The Network for Public Education (NPE) released Public Schooling in America: Measuring Each State’s Commitment to Public Schools (2026), an expansive state-by-state assessment of support for public education. The report evaluates all 50 states and the District of Columbia across four categories: Privatization, Protections for Homeschooled Students, School Funding, and Conditions for Teaching and Learning. It documents a troubling national pattern: the statehouses most aggressively redirecting public money toward private alternatives are the most neglectful of their public schools, teachers, and students. NPE’s analysis found a strong, statistically significant negative relationship between privatization and policies that support public schools (p < 0.0001).

Only two states — Nebraska and Vermont — earned an A. Seventeen states received an F, failing to meet even 40% of the points allocated across NPE’s 39 standards. Florida ranked last, scoring 14 out of 102 possible points, with Arizona close behind. “The data confirm what we have long suspected: privatization and disinvestment go hand in hand,” said Carol Burris, Executive Director of NPE and the report’s author. “These are not states struggling with limited resources. They have made deliberate choices to abandon their public schools while directing billions in public dollars to private alternatives.”

The report draws on original research in addition to research from other organizations — including the Education Law Center, the Learning Policy Institute, and EdChoice — to deliver a comprehensive assessment of public education and privatization across 39 distinct factors. These include teacher-to-student ratios, teacher satisfaction, school funding levels, and the degree to which laws governing vouchers, charter schools, and homeschools protect both taxpayers and students.

Public Schooling in America also provides a roadmap for reform, showing policymakers and advocates exactly where laws and policies must change to better serve students and rein in the serious, well-documented problems created by privatized alternatives.

“Public schools are the only institutions in American life obligated to welcome every child, regardless of circumstance,” NPE President Diane Ravitch added. “They build community and democracy. They are as American as apple pie.”

The full report is available here. 

About the Network for Public Education

The Network for Public Education is a nonprofit advocacy organization dedicated to protecting, preserving, and strengthening public schools for every child in America.

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Democracy, Education Industry, Education Reform, Funding, Privatization, School Choice, Supporting public schools

Trump Administration Wants All Federal Grants to Be Subject to a Loyalty Test–Loyalty to Him and His Policies

By dianeravitch
June 8, 2026 //
7

Despite appearances, the most powerful person in the Trump administration is not Donald Trump: it’s Russell Vought, Director of Office of Management and Budget. He is the brains of this administration. Vought was at the Heritage Foundation and was one of the writers of project 2025. He controls the budget and makes the decisions about which government programs should live or die. Trump has impulses, whims, and passing fancies; Vought is methodical and determined to impose his rightwing views on the entire federal government. Every federal grant, Vought believes, should align with Trump’s anti-woke, anti-DEI agenda.

Tony Romm wrote about Vought’s strategy in The New York Times:

The White House is seeking to exert more control over billions of dollars in annual government grants, aiming to restrict a vast swath of funding — in health, housing, science and transportation — so that it primarily serves the purposes and organizations politically aligned with President Trump.

While the administration says that its primary goal is to safeguard taxpayer money, its proposal amounts to a major escalation in its attempt to reimagine the nation’s spending, even as Congress and the courts continue to rebuke the president for abusing such powers.

Mr. Trump’s ambitions were made clear in a roughly 400-page blueprint that was released to little fanfare on Friday. If finalized, it would require all federal grants to be approved by the president’s political appointees, who must ensure that the money would “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.”

For the agencies that issue those awards and the nonprofit groups, local governments, universities and other entities that receive the money, the Trump administration would also impose a set of highly prescriptive and political criteria.

The government could not issue grants to projects or groups that “deny the biological reality of sex or the sex binary in humans,” for example. Nor could it seek to fund initiatives that “promote anti-American values,” contribute to illegal immigration, advance diversity, equity and inclusion or assist in voter registration.

The rules would further limit the ability of grant recipients to engage in some “issue advocacy.” Those that are funded would be scrutinized for their compliance with “religious liberty laws” and their “memberships and affiliations” with outside groups. And they could face the outright termination of their grants if the Trump administration someday determines that their actions are not in the “public interest.”

The restrictions echo the string of executive orders that Mr. Trump signed shortly after returning to office, many of which have been challenged or blocked in court. This time, however, the White House has pursued its restrictions by proposing a regulation, which is expected to become final after the government solicits public comment. The result could be applied far more broadly, and perhaps in ways that are harder to fight legally or undo later, according to budget experts.

The consequences could fall hardest on health and science, a field in which Mr. Trump has pursued some of the steepest cuts in his second term.

In exchange for federal assistance, researchers would face limits on the subjects that they can explore, the foreign labs with which they may collaborate and even the conferences at which they can appear. Dr. Georges C. Benjamin, the chief executive of the American Public Health Association, a professional organization and advocacy group, said the policy could “devastate innovation, science and research” in the United States.

Categories Bias, Budget Cuts, Censorship, Ethics, Evil, Extremism, Fascism, Funding, Health, Research

If Dr. Seuss Opined About How to Fix School Funding…

By dianeravitch
June 3, 2026 //
10

Bruce D. Baker is one of the nation’s foremost experts on school finance. He is now a Professor of Teaching and Learning at the University of Miami.

His blog is SchoolFinance 101. He recently mused about how Dr. Seuss would explain school finance and equality of educational opportunity.

He wrote:

Alas – I’ve found a use for OpenAI – Converting my deepest theoretical musings on school finance into Seussical prose: 

Oh, the Funds You Will Flum!
(A Zany Zoodle on Equity, Adequacy, and Opportunity Gum)

In a flibber-flap land of the Schollaroo Schools,
With Sneetchy-like districts and Yoppity rules,
There lived some young learners (some tall, some quite small),
Some had lots of Zoom-Zooks… some nothing at all.

Now the Board of Big Thinkers (in hats three feet wide)
Said, “Fairness! We’ll fix it!” and puffed up with pride.
“We’ll give EVERY school just the same little stack—
Same dollars! Same books! Same chalk in each pack!”

But the Glumguzzle Kids from the Far Fizzle Vale
Said, “That sameness you’re selling is starting to fail!
For we’ve got more needs than the Zazzberry crew—
Same stuff doesn’t make us equal to you!”

“Oh fiddle-dee-FOOF!” said a Number McNerd,
Adjusting his graphs (which were wildly absurd).
“If fairness is sameness, then sameness we’ll do!”
But the data went BLORP! and the theory fell through.

Then a Wise Whiffling Wonk (with a long curly tie)
Said, “You’re asking the wrong kind of ‘what’ and of ‘why.’
Don’t stare at the STUFF—don’t just measure the pile—
Ask what kids can do at the end of the mile!”

“Set goals!” cried the Wonk. “Let outcomes be king!
A common big target for every small thing!
If all kids must reach the same Zibble-Zoo height,
Then fund them so EACH one can climb it just right!”

“But WAIT!” cried the Snargle from Budget Bay Bog,
“You’re forgetting the Blibbers! The Froons! And the Fog!
Some start way behind on the Great Learning Track—
You can’t just say ‘equal!’ and pat your own back!”

So they huddled and muddled and scribbled in ink,
With equations that wobbled and charts that would clink.
Till they stumbled—KERSPLOOSH!—on a curious rule:
“To be truly fair, you fund not by the school…

But by NEED!” they all shouted. “Yes, NEED is the key!
More Zorks for the Borks! More help for the Wee!
Unequal inputs (now isn’t that neat?)
Are how equal outcomes can finally meet!”

Then in strutted Adequacy (round as a bun),
Saying, “I’ve got a shortcut! A quick way! A fun!
Just set a low bar—call it ‘good enough done’—
And declare every system a marvelous one!”

“For school’s not a puddle—it’s more like a race,
Or a ladder, or jungle, or zig-zaggy place!
Where where you land matters (oh yes, it is true),
For jobs and for futures and who gets what who!”

“Oh NO!” cried the Wonk, with a wobble and squeak,
“That ‘good enough’ thinking is terribly weak!
If some kids zoom high on a rocket of flair,
While others just hover… that still isn’t fair!”

“So adequacy?” asked a small nervous Nerp.
“Is it useful at all, or just policy burp?”

“Why yes!” said the Wonk. “But don’t let it shrink—
When budgets go BLINK! and revenues BLINK!
That floor must stay sturdy, not sink in the goo,
Or opportunity slips right away from your view.”

Then they built a GRAND GIZMO (with levers and springs),
That balanced these tricky, conflicting things:

One lever for NEED (pull it higher for some),
One lever for GOALS (so all kids can become),
One lever for BASES (tax gaps big and wide),
So poor little districts don’t lag far behind.

The machine whirred and clanked—CLACK-CLUNKETY-CLACK!—
Spitting fairness (at last!) from the back of the stack.

And the children? The children went ZOOMITY-ZEE!
Climbing their ladders as far as could be!
Not all in the same way, not all at the same pace,
But each with a real, fighting, fair-starting place.

So remember, dear reader (with eyebrows or none),
This tale of the Funds You Will Flum when begun:

Don’t trust simple sameness—it’s often a trick.
Don’t settle for “adequate”—that’s far too quick.
Set bold common goals, but fund smartly indeed—
And tilt all the dollars in favor of NEED.

For a system that’s fair (in this wibbly world stew)
Must be stretchy and thoughtful and slightly askew—
A bit Seussian strange, but precisely on track…

Or the whole thing goes SPLOOP!
…and we’re right back to whack.

Categories Equity, Funding, Humor

How States Can Stop Religious Charter Schools

By dianeravitch
May 28, 2026 //
2

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to approve religious charter schools. Given their disregard for the principle of separation of church and state, the majority might approve the idea. This would be yet another raid on the funding of public schools.

We hope this information is helpful to your state.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE May 26, 2026

Network for Public Education Applauds New Research Brief Warning States of Religious Charter School Threat

Researchers Offer Clear Legislative Path to Ensure Charter Schools Cannot Engage in Discrimination

[New York, New York] — The Network for Public Education (NPE) today praised the release of a critical new policy brief examining the looming threat posed by anticipated U.S. Supreme Court decisions on religious charter schools. Avoiding the Supreme Court’s Religious Charter-School Trap: Governance Change for the New Legal Era, authored by Kevin G. Welner (University of Colorado Boulder), Carol Burris (NPE Executive Director), and Preston C. Green III (University of Connecticut), offers states a concrete legislative roadmap to safeguard public education before it is too late.

Forty-two states and the District of Columbia face sweeping changes to their charter school systems as the Supreme Court appears poised to deliver what the brief calls a “one-two punch.” In the coming terms, the Court is expected first to establish a free-exercise right for taxpayer-funded religious schools to engage in faith-based discrimination, and then to prohibit states from excluding religious organizations from running independent charter schools — effectively exempting religious charter schools from the anti-discrimination and accountability laws that apply to all public schools.  

The brief makes clear, however, that states are not helpless to act.  States that structure charter governance through public entities — rather than private, independent organizations — are shielded from the Court’s free-exercise reasoning. Four states, Alaska, Kansas, Maryland, and Virginia, already place all charter schools under publicly elected school boards and are therefore already protected. Nine additional states allow district-governed charters as well as independent charters, thus shielding some of their charter sector.  

“State legislators can head off the Court’s radical change by strengthening the fundamental publicness of their charter schools,” said Welner. “Legislators can protect the charter-school sectors against the imposed transformation by changing how they are governed.”

NPE President Diane Ravitch applauds this research for providing exactly the kind of actionable guidance that policymakers urgently need. “District-governed charter schools not only preserve civil rights protections and constitutional safeguards — they also provide stronger financial oversight, reduce the risk of mismanagement and fraud, and give voice through their elected school boards.”

The full brief is available at: https://nepc.colorado.edu/publication/religious-charter

###

The Network for Public Education is a nonprofit advocacy organization committed to protecting, preserving, and strengthening public schools.

Categories Accountability, Budget Cuts, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Funding, Religion, Separation of church and state

Scientists Protest Trump’s Firing of Every Member of the National Science Board

By dianeravitch
May 15, 2026 //
1

STAND UP FOR SCIENCE

Thousands of NASEM members have signed and this morning submitted an Open Letter to Congress urging them to demand Trump restore the 22 National Science Board members he illegally fired on April 24th.

Sign up here to join our effort.

OPEN LETTER TO CONGRESS DEMANDING THE RESTORATION OF THE NSB

The following is an Open Letter to Congress concerning the Trump Administration’s recent firing of all 22 seated members of the National Science Board, the entity which, by law, oversees the National Science Foundation and performs other functions. We invite the public to join us by signing below as a supporting endorser of this letter.

Dear Honorable Members of Congress:

We write to express our deep dismay at the abrupt dismissal by the White House of all 22 members of the National Science Board.  This body was created by Congress 76 years ago at the inception of the US National Science Foundation to oversee it, recommend national strategic policy for scientific research, and provide apolitical scientific advice to Congress and the President.  This dismissal comes at a time when the National Science Foundation has been moved from its dedicated facility to a different building, is operating with no Director and a drastically-reduced staff, and a proposed budget cut of more than 50% from FY 26 levels.  In short, the dismissal of the National Science Board members ramps up an alarming attack on the ability of the US to engage in basic and applied research, and to be competitive globally, particularly given that China is now investing more in R&D than the US. This dismantling of a critical national advisory body is but one of many such actions taken by the current administration that deprives our government of independent, apolitical, oversight and expert advice, not only in the sciences but also in healthcare and technology.

We stand with the staff of the National Science Foundation, many of whom have lost job protections, and whose alerts to Congress in July 2025 about the threats to the NSF mission have gone unaddressed.  We stand with the National Science Board, and call on Congress, as an equal branch of government, to rapidly and firmly support science by calling for the reinstatement of terminated National Science Board members and appointment of new ones to fill vacant slots, and that as required by law (NSF Act) the Board members are “eminent in the fields of the basic, medical, or social sciences, engineering, agriculture, education, research management, or public affairs” and chosen “solely on the basis of established records of distinguished service.”  Congress has in the past been a responsible and wise steward of our nation’s scientific infrastructure, and we ask that it once again meets the moment to protect our nation’s scientific competitiveness, economic well-being, and national security.

Respectfully signed by,

Elected members of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, in their personal capacities, along with our supporters and allies in the science, technology, medical, healthcare and business communities.

[After endorsing below, please view the NASEM signatories and endorsers here.]

Categories Ethics, Funding, Resistance, Science, Trump

Senator Mark Kelly: We Need Great Public Schools, Not Vouchers

By dianeravitch
May 6, 2026 //
3

Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona is a decorated military veteran and a former astronaut. He recently introduced legislation to roll back Trump’s federal voucher program. The Wall Street Journal denounced Kelly’s proposal, and he responded with this letter to the editor.

He wrote:

Your editorial “Mark Kelly’s Bad Education Choice” (April 18) misses some key facts. We can all agree on one thing: Every parent wants their kid to get a quality education that sets them up to succeed. There’s no better path to the middle class than our public schools. I’m the son of two cops. I went to public schools from kindergarten through the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy. That system gave me a shot, and every kid deserves the same, no matter where they grow up. Massive voucher programs threaten that.

Take my state. Arizona’s universal voucher program now costs about $1 billion a year and is growing. In your editorial, you note that’s only 8% of the state’s education budget, but that billion dollars is forcing real tradeoffs in the state budget, like cuts to community colleges and water infrastructure in a state facing a severe drought. Meanwhile, more than half of voucher recipients were already being privately educated. That means in Arizona hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars are going to subsidize private tuition for families who were already paying for it.

The federal tax credit your editorial defends isn’t free, either. You acknowledge this reality when you criticize clean energy tax credits. With these education tax credits, the cost could reach as high as $50 billion in lost revenue in a single year. That adds to the federal deficit and will likely largely benefit wealthier Americans’ taxes because the credit is nonrefundable. Likewise, because the scholarships can go to households with up to 300% of the area median income, it will subsidize families who can already afford to spend thousands out of pocket to send their kids to private schools.

And public schools across the country will pay a price. When students leave, funding drops. Schools cut programs and staff, sometimes creating a downward spiral. It’s happening in Arizona now. Then what “choice” does a parent have when their local school closes? I support parents who choose private school or homeschooling for their kids. But if we want better outcomes for everyone—higher scores, higher graduation rates—the answer isn’t to take resources out of public schools, it’s to make them better.

I refuse to accept that in the richest country in the history of the world, only a small percentage of our kids get a good education. We should aim higher. My dream when I was a kid was to become an astronaut. I got to achieve that. Every kid deserves the chance to chase their dream too, and that starts with good public schools.

Sen. Mark Kelly (D., Ariz.)

Categories Arizona, Budget Cuts, Education Industry, Funding, Supporting public schools, Vouchers

King Charles’ Speech to Congress

By dianeravitch
April 30, 2026 //
26

King Charles III came to Washington, D.C. to smooth over some rough patches in Britain’s relationship with the United States, all of it driven by Trump’s egotism and insults.

The King might have addressed those differences directly, but instead he chose to highlight the values and history we share. In his speech, he appealed for a revival of our strong partnership.

What was most interesting was not what he said, but what he implied. He referred to General George Washington. He mentioned Abraham Lincoln’s “Gettysburg Address.” He said that an acre of land at Runnymede, where Magna Carta was signed, was designated as American soil, as a tribute to President Kennedy. I don’t recall anything he said about Trump, unless it was a perfunctory thank you at the opening.

On the issues, he took a strong stance against Trump, clearly but obliquely. Charles saluted our Christian heritage but then spoke of respecting all people of every religion and no religion.

He made strong comments about protecting the environment, in contrast to Trump’s hostility to the very idea of climate change.

When he spoke about NATO, which Trump berates, the audience applauded loudly.

When Charles spoke of the importance of protecting Ukraine, the audience leap to their feet and gave sustained applause.

Gracious, literate, articulate–everything that Trump is not–Charles was applauded by both sides of the aisle.

Why can’t we have a President like that?

Categories Democracy, Environment, Ethics, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of the Press, Funding

ACT Scores Show No “Miracle”

By dianeravitch
April 29, 2026 //
15

I begin by saying for the zillionth time that I do not believe in miracles or panaceas in education. There is not one way of teaching that is just right for all students. Teachers know this. And yes, I believe in the value of phonics as part of teaching reading.

I am not a proponent of the “science of teaching,” because I do not believe that there is only one best way to teach reading or math or science or history. I do not believe that legislators in the state or Congress should mandate HOW to teach. Well-prepared, experienced teachers know how to teach and are at their best when they have reasonable class sizes so they can give extra time to students who can’t keep up.

When state legislators start telling surgeons how to operate on patients, let me know.

Home life affects learning outcomes. All standardized tests show that family income affects test scores; the kids from the wealthiest families are typically at the top, while the kids who grow up in poverty typically have the lowest scores.

This is not because rich kids are inherently better than poor kids but because rich kids have advantages associated with family income, such as educated parents, regular medical care, good nutrition, economic security, better -funded schools, smaller class sizes, and predictability about where and how they live.

Poor kids often do not have these advantages because they are poor. The person who said it best and pulled together the data is Richard Rothstein, in his important book, Class and Schools. I first read it in 2007, and it was pivotal in changing my views about educational achievement and score gaps, and their causes.

Mississippi–and also Louisiana and Alabama–have been hailed for their improved reading scores on the NAEP. Fourth-grade scores have improved impressively. I am very happy for them. I have no doubt that their teachers work very hard and are not paid as well as they should be.

But I looked for an external monitor to see if there had been a “miracle.” A long-lasting miracle, based on their adoption of the “science of reading.” And I landed on the ACT, because in nine states (including Mississippi), 100% of students take the same test.

Mississippi started giving ACT to all juniors in 2015. First cohort for the “reform” hit 11th grade in 2022. If reading had improved dramatically, it should be reflected in rising ACT scores for the state’s students.

Here are the Mississippi scores:

Average ACT Composite Scores for Mississippi (Junior Year Administration)

  • 2025: 17.5
  • 2024: 17.4
  • 2023: 17.5
  • 2022: 17.4
  • 2021: 17.3 

Key Trends and Data

  • Graduating Class of 2023: Average composite score was 17.6.
  • 2024 Graduates: Average score was 17.7.
  • Participation: Mississippi typically reports 100% participation due to statewide testing, which contributes to a lower average compared to states with lower, self-selected participation rates.
  • Demographics: As of 2025, 9.5% of juniors met all four ACT readiness benchmarks. 

In states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Louisiana, the average score for Black students typically ranges from 15.0 to 16.5, roughly following national averages for this demographic (which was 16.0 in 2024).

As of 2025 and 2026, nine states have maintained 100% ACT participation because they mandate the test for all public high school graduates.

States with 100% ACT Participation

  • Alabama
  • Arizona
  • Kentucky (Note: Kentucky plans to switch to the SAT in Spring 2026)
  • Louisiana
  • Mississippi
  • Nevada
  • Oklahoma
  • Tennessee
  • Wyoming 

Recent and Upcoming Changes

Illinois: Switched to the ACT as its mandatory college entrance exam starting in the 2024-2025 school year, making it a graduation requirement for all public high school students.

South Dakota: Scheduled to join the list of states requiring the ACT starting in the 2025-2026 school year.

Nebraska: Frequently reports near-universal participation (often cited at 95-100%) due to state-funded testing initiatives. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

Why Participation is 100%

In these states, the ACT is typically used as a statewide accountability assessment. The exam is provided for free during regular school hours, ensuring that every student—regardless of their college plans—takes the test. This leads to more equitable access but often results in lower statewide average scores compared to states where only high-achieving, college-bound students self-select to take the exam.

You can check the ACT State-by-State Average Scores on the official ACT Website.

Categories Accountability, Childhood, Equity, Funding, Poverty
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »