New Hampshire is expanding school choice. Will Massachusetts follow?
This surge in school choice is part of a broader national trend. Enrollment in such programs has more than doubled since 2020 — from roughly 540,000 to more than
Massachusetts, home to some of the nation's strongest private, parochial, charter, and vocational-technical schools, is increasingly being left behind, politically unwilling and legally constrained from offering families access to private options.
The catalyst for this wave of private options
was the US Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue. The court
Advertisement
Her story resonated nationwide, particularly during the pandemic. The move to online learning by public schools, union resistance to returning students to the classroom, and a seeming disregard for students' mental health and learning loss drove many families toward private and homeschool options. Even in Massachusetts,
Massachusetts may remain among the top-performing states nationally, but that status masks a troubling decline. On the National Assessment of Educational Progress (the nation's report card), average eighth-grade
The pandemic and student distraction due to cellphones are partially to blame, but the decline is
Clearly there is a hunger for options other than traditional public school.
Advertisement
New Hampshire's latest choice expansion is relevant to Massachusetts because, in addition to the two states' cultural and demographic similarities, they post nearly identical academic performance. On the 2024 NAEP, New Hampshire eighth-graders scored averages of 280 in
As student performance declines, Massachusetts lawmakers remain committed to a top-down, monopolistic education system. They refuse to consider private school choice, hiding behind 19th-century anti-Catholic amendments in the state constitution that prohibit public funds from flowing to religious schools, even indirectly.
At the same time, lawmakers have stood by as the pillars of the Commonwealth's landmark 1993 education reforms — strong academic standards, accountability through testing, and choice through charter schools — have steadily eroded.
New Hampshire is taking a more pragmatic approach: It is steadily expanding school choice with thoughtful fiscal safeguards and a clear focus on helping the students most in need. As a result, many more New Hampshire parents will now be able to narrow class- and race-based achievement gaps — whether through public or private schools, the small learning groups called
The recently passed 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' President Trump's massive tax and spending plan, enacts the first national school choice program, offering scholarships funded through tax credits to all but the wealthiest families. Starting in 2027, taxpayers nationwide will be able to redirect up to $1,700 in federal taxes to approved scholarship organizations.
Advertisement
The program could benefit many of the 120,000 families in Massachusetts
paying a private school tuition, or using homeschool and microschool options, which grew enormously during the pandemic. Expanding its appeal further, the program benefits families paying for after-school supplemental learning, including tutoring.
The catch? States must opt in. For now, Massachusetts officials say they are
For the dozens of states with school choice programs, including New Hampshire, the pathway forward is clear: Private school choice has broad public support and expands equality of educational opportunity. What will Massachusetts do?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
As Harvard and Trump head to court, the government piles on the pressure
Last week, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement served subpoenas to Harvard with sprawling demands that included payroll records, years of disciplinary files and any videos Harvard had of international students protesting on campus since 2020, according to two people familiar with the subpoenas, some of which were reviewed by The New York Times. The agency gave the university a breakneck one-week deadline for compliance. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Also this month, the administration formally accused the school of civil rights violations, arguing that Harvard had failed to protect Jewish people on campus. The government also complained to the university's accreditor, which could eventually jeopardize Harvard students' access to federal financial aid. Advertisement Even so, both sides have continued discussions toward a resolution of the government investigations into the school and the sprawling legal fights, though they have made limited headway. This account is drawn from conversations with four people familiar with negotiations, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid endangering the talks, and from public statements and court records. Harvard leaders are well aware that a long fight with the government is perilous, threatening jobs, projects, reputations and academic independence. Some inside the university have feared that civil inquiries could become criminal matters. Advertisement Trump administration officials are looking to secure the most significant victory of their ongoing pressure campaign on academia. They are seeking to balance the long-term advantage of their powerful hold on the government with the short-term reality of working for a president who regularly favors dealmaking over systemic policy changes. Negotiators have been exchanging communications about what the administration wants from Harvard and what the university may be willing to accept. But the outcome of the hearing in Boston on Monday could shift how much leverage each side has in the talks. The case that will be before Judge Allison D. Burroughs began in April, after the Trump administration began to cut off billions of dollars in federal grants to Harvard. The university sued to restore the funding, contending, among other arguments, that the administration's tactics were violating the university's First Amendment rights. On Monday, both Harvard and the government will try to persuade Burroughs to rule in their favor outright. Her decision will be a milestone in a case that could eventually reach the Supreme Court on appeal and is already being regarded by West Wing officials and Harvard leaders as another bargaining chip. Before the lawsuit, the administration sent Harvard an extraordinary list of conditions, including new policies on hiring, admissions and faculty influence, compulsory reports to the government and audits of academic programs and departments. Since then, although officials acknowledged that sending the letter was a mistake, the government has barely budged from the demands. Advertisement And Trump aides have regarded the university's proposals as insufficient and anodyne. 'The Trump administration's proposition is simple and common-sense: Don't allow antisemitism and DEI to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students,' said Harrison Fields, a White House spokesperson. 'We are confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision.' Harvard declined to comment. Drawing out the talks has some benefits, too. Polls have suggested many Americans have become more distrustful of higher education, and the government's campaign has demonstrated the vulnerabilities of elite schools, which Trump and his allies argue have been captive to liberal ideas. Trump administration officials have especially reveled in squeezing Harvard, which, like other major universities, is deeply reliant on federal research money. But even though polling also suggests that many Americans disapprove of the Trump White House's tactics toward colleges and universities, administration officials have given little indication they want to end a clash that some Republicans have long craved. University officials have been trying to balance a sense of urgency with the advantages Harvard has drawn from the fight, including a show of public support. Besides the possibility of reclaiming leverage in the talks, university officials feel that a favorable ruling from Burroughs would give them greater credibility and cover to sell students, faculty members, donors and others on a settlement. Some officials expect the university to insist that any accord grant a judge or another figure the authority to enforce the terms. Harvard, wary of the White House's whipsaw approach to dealmaking, is not believed to be interested in an informal arrangement. Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president who has sometimes sharply criticized the university, said that the absence of an agreement would leave Harvard vulnerable to new inquiries and a steady flow of court fights. He said he believed that the 'vast majority' of people with close ties to the school 'want to see all of this in the rearview mirror, if that's achievable.' Advertisement But Summers said that the conditions of any agreement will drive whether Harvard faces an internal rebellion. 'If they tell us we have to take certain books out of our library, we have to say no to that. If they tell us certain people can't be on our faculty, we have to say no to that,' said Summers, who added: 'If they tell us we've got to follow the law on reverse discrimination, we can say yes to that.' Harvard, he suggested, should also be open to changing some of its leadership. How hard of a bargain either side can drive is expected to become clearer Monday, when lawyers for the university and the government go before Burroughs for their first substantive oral arguments in Harvard's signature case against the administration. (Burroughs is also presiding over another case involving the government's quest to keep Harvard from enrolling international students. She has granted the university a series of interim victories in that matter.) Harvard is expected to argue that the Trump administration is trampling on constitutional protections, as it seeks greater influence over the university's operations. Harvard is also making an array of technical arguments, including that the government failed to follow long-established, written procedures for revoking funding. The administration has argued that it had followed certain regulations and that the case is essentially a contract dispute. In a court submission, the Justice Department said that federal research funds were 'not charitable gratuities.' Advertisement 'Rather, the federal government grants funds to universities through contracts that include explicit conditions,' the Justice Department wrote, adding: 'If they fail to meet these conditions, the grants are subject to cancellation.' The government's lawyers also contend that an 1887 law means that the dispute should be moved out of the Boston federal court entirely. Rather, they argue, the case should be heard in Washington by a specialized court that considers claims related to money. Harvard, which has said that Burroughs should keep the case because it involves constitutional questions that go beyond dollars and cents, suggested in court filings that the government was presiding over a jumbled assault. In one this month, the university told Burroughs that even after the government said it was terminating many grants to Harvard, the Defense Department paid the university hundreds of thousands of dollars for a grant that had supposedly ended. The government's attempted hardball tactics against Harvard have a fan in Trump. After all, the president himself mused in April: 'What if we never pay them?' Linda McMahon, the education secretary, told Trump during a Cabinet meeting July 8 that the administration was 'negotiating hard' with Harvard and Columbia University, another elite school that the White House has targeted. 'It's not wrapped up as fast as I wanted to, but we're getting there,' McMahon said as the cameras rolled. ICE's subpoenas arrived in Cambridge later that afternoon. Harvard made no secret of its disdain the next day, openly eschewing any talk of reconciliation and decrying the subpoenas as 'unwarranted.' 'The administration's ongoing retaliatory actions come as Harvard continues to defend itself and its students, faculty and staff against harmful government overreach,' the university said. Harvard, it added, was 'unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government.' Advertisement This article originally appeared in .
The Hill
21 minutes ago
- The Hill
Second suspect sought in shooting of off-duty Border Patrol agent
Authorities searched Sunday for a second suspect in the shooting of an off-duty U.S. Customs and Border Patrol officer in an apparent botched robbery on Saturday. New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch said the 42-year-old officer was injured after he was approached by two men on a moped while sitting with a woman in a park under the George Washington Bridge just before midnight. When one man got off and approached the officer, the officer drew his service weapon and the two exchanged fire, officials said. The officer was shot in the face and in the arm. Police said the man attempting the robbery was injured before he drove away with the moped driver. The officer was not in uniform and there was no indication that he was targeted because of his employment, Tisch said. Police took a person of interest, 21-year-old Miguel Mora, into custody after he arrived at a Bronx hospital to be treated for wounds to the groin and leg. Mora is an undocumented immigrant with an extensive criminal history, Tisch said, adding that he entered the country illegally through Arizona in 2023 and was arrested twice in New York for domestic violence. He was also wanted in New York on accusations of robbery and felony assault, Tisch said. In Massachusetts, he was wanted in a case involving stolen weapons. President Trump seized on the incident as an example of what he views was an inadequate immigration policy under President Biden. 'Last night, in New York City, an incredible CBP Officer was shot in the face by an Illegal Alien Monster freed into the Country under Joe Biden. He was apprehended at the Border in April 2023 but, instead of being deported, was RELEASED,' Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform Sunday afternoon. 'The CBP Officer bravely fought off his attacker, despite his wounds, demonstrating enormous Skill and Courage. The Democrats have flooded our Nation with Criminal Invaders, and now, they must all be thrown out or, in some cases, immediately prosecuted in that we cannot take a chance that they are able to come back. That's how evil and dangerous they are!'
Boston Globe
21 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Harvard is hoping court rules Trump administration's $2.6b research cuts were illegal
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university's. Advertisement Harvard's lawsuit accuses President Donald Trump's administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force. The letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view. The letter was meant to address government accusations that the university had become a hotbed of liberalism and tolerated anti-Jewish harassment on campus. Advertisement Harvard President Alan Garber pledged to fight antisemitism but said no government 'should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.' The same day Harvard rejected the demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2 billion in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later the administration began canceling contracts with Harvard. As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing that the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies. Harvard, which has the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts. In court filings, the school said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.' The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons. 'It is the policy of the United States under the Trump Administration not to fund institutions that fail to adequately address antisemitism in their programs,' it said in court documents. The research funding is only one front in Harvard's fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status. Advertisement Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated antisemitism — a step that eventually could jeopardize all of Harvard's federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a 'death sentence.'
