Methodology

The methodology defines all variables, explains why the Center for Education Policy researchers chose them, and describes how they calculated and coded them. It also describes how the researchers calculated the final state rankings. The variables are organized into five main categories that influence the degree of education liberty in each state: (1) Education Choice, (2) Teacher Freedom, (3) Academic Transparency, (4) Return on Investment, and (5) Civic Education. The researchers also identified second-level indicators, which are the sub-categories of these five main categories of education liberty.

Download the Education Freedom Report Card highlights booklet.

1. Education Choice

States with more education choice have more educational liberty. “Education Choice” has five sub-categories: (a) Private School Choice, (b) Private School Choice Program Design, (c) Charter Schools, (d) Homeschooling, and (e) Public School Choice.

(a) Private School Choice. Following are components of the Private School Choice variable:

  • Education savings accounts (ESAs). This variable contains three binary measures of whether a state offers an ESA or ESA-style policy, plus a fourth for the percentage of eligible K–12 students. The binary measures include state-funded ESAs and tax-credit-funded ESAs, as well as ESA-style policies. For each measure, the code is “1” if the state’s education choice policy allows families to use the program funds for a variety of education expenses, allows families to save unused funds from year to year, and does not require families to spend program funds on any particular category of expense (such as private school tuition). Policies are coded “0” for each measure that does not meet the aforementioned criteria. ESAs are the future of education freedom, and they are a key measure of whether states are giving parents the freedom to customize their children’s education, not just to choose their school.
  • Proportion of eligible students. This variable is a measure of the proportion of all K–12 students in the state who are eligible for a private school choice program. Private school choice programs include school vouchers, ESAs and ESA-style policies, and tax-credit scholarships. This variable is calculated as a proportion between 0 and 1 where the numerator is the number of students eligible for a school choice program, and the denominator is the total number of public, private, and homeschooled K–12 students in the state. Education choice enrollment data by state come from EdChoice.
  • Formula funded. This variable is a binary measure capturing whether the state’s largest education choice policy is funded via a formula that ensures that every eligible child receives funding if his or her parents apply to participate, or the education choice policy is funded via appropriation or otherwise limited by a participation cap.
  • Proportion of students who participate. This variable is a measure of the proportion of all K–12 students in the state who are participating in a private school choice program. Private school choice programs include school vouchers, ESAs, and tax-credit scholarships. The researchers did not include individual tax credits and deductions. This variable is calculated as a proportion between 0 and 1 using 2026 EdChoice Share data.

(b) Private School Choice Program Design. This variable indicates whether states have a private school choice program that imposes burdensome regulations, such as requiring participating private schools to administer the state’s standardized assessment or a nationally norm-referenced assessment; to replace their admissions policies with open enrollment and a lottery for oversubscription; to accept the voucher or scholarship as the full value of tuition; and/or to obtain accreditation from a state, regional, or national accrediting body and/or to conduct an approved standardized test. These regulations restrict the freedom of private schools to create the learning communities that families desire. The variable is coded based on a 10-point scale with “10” for a state that has one or more private education choice policies, all of which eschew burdensome regulations, such as testing requirements, open enrollment mandates, price controls, and accreditation requirements. States with a choice policy that has a testing requirement lose 3.5 points, while a testing requirement that allows schools or parents to choose from a menu of nationally norm-referenced tests incurs a 0.5-point loss. States with a choice policy that has an open enrollment mandate lose 2.5 points. States with a choice policy that imposes price controls lose 2.5 points. States with a choice policy that has an accreditation requirement lose one point. If a state has a broad-based education choice program in addition to one restricted to students with special needs, the broader policy was scored. Town tuitioning policies that take the place of traditional public schools were excluded if the state also has another private education choice policy. The variable is coded “0” if the state does not have any private school choice programs.

(c) Charter Schools. Following are the indicators that comprise the Charter Schools variable:

  • Proportion of public schools that are charter schools. This variable is calculated as a proportion between 0 and 1 where the numerator is the number of charter schools in the state and the denominator is the total number of public schools in the state. Charter schools sever the tie between ZIP code and school, providing more options and freedom for parents to choose the most appropriate education for their child. These data come from Table 216.90 in the Digest of Education Statistics for the 2022–2023 school year.
  • Proportion of public school students that are enrolled in charter schools. This variable is calculated as a proportion between 0 and 1 where the numerator is the number of charter school students in the state and the denominator is the total number of public school students in the state. These data come from Table 216.90 of the Digest of Education Statistics for the 2022–2023 school year.
  • Charter school law rating. This variable is a rating of the quality of a state’s charter school law from the Center for Education Reform’s (CER’s) 2025 National Charter School Law Rankings & Scorecard. As the CER states, “charter school success depends on the policy environments in which charter schools operate,” and “overregulation and underfunding force charters to behave as district schools by another name.” CER’s scorecard rewards states for increasing “operational autonomy” for charter schools. CER rated the 46 states with charter laws as A, B, C, D, or F. Heritage researchers coded these as “4,” “3,” “2,” “1,” and “0,” respectively. If a state did not have a charter law according to CER, Heritage researchers coded it as “-1.”
  • Educational Freedom Institute (EFI) charter ecosystem ranking. This variable measures the quality of the charter school ecosystem in each state based on the Educational Freedom Institute’s (EFI’s) 2024 Charter School Ecosystem Rankings. This report is a continuous variable of the raw score calculated by the EFI authors that considers access to charter schools, growth in charter schools, and growth in achievement outcomes, among other factors. A higher raw score translates to a higher-quality charter ecosystem. The scores range from 25.5 to 130. Scores come from Table 1 on page 6 of the EFI report.

(d) Homeschooling. Following are the indicators that comprise the Homeschooling variable:

  • Percentage of homeschooled students. This variable is calculated as a proportion between 0 and 1 where the numerator is the adjusted number of homeschooled K–12 students, and the denominator is the total number of public, private, and homeschooled K–12 students in the state, using the most recent homeschool share data from EdChoice.
  • Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) rating (ranking of state homeschool laws). This variable measures the quality of state homeschool laws as compiled by the Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA). The HSLDA categorizes states as “No regulation,” “Low regulation,” “Moderate regulation,” and “High regulation,” which Heritage researchers coded as “3,” “2,” “1,” and “0,” respectively. Less regulation in the homeschooling process means that parents have more freedom to customize their children’s education. More regulations, such as mandatory testing and curriculum, limit education freedom.

(e) Public School Choice. Following are indicators that comprise the Public School Choice variable:

  • Open enrollment policy. The report Public Schools Without Boundaries 2025 by the Reason Foundation documents whether states have mandatory intra-district enrollment and/or mandatory inter-district enrollment, transparent reporting by the state education agency, reporting of school-level capacity, and whether district schools charge tuition to out-of-district students. Open enrollment policies allow families to choose public schools beyond the one assigned to their ZIP code. While not as impactful as private school choice programs, allowing students to attend other public schools injects more accountability into schools and gives families more options. States received zero to 100 points based on the Reason Foundation’s score for each state’s open enrollment policy.
  • Students per district. This variable measures the number of K–12 public school students per public school district in each state. Larger, more consolidated, districts reduce parental control over how and where their children are educated. This variable is a continuous variable where the numerator is the total number of public school students in the most recent school year for which data is available from the Digest of Education Statistics’ Table 214.30 (for school year 2021–2022), and the denominator is the total number of public K–12 districts in the state.
  • Square miles per district. This variable measures the number of square miles of land mass per K–12 public school district in each state. Larger, more consolidated, districts reduce parents’ control over how and where their children are educated. This variable is a continuous variable where the numerator is the total land area from the 2010 Census, and the denominator is the total number of public K–12 districts in the state.

2. Teacher Freedom

The burden of regulation on education providers limits the innovative options that they can provide. Teacher Freedom has four categories of interest: (a) Barriers to Teaching, (b) Chief Diversity Officers, (c) Common Core Testing Requirement, and (d) Praxis Testing Requirement.

(a) Barriers to Teaching. Following are indicators that comprise the Barriers to Teaching variable:

  • Proportion of alternatively certified teachers. This variable measures the proportion of new teachers who are certified through alternative pathways. Traditional teacher licensing is a major barrier to entering the teaching profession. States that allow many paths to certification have more options for good teachers to enter the profession. The numerator is the number of people who completed an alternative-teaching certification program, and the denominator is the number of people who completed any teaching certification, traditional or alternative. For 2026, Heritage researchers calculated the share of teachers who had completed alternative certification programs of the total number of teacher-certification programs using data from the U.S. Department of Education’s 2025 Title II Report.
  • Full reciprocity for out-of-state teachers. This variable is a measure of whether a state has a statute that grants full reciprocity to teachers who complete their certification in other states. This binary variable is coded “1” if a state has a statute that grants full reciprocity for teachers with an out-of-state certification, and it is coded “0” if a state does not have such a statute. These data come from the Education Commission of the States report titled 50-State Comparison: Teacher License Reciprocity, with updates provided directly by state officials.

(b) Chief Diversity Officers. This variable measures the proportion of school districts in the state with 15,000 students or more that employ a chief diversity officer (CDO). As Heritage analysts Jay Greene, PhD, and James Paul point out in their study, CDOs “may be best understood as political activists who articulate and enforce an ideological orthodoxy within school districts.” CDOs likely limit academic freedom in the classroom. The numerator is the number of districts that employ a CDO; the denominator is the total number of districts in the state. If a state does not have any districts with 15,000 or more students, the variable is coded “0.” Data were collected from Greene and Paul’s Heritage Foundation Backgrounder Equity Elementary: “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” Staff in Public Schools.

(c) Common Core Testing Requirement. This binary variable captures whether a state administers either the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) or the Smarter Balanced Common Core exam. This variable is coded “1” if the state changed its standards from the Common Core according to Heritage researchers’ sources and it is coded “0” if the state retained the Common Core standards. The variable is coded “0.5” if a state only uses one of the Common Core tests for one subject or made revisions to the Common Core standards. These data are from the World Population Review’s report on Common Core States from 2026, EdGate’s United States Standards, and the Smarter Balanced Partnerships website.

(d) Praxis Testing Requirement. This binary variable considers whether prospective teachers are required to spend time and resources taking the Praxis exam, which many states have as one of many requirements for becoming state certified to teach. There is little evidence that this assessment predicts teacher quality or effectiveness, and it creates just one more barrier to entry into the teaching profession. States are rewarded in the rankings if they do not require would-be teachers to take the Praxis exam.

3. Academic Transparency

Transparency in the education system gives parents information to make the best decisions about their children’s education. Academic Transparency has three subcategories: (a) Strong Critical Race Theory Law, (b) Parental Empowerment, and (c) Accountability.

(a) Strong Critical Race Theory Law. This variable indicates whether a state has a regulation reaffirming that compelled speech is unconstitutional and/or stating that violations of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in K–12 schools are illegal. The variable is coded “2” if the state has a regulation(s) with both components, “1” if the state has only one component, and “0” if the state has neither component. In limited cases states are coded “0.5” if Heritage researchers found that the state law rejecting critical race theory exists, but is not strong. Heritage researchers used the following sources: Education Week’s Where Critical Race Theory Is Under Attack, Heritage’s Education Power for Parents: A State Legislation Tracker, and the Brookings Institution’s Why Are States Banning Critical Race Theory?

(b) Parental Empowerment. The Parental Empowerment variable includes the following indicators:

  • Parental organizations per pupil. This variable is a count of the number of grassroots parent organizations in each state as defined by Defending Education’s IndoctriNation Map. Parents care deeply about the education of their children and the better organized they are, the more influence they can have on policy, supporting changes that increase education liberty. This count was divided by the number of public school students in the state to arrive at the number of parental organizations per pupil. Data were collected by Heritage researchers in May 2025.
  • Indoctrination incidents per pupil. This variable is a count of the number of incidents of indoctrination in each state as defined by Defending Education’s IndoctriNation Map. Examples of indoctrination include: “Santa Barbara Unified School District teacher exposes highly racialized and political curriculum that is being withheld from parents.” This count was divided by the number of public school students in the state to arrive at the number of incidents per pupil. This number was then converted to a negative number by multiplying it by -1 as more incidents of indoctrination reflect less education freedom. Data were collected by Heritage researchers in May 2025.
  • Given Name Act. This variable is an indicator of whether a state has adopted the provisions—either through legislation, executive order, or guidelines adopted by a state agency—that require school personnel to obtain parental consent before addressing a child by a name or pronoun that does not correspond to the information on a child’s birth certificate. States receive a “0” if they do not have Given Name Act provisions, and a “1” if they have such provisions. Data are collected and updated each year by Heritage researchers and are available at Education Power for Parents: A State Legislation Tracker.
  • Parental bill of rights. This variable is an indicator of whether state lawmakers have adopted a parental bill of rights. States are coded “0” if they do not have a parental bill of rights, and “1” if they do have a parental bill of rights. Sources used are ParentalRights.org and Heritage’s Education Power for Parents: A State Legislation Tracker.
  • Gender-nonconforming policies. This variable is a count of the number of districts in a state that have policies directing school personnel to withhold information from parents when their children express confusion about their sex at school. The data are drawn from Defending Education’s List of School District Transgender—Gender Nonconforming Student Policies. This count was divided by the number of public school students in the state to arrive at the number of nonconforming policies per pupil. This number was then converted to a negative number by multiplying it by -1 as more gender nonconforming policies reflect less education freedom. Data were collected by Heritage researchers in May 2025.

(c) Accountability. The Accountability variable is comprised of the following indicators:

  • Parent access to curricula and materials. This variable indicates whether a state has a policy that clearly states that parents must be allowed access to their child’s curricula and learning materials. Increased transparency of curricula and lesson plans gives parents information to make the best decisions about the education of their children. This variable is coded “1” if the state has a policy that specifically states that a parent must have access to curricula and materials, and is coded “0” if the state has no such policy. In some cases, a state is coded “0.5” if lawmakers adopted limited provisions. Sources are Tennessee’s Textbook Transparency Act, and Heritage’s Education Power for Parents: A State Legislation Tracker.
  • Public comment in school board meetings. This variable indicates whether a state has a requirement to allow public comment at school board meetings. While the freedom of exit encourages the greatest accountability to parents, the ability to communicate with one’s community at local school board meetings is a valuable indicator of transparency. This variable is coded “1” if the state has a policy that specifically states that school board meetings must allow public comment, and is coded “0” if the state has no such policy. Heritage researchers relied on the 2022 Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press state-by-state breakdown of which states have laws that give residents the right to participate in public meetings.
  • Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) law rating. This variable is a rating of the state FOIA laws, which captures the ability of members of the public to access information about their public school system. Rating criteria include response type, response time, costs, and contact ease. Easier access to information about public schools gives parents knowledge about their education options. States were rated “Good,” “Average,” or “Poor,” which Heritage researchers coded as “2,” “1,” and “0,” respectively. Heritage researchers relied on Logikcull’s 2022 The “State” of Public Records Law: A 50 State Survey.
  • School board election cycle. This variable indicates whether states hold school board elections on cycle with the general election. Teachers’ unions often lobby for off-cycle elections so that they can ensure a larger turnout from their members. This makes it more likely that union-friendly school board members are elected. Researchers collected data on dates of school board elections in each state and the District of Columbia. This variable is coded “1” if school board elections are held in November of even years. For most states, the date is decided at the state level and is the same for all school districts. For some states, election dates are decided at the local level and thus might vary within a state. If any district in a state holds off-cycle school board elections, it is coded “0.” States in which any districts appoint, rather than elect, their school board are also coded “0.” Heritage researchers collected the data in February 2022.

4. Return on Investment

Education freedom includes the freedom of taxpayers to keep more of their money. Private school choice programs also tend to spend less money for the same or better outcomes. “Return on Investment” has four subcategories and variables: (a) Per-Pupil Spending, (b) NAEP Point per Dollar Spent, (c) Teacher-to-Non-Teacher Ratio, and (d) Unfunded Pension Liability.

(a) Per-Pupil Spending. The Per-Pupil-Spending variable is comprised of the following indicators:

  • Nominal per-pupil spending. This variable measures the average K–12 spending per pupil in each state. These data represent the total “current expenditures, capital expenditures, and interest on school debt per pupil” from Table 236.75 of the Digest of Education Statistics for the 2020–2021 school year.
  • Cost-of-living-adjusted per-pupil spending. This variable takes the nominal per-pupil spending variable and adjusts it for differences in cost of living by state. To calculate the cost-of-living-adjusted per-pupil spending, Heritage researchers multiplied the nominal per-pupil spending variable by the regional price parities by state for 2021 from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.

(b) NAEP Point per Dollar Spent. This variable measures return on investment in terms of academic achievement for the investment in terms of spending per pupil. The numerator is the average score on the NAEP for fourth-grade and eighth-grade reading and math. The denominator is the nominal per-pupil spending variable. Data on NAEP scores are from spring 2019 and spring 2024, and were collected from The Nation’s Report Card—Data Tools: State Profiles.

(c) Teacher-to-Non-Teacher Ratio. Much of the K–12 public school spending has resulted in more school administrators, not investments in teachers and resources to improve education quality. This variable was calculated by dividing the number of teachers by the number of non-teaching staff in each state in fall 2022. Data come from the Digest of Education Statistics, Table 213.20, for the 2022–2023 school year.

(d) Unfunded Pension Liabilities. This variable measures the unfunded pension liability as a percentage of the state’s gross domestic product. In many states, unfunded pension liabilities are a burden on taxpayers and economic growth. They also represent a concentration of teachers’ union power, as well as deficient political leaders who make decisions about public education. Data are from page 9 of the downloadable data files for the State of Pensions 2025 report by the Equable Institute.

5. Civic Education

(a) Classical Education Schools per Capita. This is a measure of how many classical education schools each state has per 100,000 K–12 students. The numerator is the number of classical education schools identified in each state in The Heritage Foundation’s Classical Schools Database. The denominator is the total number of K–12 students in each state, divided by 100,000, using the most recent data from the National Center for Education Statistics. This measure accounts for 15 percent of the final Civic Education score.

(b) Classic Learning Test Acceptance. This is a measure of whether states accept the Classic Learning Test (CLT) for admissions purposes at state colleges and universities and/or for state-funded scholarships. The CLT is a college-entrance exam administered by Classic Learning Initiatives with an emphasis on classic texts, grammar, and quantitative reasoning. Expanding test choice beyond the SAT and ACT is essential to restoring merit in higher education admissions. A state gets full credit if the CLT is used for both admissions and scholarships, 75 percent for admissions only, and 50 percent for scholarships only. A state that has eliminated the ACT/SAT duopoly without explicitly directing the state university system to accept the CLT receives 25 percent credit. This measure accounts for 15 percent of the final Civic Education score.

(c) Civics Course Requirements. This is a measure of states’ high school civics course requirements using data from the Hoover Institution’s State Civic Requirements in 2024, plus an examination by Heritage researchers of changes to state laws since the report was published. States receive one point if they require a full-year civics course for high school students, and half a point if they require a half-year course. This measure accounts for 30 percent of the final Civic Education score.

(d) Citizenship Test. This is a measure of whether states require students to pass the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services civics test, or an equivalent, using data from the Hoover Institution’s State Civic Requirements in 2024, plus an examination by Heritage researchers of changes to state laws since the report was published. States receive two points if students must score at least 60 percent on the citizenship test (or an equivalent test) to graduate high school, one point if they must pass the test, half a point if they must pass another test that has a civics component, and a quarter point if they must take a test without being required to pass it. No points are awarded if there is no requirement to take a citizenship or civics test. This measure accounts for 30 percent of the final Civic Education score.

(e) NAEP Civics. This is a measure of states’ performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Civics assessment, using data from the 2024 report The State of State Civics Scores, published by the Annenberg Institute at Brown University. This measure accounts for 10 percent of the final Civic Education score.

State Ranking Calculations

Heritage researchers coded all variables so that a higher value corresponds with more education freedom. First, researchers standardized each variable by calculating a z-score. If a sub-category had multiple variables, researchers averaged z-scores within that sub-category. For example, they calculated the average of z-scores of the four variables in the Private School Choice sub-category; they then calculated the z-score of that average.

Next, researchers averaged the z-scores across sub-categories and top-level variables. For example, they calculated the average of the z-scores from the Private School Choice, Private School Choice Program Design, Charter Schools, Homeschooling, and Public School Choice sub-categories to arrive at a single number for the main Education Choice category. They then calculated a z-score of that average. Once they calculated a z-score for each of the five main categories, they took the average of those five z-scores and calculated the z-score of that average to arrive at a single z-score for each state. The state with the highest final z-score is ranked first in the Education Freedom Report Card.