This post comes to us from Brooke Wheeler, the superintendent of education with the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction. The author would like to thank Ziev Dalsheim-Kahane, criminal justice and public safety policy advisor for Gov. Roy Cooper, for support on this post. This is a continuation of our Chair’s Initiative on Students Impacted by the Justice System. All views expressed in this post are those of the author.
In January 2024, North Carolina signed onto the Council of State Government’s national Reentry 2030 initiative, which aims to drastically improve reentry success for people exiting prison and those under supervision by 2030. Gov. Roy Cooper issued an Executive Order that prompts a holistic government approach to reduce barriers that people who are incarcerated encounter when they are released from prison.
According to the U.S. Department of Justice, state governments spend at least $50 billion per year on corrections activities; however, rehabilitation and reentry services are not always prioritized in funding decisions. This falls short of setting people who are incarcerated up for success upon reentry into their communities. In collaboration with all other state cabinet agencies, the North Carolina Department of Adult Correction has created a proactive strategic plan that includes cross-agency goals, objectives and strategies to meet the needs of individuals who are reentering their communities Goal one of the strategic plan seeks to improve economic mobility of formerly incarcerated people by increasing resources, education, and employment opportunities pre- and post-release.
Almost all people who are incarcerated will return to their communities after serving their prison sentences. However, many find themselves back in prison within three to five years. Education is one of the most effective interventions for reducing recidivism. Nationally, the literacy rates of incarcerated people are far below those of people who have not been incarcerated. In fact, North Carolina data demonstrated that almost one-third of all people who are incarcerated read below a sixth-grade level. North Carolina has a mandatory education policy that requires students who do not have a high school diploma/equivalency to enroll in high school equivalency programming for a minimum of six months. Additionally, we are partnering with various entities, including the NC Community College Systems Office, NC Department of Commerce, and the NC Workforce Credential Advisory Council to increase workforce and degree credentials available to the incarcerated population.
Incarcerated people who participate in prison education programs are 43% less likely to return to prison than those who do not participate. E.O. 303 mandated ten directives for education, which, when coupled with the reauthorization of Pell Grants for people who are incarcerated, comes at an opportune time. As part of the strategic plan, the state has created an education and a prison education consortium to “develop local, labor market-driven educational pathways that will guide course offerings and transferable pathways to complete a diploma, degree, or credential.” So far, this collaboration includes the North Carolina Department of Commerce, Belk Foundation, Jobs for the Future, Formally Incarcerated College Graduates Network (FICGN) and prison education providers, to name a few. These efforts seek to increase economic mobility for the incarcerated population through education and employment training.
Strategic alignment in state government, as demonstrated by North Carolina’s Executive Order, is critical to reaching goals but can only be achieved through collaboration and the elimination of silos. Through collaboration with various partners, NC demonstrated nearly quadruple the number of education program completions in 2023-2024 over the previous three-year average. Further, the education subcommittee is actively working to reduce barriers and create new partnerships to increase industry recognized credentials available in state prisons.
These intentional collaboration between agencies and shared goals are guiding North Carolina toward drastically improved education pathways for individuals impacted by the justice system. No matter your political beliefs, it is in the best interest of communities around the country to educate and assist people who are incarcerated through successful reentry. This can take the form of supporting education, rehabilitative and employment opportunities for people who are formerly incarcerated. When our neighbors are safe and successful, our neighborhoods and our families are safer and more successful.
States frequently make changes to their K-12 funding formulas. We have identified 39 enacted bills in 2023 and 22 so far in 2024 that alter K-12 funding formulas in our State Education Policy Tracking tool. These changes are often relatively small tweaks to the existing structure such as salary increases or other inflationary growth.
However, in 2024, Colorado and Mississippi enacted significant K-12 funding reforms — joining other states that have done so in the past five years like Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada and Tennessee. In both Colorado and Mississippi, the new formulas are student-based models, 
which allocate funds to districts based on each student’s unique learning needs.
These models have become increasingly attractive to lawmakers because they offer distinct advantages in terms of transparency, local autonomy and student equity.
Colorado enacted H.B. 1448, which creates a new school funding formula starting in the 2025-26 school year to be phased in over six years — although, if enacted, the governor’s budget proposal would extend the phase-in to a seventh year. This overhaul, years in the making, multiplies the base per student amount, currently set at $8,496 per student, with weights that direct additional resources to student groups and districts. For additional information, see the summary prepared by Colorado’s Legislative Council staff.
Mississippi adopted H.B. 4130, which establishes the Mississippi Student Funding Formula starting in 2024-25 to replace their 27-year-old formula. The new formula sets the base amount of $6,695 per student, adjusts for inflation through 2028 and includes a three-year hold harmless policy for school districts. In addition, the state will shift from attendance to enrollment for counting students for funding purposes and update their counts of low-income students. For additional information, see the summary prepared by the Mississippi Department of Education.
Other states have made major shifts in 2024 as well. Missouri enacted S.B. 727 that increases minimum teacher pay from $25,000 to $40,000, creates the Teacher Baseline Salary Grant fund and phases in a new student count method that incorporates both attendance and enrollment counts rather than just relying on attendance. Virginia passed S.B. 272 to differentiate support for English learner students based on English proficiency level by increasing staffing support for students with the greatest learning needs.
Replacing complex K-12 funding systems that impact so many diverse communities and have been refined over decades is not an easy undertaking. Colorado and Mississippi show that states can overcome these challenges and significant change can be achieved with leadership and community support.
This guest blog post comes from Nara Nayar, a technical assistance consultant at the American Institutes for Research® (AIR®) who co-leads the Indigenous Student Identification Project with the Indigenous Education State Leaders’ Network. Views expressed in guest posts are those of the author.
A recent report from the Indigenous Student Identification Project (ISI) found that K-12 Indigenous students may be undercounted by as much as 70% across the United States.
This has nationwide consequences for school funding and the services they can provide for Indigenous students. The U.S. Department of Education is developing new guidance on the collection and reporting of race and ethnicity data. This gives leaders time to consider how Indigenous students are currently counted, the real-world consequences of undercounting and emerging best practices to collect more accurate, appropriate and accountable Indigenous student data.
The Problem
The impetus for ISI was the Indigenous Education State Leaders’ Network (IESLN) — a community of practice for more than 20 state education agencies’ Indigenous education staff. IESLN members expressed concern that some Indigenous students are not receiving services because they aren’t being counted. While there are many ways students may self-identify as Indigenous (racially, politically, culturally, socially, by descent, etc.), it’s apparent that current federal demographic data doesn’t accurately account for the diversity of Indigenous identities.
The Consequences
For Indigenous students to receive a culturally responsive and relevant education, they have to be identified as Indigenous in school data. If schools don’t know how many students they have, how can educators make sure they’re integrating culturally appropriate practices in the classroom? Culturally appropriate education is correlated with several positive outcomes for American Indian and Alaska Native students.
If state education agencies and districts don’t know how many Indigenous students they have, how can they ensure their systems serve their students and know their eligibility for federal funds? This is one of the most significant impacts of undercounts: Schools lose out on funding they could use to support Indigenous students. For example, according to analysis, more inclusive counts of Indigenous students could lead to 1,806 additional districts being eligible for Title VI Indian Education Formula Grant funding and enable 1,029 American Indian and Alaska Native data in public student reporting.
Promising Methods
In response to these concerns, several states have already started implementing innovative methods to count Indigenous students. The ISI and IESLN have identified three key indicators to guide high-quality Indigenous student counts, the AAA Standard: accuracy, appropriateness and accountability to communities.
AAA Standard-based best practices are beginning to emerge. These include using inclusive counts wherever possible, ensuring data collection tools allow for later disaggregation by race and ethnicity to avoid eliminating American Indian and Alaska Native students in data, and consulting with Tribal governments on the collection of Tribal affiliation and other data.
Tribal affiliation is a whole different grain size of data collection that allows for greater disaggregation of American Indian and Alaska Native students and can facilitate data sharing with Tribes. For example, in 2023, Arizona began to collect Tribal affiliation data alongside race and ethnicity data and became the first state to allow Indigenous students to select affiliation with multiple Tribal nations. Minnesota has been collecting additional data on Indigenous students since 2018 and uses an inclusive counting methods to inform state reporting requirements, policy implementation and eligibility for state aid. These and a growing number of states including Michigan, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Oregon, Utah and Wisconsin have all worked with the Tribal nations to identify Indigenous student identification needs and move toward improving their state systems to collect more accurate, appropriate and accountable data.
Though the Department of Education is in the process of developing new federal guidelines, states don’t have to wait for that guidance. It’s an exciting time for partners at every level to ensure every Indigenous student is properly counted and receives the services to which they are entitled.
We track state-level elections each cycle to monitor new leadership and its potential impact on education policy. With new governors, state legislators and education leaders across the country, we can expect changes for students and families across the country after the 2024 elections.
Governors
Eleven states — Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia — held gubernatorial races. We tracked major party platforms in each of these races. Read our companion post in this election series for more information on those platform trends.
The newly elected governors in Delaware, Indiana and New Hampshire (as well as Vermont incumbent Gov. Phil Scott) each have the authority to directly appoint the chief state school officer. And as noted in our pre-elections coverage, 10 of these 11 states (all but Utah) have governance structures where the governor also appoints at least one member to the state board of education.
State Legislative Elections
With 5,508 seats in 43 House chambers and 42 Senate chambers including the unicameral Nebraska state legislature up for election, the changes in state legislatures will heavily influence education policy.
Some of the authorities that the newly elected or re-elected state legislators will have include creating a policy structure for public schools through legislation; determining budget allocations for public schools and state education departments; and ensuring that specific student populations are receiving equitable and adequate services and supports.
Prior to this year’s election, Republicans controlled 60 chambers to Democrats’ 39; and the Minnesota Senate evenly was split between the Republican and Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party. This amounted to 23 Republican trifectas — where the state house, senate and governor’s office are all controlled by a single party — as well as 17 Democratic trifectas and 10 states with divided governments. Notably, Pennsylvania was the only state Legislature with split control between the legislative chambers in 2024.
While many races have yet to be called, as of Nov. 19, 2024, only the Michigan House is set to change party leadership with Republicans gaining control, making Michigan and Pennsylvania the only states with split legislative chambers. Generally, Republicans made gains in legislative party strength, though Democrats are on track to have ended Republican supermajorities in North Carolina and Wisconsin. It appears that Republicans have ended Democratic supermajorities in Colorado and Vermont.
Elsewhere, the Democrats regained a one-seat majority in the Minnesota State Senate with a victory in a special election. Pending recounts, the Minnesota State House is currently tied. Alaska’s House of Representatives election resulted in no numerical majority and will be governed by a power-sharing agreement. The Arizona Senate and Maine House of Representatives have yet to be called, pending recounts.
And with no party changes in the 11 executive office races, the historically high number of state leadership trifectas appears to hold steady for 2025. As of publication, these elections appear to result in 23 Republican trifectas, 15 Democratic trifectas and 12 states with divided governments.
Chief State School Officers
In the four states with elections for chief state school officers, two new partisan and two incumbent nonpartisan executives were elected.
In Montana, Republican Susie Hedalen will succeed longtime State Superintendent Elsie Arntzen, who was term limited. Hedalen’s campaign for state superintendent focused on collaboration with lawmakers and state agencies, strengthening family engagement and reviewing the state’s school funding formula.
In North Carolina, the state superintendent role will flip parties as Democrat Mo Green is set to succeed State Superintendent Catherine Truitt, who lost in the Republican primary earlier this year. Green’s priorities for students in the Tarheel State include increasing funding, improving early academic interventions, raising educator compensation and supporting students.
In the nonpartisan races in North Dakota and Washington, both incumbent candidates retained their seats. North Dakota Superintendent Kirsten Baesler’s campaign emphasized local control, preparing students for life after graduation and ensuring teachers are paid well without increasing property taxes. Washington Superintendent Chris Reykdal similarly advocated for increased educator compensation and local control while emphasizing fully funding education, mental health services and modernizing graduation requirements, including expansion of career and technical education opportunities.
State Boards of Education
The state boards of education elections in nine states and the District of Columbia will also greatly impact education policymaking, especially as some of these boards either confirm or directly appoint their state’s chief state school officer.
Ballot Measures
Voters acted on 16 ballot measures across 14 states on topics including funding, school choice and assessments. Here are the results:
Passed:
Failed:
You can find a quick overview of this year’s elections results in our 2024 elections infographic. With the elections behind us and the legislative session quickly approaching, remember that we are ready with resources to help stakeholders navigate the outcomes.
This year, voters in eleven states took to the ballot box to elect their governors. Three incumbents — Govs. Greg Gianforte in Montana, Spencer Cox in Utah and Phil Scott in Vermont — held onto their governorship. The eight states with guaranteed new executive leadership saw no party turnover. Republicans held the state executive office in Indiana, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota and West Virginia. Democrats held Delaware, North Carolina and Washington.
We tracked the education policy platforms of candidates from both major parties, as stated on official campaign websites, to identify the priorities and trends across the country.
Education Policy Issues Among All Gubernatorial Candidates
Republican candidates prioritized school choice — emphasized as a central issue in five campaigns — by focusing on the expansion of charter schools and other school choice initiatives. These candidates also stressed the importance of parental involvement in education, local control, and school safety.
On the other hand, Democratic candidates emphasized education funding and finance, which was the focal point of six candidates. They also tended to prioritize early childhood education, noted in six instances, and student support services, which were featured in three candidates’ platforms.
Despite some differences, both parties share common ground on several issues. Each place a strong emphasis on teacher recruitment and retention, a stated priority for 14 of the 22 candidates, and both advocate for workforce development through career and technical education. Additionally, both major parties stressed the importance of improving access to quality education.
Education Priorities Outlined by Incumbent Governors and Governor-Elects
In Delaware, governor-elect Matt Meyer is prioritizing school funding including an increase to school impact fees on new developments to enable local school districts to accommodate for growing student populations. Meyer’s campaign also supported a number of recruitment and retention policies, including salary increases for teachers and paraprofessionals, promoting high-retention pathways into teaching and funding teacher residencies. He also cited early childhood education, literacy and curriculum improvements, and workforce developments as being top education policy priorities for his administration.
In Indiana, governor-elect Mike Braun campaigned to transform education and workforce development through a robust school choice policy. Gov. Braun’s campaign also emphasized parental involvement in their children’s education, including additional transparency in school curriculum.
Governor-elect Mike Kehoe’s campaign in Missouri focused on the importance of school choice. Governor-elect Kehoe also advocated for accountability in higher education funding and support for institutions that demonstrate measurable outcomes. Notably, governor-elect Kehoe was the only gubernatorial candidate to promote arts programs in schools as positive outlets for students.
While campaigning for his second term, Gov. Greg Gianforte in Montana focused on workforce development and improving access to high-quality education, including increasing pay for starting teachers and reaffirming parental involvement in education. Gov. Gianforte’s campaign also prioritized trades education and the expansion of apprenticeship programs.
The campaign of governor-elect Kelly Ayotte in New Hampshire prioritized universal school choice and equal education opportunities for all children. She has also advocated for enhanced parental involvement in education and emphasized the need to improve public education standards, recruit and retain high-performing teachers with better pay and benefits, and address learning recovery by strengthening academic standards, including a curriculum that prioritizes subjects like math, civics, English, science and history.
In North Carolina, governor-elect Josh Stein campaigned on increased funding for public education in order to raise pay for teachers and essential school staff, such as counselors and social workers, as well as to modernize education resources like technology and textbooks. He also advocated for expanding access to high-quality early childhood education; workforce development initiatives, such as expanding CTE and apprenticeship programs; and improving postsecondary affordability.
In North Dakota, governor-elect Kelly Armstrong’s campaign advocated for local control and the ability of parents to choose home, private or parochial education for their children and encouraging collaboration among parents, community leaders and educators in decision-making processes. Governor-elect Armstrong also focused on workforce development by looking to align local technical colleges and universities with regional job market needs.
Incumbent Utah Gov. Spencer Cox prioritized workforce development by addressing college and technical classes, apprenticeships and various workforce programs during his re-election bid. He sought to enhance teacher recruitment and retention through improved compensation and professional growth opportunities. Gov. Cox also campaigned on early literacy programs and the full funding of all-day kindergarten.
During his re-election campaign, Vermont Gov. Phil Scott proposed increased funding for career and technical education projects. He also campaigned on increased support for Vermont State Colleges and adult learning initiatives and grants and assessments to improve school safety.
In Washington, governor-elect Bob Ferguson campaigned on the expansion of early childhood education programs for families with low-incomes and universal pre-K for all four-year-olds. In K-12 settings, governor-elect Ferguson campaigned on class size reduction, school safety initiatives and universal meals for all K-12 students. He also advocated for lowering bond passage thresholds to facilitate district funding and increases to special education funding and mental health supports. For postsecondary students and graduates, he campaigned on postsecondary affordability, including increased financial aid opportunities and income-based repayment options for student loans.
In West Virginia, governor-elect Patrick Morrisey advocated for the expansion of school choice and charter school programs with the goal of allowing funding to follow individual students. He also campaigned on increasing teacher salaries to attract and retain quality educators.
Overall, this year’s elections revealed diverse priorities among governors and governor-elects across states. Among this diversity of priorities, however, key issues like teacher retention, workforce development, early childhood education and parental involvement took center stage. We will continue tracking updates on education policies and priorities, including with our annual State of the State address coverage in early 2025.
This blog post was compiled based on research done by Tom Keily, Zeke Perez and Eric Syverson.
Over the past few years, school and state leaders have acted on concerns about how cell phone use is impacting students and teachers. Concerns like student data privacy, social media use, mental health impacts and distractions during instruction time have sparked questions about how state policy can help schools respond.
According to a 2022 Pew Research Center study, the vast majority of teens say they have access to a digital device, such as a smartphone (95%) or a desktop or laptop computer (90%), and 97% of teens say they are on the internet daily. Additionally, 46% responded that they are online “almost constantly.” According to the National Center on Education Statistics, almost 77% of schools have banned cellphone use in school as of 2022.
Based on a scan of state policy, state education agency resources and local education agency policies, we found that although cell phone use in schools has received national attention, this issue is most often dealt with at the local level. When addressed at the state level, the policy generally:
Few states directly address the use of cell phones in classrooms. Our scan of existing and pending state policy revealed that states often address student cell phone use in local student conduct policy or by directing local education authorities to develop and implement a policy. Below are examples of enacted state policies on cell phone possession or use in schools.
Alabama: In February, the state board passed a resolution strongly encouraging local boards to adopt a policy limiting cell phone use while on school property.
California: Enacted in 2019, A.B. 272 authorizes the governing body of a school district, a county office of education or a charter school to adopt a policy limiting or prohibiting student use of smartphones while students are on school grounds. Students may use cell phones in case of an emergency with employee permission or when allowed through an individualized education plan.
Florida: Enacted in 2023, H.B. 379 prohibits students from using cell phones during instructional time and requires teachers to designate an area for cell phones during instructional time.
Indiana: Enacted earlier this year, S.B. 185 requires public schools, including charter schools, to adopt, implement and publish a wireless communication device policy that regulates student use of a wireless communication device, including cell phones, tablets, laptops and gaming devices.
Kentucky: Rev. Stat. Ann. § 158.165 requires the board of education of each school district to develop a policy regarding the possession and use of cell phones by students while on school property or while attending a school-sponsored event. The policy is to be included in the district’s standards of student conduct.
Ohio: H.B. 250 (enacted, 2024) requires school districts to adopt a cell phone policy that seeks to limit cell phone use during school hours.
South Carolina: Code Ann. Regs. 43-279 (IV)(A)(2)(j) establishes minimum standards for student conduct that school districts must address in their local student conduct policy. Among the activities and behaviors identified is the possession of cell phones in schools. Consequences for cell phone misuse, as defined by the district, can range from a verbal reprimand to consequences in coordination with local authorities depending on the specific school policy.
Virginia: In early July 2024, Gov. Glen Younkin issued an executive order (EO-33) directing the department of education to draft guidance for schools to adopt policies that would establish cell phone-free education. The guidance must include processes for parents to communicate with their children for reasons such as “forgotten items and changes in pick-up times, as well as protocols for students with medical needs to access their devices and for emergency communication.”
With the recent focus on cell phone use in classrooms in combination with school safety issues, some parent groups have criticized these policies accessibility for disabled students and crisis communication. Even so, limiting classroom cell phone use has garnered bipartisan support across the country with the introduction of state-level guidance and requirements, but more is to come in understanding the success of local implementation.
As we get closer to the 2024 elections outcomes, we’re tracking the races and initiatives that will impact the future of American education policy. We’ll deliver you the results on elections for governors and state legislators, contests for board of education seats, races for chief state school officers and relevant ballot measures to keep you informed on potential implications for state leaders, educators, students and families.
Gubernatorial Races
In eleven states — Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, North Carolina, North Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington and West Virginia — gubernatorial races could influence education policy at the highest level within the state. Eight of these states are guaranteed new executive leadership. The governors of Delaware, Indiana, Missouri, North Carolina and West Virginia are each at the end of their allowed terms, and the governors of New Hampshire, North Dakota and Washington have declined to seek additional terms.
Governors are influential not only in setting the political tone of their states but also through their appointment authority. In Delaware, Indiana, New Hampshire and Vermont, the governor directly appoints the chief state school officer.
Ten of these eleven states (all but Utah) have governance structures where the governor appoints at least one member to the state board of education.
American Samoa and Puerto Rico will also hold gubernatorial elections in 2024.
State Legislative Elections
Seats in 42 Senate chambers (including the unicameral Nebraska State Legislature) and 43 House chambers are up for election in November. The outcomes will determine legislative control and policy agendas in many states, including leadership of the approximately 150 education-related legislative committees around the country. Only Alabama, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia are without state legislative elections this fall.
Chief State School Officers
In Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota and Washington, voters will directly elect the leadership of their state’s departments of education. Long-serving Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen’s departure opens up a race between two newcomers in Montana. Similarly, the North Carolina election sees two new candidates for state superintendent following Superintendent Catherine Truitt’s primary defeat earlier this year. In North Dakota and Washington, incumbents Kirsten Baesler and Chris Reykdal will each face new challengers. Superintendent Baesler is the longest-serving chief state school officer in the country, first elected in 2012, and Superintendent Reykdal is seeking his third term.
State Board of Education Elections
In nine states — Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska, Nevada, Ohio, Texas and Utah — voters will elect members to their state boards of education. Notably, in states like Alabama, Colorado, Kansas, Michigan, Nebraska and Ohio, the State Board of Education is responsible for appointing the Chief State School Officer, which further influences the direction of education policymaking. For these races, it’s important to note that:
Ballot Measures Affecting Education
Voters in fourteen states will decide on seventeen ballot measures that directly impact education on topics like funding, governance and school choice. Key states and measures to watch include:
Alabama
Amendment 1 would grant the Franklin County Board of Education to provide for the distribution of any proceeds or interest generated by lands or natural resources within Walker and Fayette Counties.
Arkansas
Issue 1 would allocate lottery proceeds to vocational technical scholarships and grants.
California
Proposition 2 would allocate $10 billion in state bond funds for upgrading K-12 schools and community colleges — especially in less affluent districts.
Colorado
Prop KK would implement a 6.5% excise tax on firearms and direct revenue to crime victim services, mental health support and school safety programs.
Initiative 138 would include the right to school choice in the state constitution to allow parents to choose among various education options.
Florida
Amendment 1 would require members of district school boards to be elected with partisan affiliations.
Indiana
Amendment 1 would remove the State Superintendent of Public Instruction from the gubernatorial line of succession.
Kentucky
Amendment 2 would enable the legislature to introduce future legislation that would allow public funds for charter schools and potentially private school vouchers.
Massachusetts
Question 2 would eliminate the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) standardized test as a graduation requirement for high school students.
Missouri
Amendment 5 would expand gambling operations in the state and use revenues for early childhood literacy programs.
Nebraska
Referendum 45 would allow voters to retain or repeal a measure that allocates $10 million for parents to spend on private education expenses.
Nevada
Question 1 would amend the state constitution to transfer oversight of higher education from the Board of Regents to the Nevada Legislature.
New Mexico
Bond Question 2 would authorize about $19 million for capital expenditures for academic, public school, tribal and public library resource acquisitions.
Bond Question 3 would authorize about $230 million toward funding for public higher education institutions, special public schools and tribal schools.
Rhode Island
Question 2 would authorize $160.5 million for various education facility improvements.
Utah
Amendment B would increase the cap on annual distributions from the State School Fund for public education from 4% to 5%.
Remember that Education Commission of the States has helpful resources related to state education governance. Look out for our elections infographic that will highlight the outcomes of these pressing state questions in November!
State education leaders asked for information on policy responses to student chronic absenteeism. Our response offers state approaches to address chronic absenteeism outside of legislation.
To provide timely assistance to our constituents, State Information Requests are typically completed in 48 hours. They reflect an issue scan versus a comprehensive analysis.
The years before formal schooling are vital for children’s physical, cognitive and social development. Providing high-quality preschool environments is a pivotal opportunity to prevent developmental disparities that are often already present when children enter kindergarten.
As many states look to expand access to high-quality early care and education (ECE) opportunities, a key consideration is how to administer the patchwork of programs for children from birth to age five. With overlapping jurisdictions and funding streams spanning federal, state and local sources, state policymakers are evaluating their governance structures to maximize efficiency and streamline services to families.
We recently updated our 50-State Comparison on ECE Governance to provide a national landscape of how states oversee agencies charged with leading in this crucial policy area.
Our database examines administration of the primary components of ECE common to nearly all states. This year, we have also included infant and early childhood mental health consultation (IECMHC), which encompasses a variety of programs and services supporting families and ECE providers across the birth-to-five system.
States vary in their approaches to governance — some coordinate program administration across many different agencies and others consolidate into fewer agencies or a single agency. Governance structures can be categorized into three major types, which are:
Since our last database update in 2020, our data show that at least nine states have modified their governance structures: Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio and Oregon created new agencies to oversee most or all of their states’ ECE programs, while Missouri, Montana, North Dakota and Virginia consolidated multiple programs into an existing agency. States approach the creation and consolidation of agencies in different ways; for example:
These large-scale changes represent only one policy lever states can use to impact ECE governance. Other states are trying to improve service coordination through interagency advisory bodies. At least 26 states provide staffing supports to bolster capacity for strategic planning and development. Task forces, working groups and study committees can also play a part in helping states identify the governance structure that best suits their needs.
The demand for high-quality ECE shows no signs of waning, and as states looks for ways to meet the needs of children and families, governance continues to play a role in ensuring that services are efficiently, accessibly and equitably delivered.
The oversight and governance of early care and early education is critical to supporting the development of young children and their families. However, because state agencies involved in this support are often siloed, this often results in less-than-optimal coordination, alignment and ultimately, delivery of services, especially in an equitable and targeted manner. This Policy Outline provides an overview of all states' governance models along with information about the role of early childhood advisory councils.
See our 50-State Comparison: Early Care and Education Governance for data on states’ early care and education governance systems, with a focus on the agencies that oversee these programs, the level of alignment of these programs and the advisory entities for early care and education in the state.
Making Sense of Governance in Early Childhood highlights a national decision guide for policymakers considering alignment and consolidation of agencies and entities involved in early care and education.
Copyright 2024 / Education Commission of the States. All rights reserved.
