2025 Eddies Awards: Best Defense

The Eddies—annual, advocate-nominated and voted awards—feature strategic advocacy that is driving impactful policy change.

Best Defense highlights campaigns that strategically defended important policy at significant risk and overcame significant odds using innovative tactics; sometimes, the most significant wins are actually holding the line. Nominees in this category provide models for how to deploy sharp strategies to defend policies or efforts that benefit students.

See a complete list of 2025 nominees in all Eddies categories. Staff at PIE Network members and partner organizations, check your inbox for a link to vote in each category or log in and vote here. Questions? Email [email protected].

Best Defense Winner

All Means All: Protecting The Right to Learn in Tennessee

All4Ed, EdTrust-Tennessee, Stand for Children Tennessee

Non-Network Partners: TN Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, TN NAACP, and Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment

Network Policy Pillar: Responsive Systems

SUMMARY

Ed for All-TN, a coalition of over 65 organizations, was formed to protect policies that help undocumented students maintain access to public education so they can have the freedom to learn, grow, and thrive in our country. In the 114th General Assembly, Tennessee lawmakers filed three bills designed to challenge a constitutional and long-standing legal precedent that guarantees all children living in the United States access to free public school, regardless of documentation status.

Our policy and advocacy impacts an estimated 10,000 undocumented students in Tennessee, and 651,000 undocumented students across the country. The Supreme Court upheld the right to free public education regardless of documentation status in Plyler v. Doe. These bills were aimed at challenging this Supreme Court precedent not only in Tennessee, but across the country.

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

Three bills were filed challenging the Plyler v. Doe decision from 1982. Different combinations of provisions were aimed at denying students access to school based on immigration status, collecting immigration status information, charging families tuition, or restricting access to public school based on a family’s ability to pay at an otherwise free public school. Regardless of the version, each was aimed at creating a legal challenge that would ultimately threaten the Plyler decision.

Every child deserves a high-quality education that prepares them for an increasingly complex and diverse world. Strong public schools are the foundation of strong communities and families should feel safe sending their kids to school—without fear.

Education for All-TN was defending against legislation that would have allowed Tennessee districts to exclude students from public K-12 schools based on immigration status and imposed harmful administrative burdens on schools. This legislative battle extended beyond immigration status, harmfully conflating English Learner students with immigration status and threatening to weaken public commitment to the resources all students need to thrive.

The proposals to overturn Plyler v. Doe would create impossible choices for families, forcing them to decide between the risk of enrolling students and facing possible family separation or keeping children out of school permanently. The proposed requirements for schools to collect or verify immigration status, a role that belongs to the federal government, would place school staff in roles they are not trained or equipped to perform, eroding trust and family engagement.

Research shows that the threat of immigration enforcement causes stress, fear, and trauma in students. These impacts increase absenteeism, dropout rates, and harm student achievement. Increased deportations have been linked to declines in reading and math scores.

The negative impact ripples throughout entire school communities—not just for undocumented students. Teachers report students reacting as if a classmate has died when a peer suddenly disappears and they do not know what happened to them. These effects make it harder for educators to teach and students to learn. Students with disabilities are especially vulnerable, experiencing heightened fear and reduced feelings of safety after increased immigration activity.

Overall, these proposals compromise the mission of public education and harm all students.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

Education for All-TN centered on diverse and broad organizing, recognizing that threats to one population of students was a civil rights issue impacting us all. We knew we were built for this moment with EdTrust-TN’s existing infrastructure, leading the TN Alliance for Equity in Education. With our Alliance as the foundation and a core set of partners, we established Education for All-Tennessee.

Our Steering Committee modeled working across lines of difference with diverse representation from across the state. EdTrust-TN was proud to join with three Alliance partners—the TN Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, TN NAACP, and Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment—who lead Public School Strong grassroots efforts in TN, to launch the campaign. We also had vital support from national partners, including All4Ed, who provided critical policy support, national perspective from other states, and joined us on the ground in Tennessee to provide committee testimony at critical moments in the campaign through the national Education for All coalition.

Our movement grew to more than 65 organizations—and counting—united behind a clear purpose: 1) defeat this legislation, 2) shift the public narrative, 3) build people power, 4) prepare for any legal challenge. Our greatest strengths were the coalition’s diversity—rural/urban, state/local, grassroots/grasstops, business and faith. This included other PIE Network partners such as Stand for Children Tennessee in Memphis.

The odds were stacked against us, but we refused to back down. We knew the public had to be engaged. Lawmakers needed to see resistance – loud, organized, and constant.

As a result of Education for All-TN, the harmful bills became the top education issue and gained widespread, bipartisan opposition. Two bills were killed, and one never made it through committees, stalling until 2026.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Through Education for All-TN, we mobilized supporters in 294 cities, engaged 1,300+ volunteers, and drove over 8,000 actions—emails, calls, and videos to lawmakers.

With campaign partners, we hosted trainings, webinars, and media campaigns that resulted in hundreds of news stories reaching millions, keeping this issue front and center. To spread awareness, we launched a central website with key resources that made advocacy accessible to activate partner networks across the state and country. This included a legislative toolkit, social media graphics in different languages, policy memos, and a platform to record video testimony.

A key advocacy strategy was diverse coalition building with aligned messaging. Lawmakers needed to hear opposition across different communities in their district—students, business owners, faith leaders, and educators. A critical tactic was to widen the focus from immigration to educational access for all students.

We pushed back against the false cost-savings narrative: Undocumented students—about 10,000—are not the same as English Learners, over 86,000. That distinction mattered when debate centered on the cost of EL students—dangerous rhetoric affecting access for other student groups to critical resources.

We exposed real financial risks: unfunded mandates on schools to verify immigration status, major administrative burdens, and civil rights violations. We reminded lawmakers undocumented families contribute nearly $350 million in taxes—including sales and property taxes that fund our schools.

Another crucial tactic was rural and local school board organizing. Multiple boards adopted resolutions opposing the measures, including Hamilton County, home of one of the bill’s main sponsors.

Education for All-TN emphasized people power. Our success came from distributed organizing, deep partnerships, and national connections. Looking ahead, we’re not just focused on defense—we’re centering a proactive vision for schools.

RESOURCES

Best Defense Finalists

Advancing Fair Funding for CT Charter Schools & Students with Disabilities

The Center for Learner Equity, Connecticut Charter Schools Association

Network Policy Pillars: Innovative Options, Responsive Systems

SUMMARY

This policy helps Connecticut charter schools access special education funding so they can offer programming and services for students with disabilities, improving access to quality public school choices.

Our policy and advocacy impacts every child with a disability who attends a charter school in Connecticut. This includes nearly 88,000 students total across Connecticut.

Connecticut is among the top 15 states nationwide in terms of the proportion of students with disabilities. While the national average is 15%, Connecticut is around 17%.

WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

1997 state law requires districts to reimburse charters for reasonable special education costs, but districts have refused to pay any amount close to actual. Charter schools face millions in unpaid invoices for educating students with disabilities. In May 2024, we won a State Board of Education ruling declaring charters’ right to reimbursement of actual costs, and we’ve prevailed in districts’ subsequent appeal in state court. We continue pushing for implementation in an ongoing appeal.

This work matters because it’s critical to protect the systemic improvements that benefit students with disabilities and their access to school choice. While Connecticut charter schools operate as autonomous districts offering open enrollment for any interested students, for the purpose of special education, decisions about charter-enrolled students with disabilities’ Individualized Education Programs remain with the districts of residence. Charters implement these district-controlled plans and receive no direct funds for their special education programs, relying instead on district reimbursement of underlying costs. Ambiguous language and hostile districts have led to widespread underpayment for charter schools, who have accrued millions of dollars in unreimbursed special education invoices.

To rectify outstanding reimbursements and ensure district compliance with state law moving forward, The Center for Learner Equity (CLE) set a goal of securing clear guidance regarding charters’ right to reimbursement. With strategic advocacy before the state department of education, our charter partners ultimately prevailed in an agency declaratory ruling that existing state policy entitled them to reimbursement of actual costs. When districts appealed our win in superior court, we prevailed again. When a district stopped fulfilling its role in ensuring services for nearly 60 students with disabilities in one charter school, we took action on behalf of that school to enforce their students’ rights to free and appropriate public education. We continue to defend our policy and litigation win through litigation and strategic communications.

Our win ensures students with disabilities can exercise choice and attend charter schools resourced to meet their needs. Our advocacy extends the promise of quality choice to disrupt educational inequity for thousands of students with disabilities.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

Elevating local voices is key to our success. We needed to defend our policy win without exposing the charter sector in a politically hostile environment or perpetuating an unproductive narrative of public charter schools versus traditional public schools. As a national advocacy organization, we knew our presence could backfire with local policymakers. We strategically worked with local legal counsel, who acted as the public face of this advocacy, while we operated quietly in the background as the project manager and public policy strategist. Our local counsel has built a robust relationship with the state department of education, who is now our co-defendant in defending our policy wins alongside charter schools, against the districts. The state department of education, while also being the authorizer, continues to be a vocal defender of charter schools’ right to reimbursement of actual costs for educating students with disabilities. In the current local climate, it’s unprecedented agency support for charter schools.

Amongst the local advocacy community, we have developed relationships with charter advocates, disability advocates, and funding advocates. The Connecticut Charter School Association (CTCSA) is a key partner; together, we have provided trainings, technical assistance, and communications to the statewide charter sector. We have also established direct lines of communication with disability advocates. They have provided advice and support in moments where students’ educational services were compromised. They have also supported defending our policy wins, speaking up about how this funding fight represents discrimination against students with disabilities. Last but not least, we liaise with the School + State Finance Project for advice and information sharing about how to navigate the broader, complex CT school funding policy landscape.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Advocacy is all about the messenger. The right message with the wrong messenger can backfire. Our strategy is “adversarial diplomacy”: how we have seated the right partners at the table, have utilized multiple strategies, and have thought carefully about the best messengers, all while carefully navigating an unfriendly political climate. We have moved slowly and deliberately to protect our message and shore up the credibility of our charter partners. We have called in necessary stakeholders across lines of difference to ensure that our advocacy campaign remains authentically student-centered.

Our primary tactic has been leveraging obscure state administrative complaint processes and careful, deliberate engagement of the state department of education to demonstrate our charter partners’ good-faith desire to resolve a complex conflict. This has produced a decisive win that we continue to defend in partnership with the state and through the pursuit of creative legal and advocacy strategies.

RESOURCES

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dYhOqnRAsSxdKXQC6Km1fOght9tEIH6Zx8pb9oRSoqo/edit?usp=sharing

All Means All: Protecting The Right to Learn in Tennessee

All4Ed, EdTrust-Tennessee, Stand for Children Tennessee

Non-Network Partners: TN Immigrant and Refugee Rights Coalition, TN NAACP, and Statewide Organizing for Community eMpowerment

Network Policy Pillar: Responsive Systems

SUMMARY

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

Overall, these proposals compromise the mission of public education and harm all students.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

The odds were stacked against us, but we refused to back down. We knew the public had to be engaged. Lawmakers needed to see resistance – loud, organized, and constant.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Through Education for All-TN, we mobilized supporters in 294 cities, engaged 1,300+ volunteers, and drove over 8,000 actions—emails, calls, and videos to lawmakers.

RESOURCES

Defending the Public Charter School Option Nationwide

National Alliance for Public Charter Schools (NAPCS)

Network Policy Pillars: Innovative Options

SUMMARY

This tied decision lets stand the financial and operational framework for charter schools in 47 states, D.C., Guam and Puerto Rico and provides legal clarity that charter schools are public schools so they can continue to provide innovative, student-centered public school options in thousands of communities.

Our policy and advocacy impacts more than 3.8 million children—7.6% of all public school students—in nearly every U.S. state and territory, plus hundreds of thousands more on charter school waitlists. It also impacts 250,000 educators at 8,150 public charter schools.

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

Charter schools have been part of the public school system for 30+ years. In 1991, Minnesota incorporated charter schools into its public education system, with 46 states following suit. In 1994, Congress amended ESEA, recognizing charter schools as public. In all states, charter schools were established as public schools that leverage innovative and flexible models as alternatives to traditional districts. The legislative frameworks of the states that adopted charter school laws demonstrate that charters were meant to be public and designed to enhance the public school system.

Charter schools provide student-centered, high-performing education within the public school system. The charter school model empowers passionate educators to design innovative learning environments that set students, especially those from underserved communities, on a path to lifelong success while staying accountable to taxpayers. Research shows that charter students gain up to 45 more days of learning per year than their district peers. And, studies have found that where charter schools open, students in traditional districts also thrive.

In January 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Oklahoma’s St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond case and put it on the fast track for oral argument on April 30, 2025. The question before the Supreme Court was whether states must authorize and fund religious charter schools. To allow charter schools to be religious, the Supreme Court would have to find that charter schools are not public under the U.S. Constitution. This would have triggered legislative, legal, and political shifts in nearly every state, threatening the viability of charter schools nationwide.

Being declared public matters: the entire operational foundation charter schools are built on relies on it. As public schools, charter schools can access state per-pupil funding and taxpayer-backed school facilities financing mechanisms. Charter school teachers often participate in the public school teacher pension and healthcare programs. And charter schools receive federal funding for low-income children, children with disabilities, and school meals.

On May 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a 4–4 decision in the case, which left the current financial and operational status quo in place. While a tie does not set a permanent precedent, at least for now, charter schools remain public.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

The charter school community is diverse, with varied philosophical approaches to education. Despite these differences and the tight timeline of less than four months, the National Alliance united the sector by clarifying the stakes, aligning messaging, and activating allies.

Initially, many stakeholders underestimated the threat this case posed for public charter schools. We convened charter leaders, advocates, authorizers, parents, legislators, and attorneys general to achieve alignment on both sides of the aisle and file coordinated amicus briefs.

Seventy-four partners signed on to amicus briefs to show the Supreme Court just how important access to public education is to millions of students and families. These briefs ensured a complete picture was presented without being repetitive. Twenty-three charter support organizations representing 50% of all charter students in red and blue states and 16 charter school networks representing 438 schools and 200,000 students signed on to briefs. Fourteen parents and parent organizations submitted a brief in support of continued access to public school choice for their children. Nine former policymakers from both sides of the aisle and 18 attorneys general submitted briefs to underscore the critical need for charter schools in their communities. Many pioneering charter school lawmakers who championed the first charter laws in their states, including the sponsor of the first charter law, two governors, and a U.S. Secretary of Education, emphasized to the Supreme Court that charter schools have always been public schools.

We worked directly with the Oklahoma Attorney General’s office and their lawyer to implement our strategy and effectively present our case in Court on April 30.

Additional briefs were filed from six education reform organizations, 13 constitutional and educational law scholars, and 14 “public school organizations” including AFT, AASA, CGCS, NEA, and NSBA.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Most thought that the U.S. Supreme Court would not have taken up—and fast-tracked—the case if it did not have the votes to overturn Oklahoma’s Supreme Court decision. The Court’s recent decisions on religious liberty indicated it would rule in favor of religious charter schools.

Then, Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself—giving us the opportunity to build a strategy that 1) focused on the 34-year history of charter schools as public, 2) outlined the legislative uncertainty that would follow overturning Oklahoma’s decision, and 3) would give Justice Roberts a lane to find charter schools different from private schools.

Through a multi-faceted approach to messaging and coalition building, we secured a 4-4 vote. Tactics included: assembling a top-tier legal team, securing and maintaining significant sector support, and strategically engaging the press.

Our outside legal team worked side-by-side with our in-house lawyers to develop a well-rounded legal strategy. This team helped us organize and draft six briefs covering all relevant perspectives and coordinate signers.

We provided planning and guidance resources, legal analyses, talking points, and media coordination to establish trust and maintain engagement among stakeholders. Our team rapidly pulled together a deep-level analysis on charter law in every single state to help stakeholders understand the potential impact to the schools in their state and move them to action. This state-by-state analysis sets us up to more effectively mitigate damage from a future decision.

We developed a sophisticated media strategy to reach our target audience. We sourced supportive voices in blue states, conducted one-on-one outreach to reporters, met with editorial boards and hosted media roundtables, resulting in 849 total media mentions in 30 days, with a reach of 1.14 billion in target outlets: The New York Times, Associated Press, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, Politico, SCOTUS Blog, NPR, and ABC News.

RESOURCES:

U.S. Supreme Court decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-394_9p6b.pdf
Case history, submitted briefs, and media articles: https://publiccharters.org/scotus/
Guiding questions for stakeholders: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JvbBh-567V2sgFtcNoiPVVspTQjd0w24/view?usp=sharing
Stakeholder messaging document: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WXHRX5xuL-bz38uTBmOFXF9zDaX7BL-V/view?usp=sharing

Measuring What Matters: Defense of Tennessee’s Assessments and Teacher Evaluation Systems

ExcelinEd, State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE), Tennesseans for Student Success, Tennessee Charter School Center, TennesseeCAN

Network Policy Pillars: Great Educators, High Expectations

SUMMARY

This policy helps educators, districts, advocates, and policymakers set high expectations and measure success so they can provide supports for students, professional development and feedback for educators, and actionable insights for families about their children’s academic progress.

Our policy and advocacy impacts nearly 1 million Tennessee students who attend public K-12 schools as well as decision-makers at every level within the public school system, including teachers designing instruction plans, principals determining staffing, districts allocating resources, and parents making enrollment decisions.

WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

During the 2025 legislative session, state legislators proposed to eliminate state assessments, reduce graduation requirements, and skip annual evaluations for over 95% of Tennessee educators. These policies were originally enacted in 2007, when policymakers sought to raise expectations and improve outcomes for students. To achieve this, Tennessee developed new rigorous state standards, aligned statewide assessments to the standards, and created a new multi-measure teacher evaluation system.

Rolling back the foundational policies that have advanced student success — rigorous standards and graduation requirements, state assessments, and teacher evaluation — would negatively impact the positive progress Tennessee has made for students over the past two decades.

In 2007, Tennessee received an “F” rating from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce for “Truth in Advertising About Student Proficiency.” While the state assessment suggested that 90% of its fourth-grade students were proficient in math and 88% were proficient in English language arts (ELA), the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) showed that only 29% of those students were proficient in math and 27% in ELA. Tennessee’s state assessments were misleading about student performance, and Tennessee was unintentionally holding students to low expectations.

Following the implementation of state academic standards and aligned assessments to hold students to high expectations, student performance improved, and Tennessee’s academic performance notably stood out as one of the fastest growing in the nation. Student achievement in Tennessee rose as educators and districts had the information they needed to improve instruction and support students, and fewer students required remedial learning support in their first year of postsecondary education. With the foundational policies in place, the state’s resiliency stood out after the COVID-19 pandemic, and research highlighted Tennessee’s academic recovery as one of the most robust nationally.

Additionally, Tennessee’s educator evaluation system is a nationally recognized pillar for regular feedback, and research supports that it leads to improved student achievement. Studies show that student achievement growth and teacher growth can be attributed to the state’s evaluation reform. In the most recent Tennessee Educator Survey, nearly 80% of Tennessee teachers agreed or strongly agreed that the evaluation process has led to improvements in their teaching.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

By capitalizing on the strengths and relationships across our individual organizations, our coalition was able to plan strategically and successfully advocate for legislators to make their next action an intentional process to evaluate the existing assessment and teacher evaluation systems for potential policy innovations rather than rolling back existing policies.

In 2024, members of the Tennessee General Assembly signaled an intent to eliminate key elements of the state’s foundational education policies—graduation requirements, state assessments, and teacher evaluation—but ultimately deferred on those proposals in 2024 due to concerns from education advocates. Anticipating similar proposals returning in 2025, Tennessee’s education advocacy partners enacted a robust strategy for defense. Our strategies included:

Meeting monthly during the summer and fall of 2024 to build a coalition aligned on shared priorities and messaging. Increased to weekly meetings during 2025 legislative session to discuss the bill’s progress and coalition strategy for legislative engagement.
Proactively developed content that highlighted existing data and research, including SCORE’s Policy Pillars series.
Organized school tours over the fall of 2024 that highlighted the use of data to inform student and educator supports.
Leveraged a variety of media platforms — op-eds, blogs — to share the history and importance of foundational education policies.
Hosted new legislator briefings to share the history of Tennessee’s education reforms.
Utilized the release of NAEP to develop a timely presentation for the legislature’s education committees that connected the improved outcomes for Tennessee students to foundational policy reforms.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Coalition development and messaging: Successful defense of Tennessee’s foundational education policies was made possible because of our aligned coalition of education advocacy partners. Meeting regularly in advance of the 2025 legislative session ensured a culture of collaboration and creative problem solving across our organizations to advocate for our shared priorities. Across our network, we capitalized on our individual organizations’ strengths and existing relationships with legislators to create intentional connection points with members of the Tennessee General Assembly.

Leverage data and research: For nearly two decades, Tennessee has benefited from bipartisan support on foundational education reforms, with reform efforts spanning across several gubernatorial administrations and Tennessee General Assemblies. This history of bipartisan support is rooted in a shared commitment to student outcomes, and both research and data clearly show that these policies have successfully advanced student achievement. When support for statewide assessments waned, the coalition rooted our conversations in student outcomes data and demonstrated Tennessee’s continued progress to policymakers, emphasizing the risk to students if policymakers chose to roll back foundational education reforms.

RESOURCES

Original bill language – SB415/HB675: https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/114/Bill/SB0415.pdf
Final bill language – Public Chapter 426: https://publications.tnsosfiles.com/acts/114/pub/pc0426.pdf
Memo series: https://tnscore.org/resources/policy-pillars-series-2024
Op-ed: https://tinyurl.com/y6bnk3ns
Committee presentations: https://tinyurl.com/yuwdta77
Tennessee Firefly: https://tinyurl.com/y6bnk3ns
On the Fly Podcast: https://www.buzzsprout.com/2426786/episodes/17088797

Oklahoma Rights a Wrong: Reverting to Higher Standards for Students

ExcelinEd

Network Policy Pillars: High Expectations

SUMMARY

This policy helps Oklahoma parents, educators, and policymakers to accurately understand student learning and assess progress so they can make informed decisions that support student achievement and improve public trust in education outcomes.

Our policy efforts defend transparency and high expectations for more than 700,000 Oklahoma public school students by ensuring state assessments continue to reflect an honest picture of academic proficiency and readiness.

WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

In 2017–18, Oklahoma committed to transparency and excellence by aligning state assessment cut scores with NAEP proficiency levels. This move closed the “honesty gap” between state reports and what data showed about student performance.

In 2024, the Oklahoma Department of Education attempted to undo this progress by lowering proficiency cut scores, threatening the integrity of the system. ExcelinEd stepped in to publicly defend the original policy and protect honest reporting of student data.

This win matters because students deserve the truth—and parents, educators, and lawmakers need accurate information to drive improvement.

In 2024, Oklahoma’s lower cut scores had inflated student performance data, creating a 24-point gap between NAEP and state results in fourth grade reading. That gap had been just one point in 2019, thanks to the rigorous standard-setting policy adopted in 2018. Lowering cut scores misleads families, undercuts accountability, and masks the very challenges the system is meant to solve.

This year, the Office of Educational Quality and Accountability (OEQA), led by Secretary Nellie Sanders in Governor Kevin Stitt’s office, took action to revert to the previous 2017-2018 student assessment cut scores while committing to launching a new standards validation study, which reflects a serious commitment to transparency, academic integrity and clear and honest communication with parents about how their children are doing. These actions will reestablish confidence in Oklahoma’s educator-led standard-setting process that ensures students are mastering content and achieving state benchmarks.

This thoughtful course correction from OEQA sends a clear signal: Oklahoma is prioritizing honest, rigorous expectations that provide families with accurate insights into student achievement. At a time when some states have chosen to lower expectations or obscure results, Oklahoma is choosing to lead with clarity and conviction.

Defending honest, high standards wasn’t just about policy—it was about protecting Oklahoma students from being left behind by a system unwilling to acknowledge the reality of their learning needs.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

ExcelinEd collaborated with state leaders and focused on common ground: the shared belief that transparency and integrity are non-negotiable when it comes to student outcomes. We worked with education leaders to ensure that accountability and honesty remained core values in the state.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

One of the most valuable lessons is that defense campaigns require just as much strategy, urgency, and narrative-building as efforts to pass new laws. Messaging matters: instead of leading with technical assessment language, lead with the impact on parents and students. Framing the issue around trust, transparency, and truth-telling made it resonate more broadly and neutralized pushback.

Ultimately, strong policy is only as effective as the people willing to defend it – and protecting accountability is critical to ensuring long-term impact.

Saving the Minority Teachers of Illinois Scholarship

Advance Illinois

Network Policy Pillars: Great Educators, Responsive Systems

SUMMARY

This policy helps aspiring teachers of color to afford educator preparation programs so they can become teachers and improve outcomes for P-12 students.

At the current appropriation level, the Minority Teachers of Illinois (MTI) Scholarship Program directly serves approximately 1000 postsecondary students who are preparing to become teachers each year. The total impact, however, is far greater in that each successful graduate positively impacts hundreds or even thousands of P-12 students once they enter the classroom as a teacher.

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

MTI, originally established in 1992, encourages aspiring educators of color to pursue careers as teachers in Illinois’ preschool, elementary, and high schools to ensure that students have access to a more diverse teacher workforce that drives higher levels of achievement and better reflects their communities and identities. Eligible students may qualify for an award of up to $7,500 per year for a maximum of four years, and awards are prioritized for students with the greatest financial need. Upon graduation, teachers are expected to commit to teaching at a school that serves no less than 30% students of color (or, for qualified bilingual applicants, 20 or more English Learners) for the number of years they received funding.

Since 1992, the MTI has helped remove financial barriers for thousands of aspiring teachers from underrepresented backgrounds. MTI plays a key role in advancing equity by supporting the recruitment and retention of teachers who reflect the racial and ethnic diversity of Illinois students. Decades of research show that when students are taught by teachers who share their racial or ethnic background, outcomes improve across the board: academic achievement increases, graduation rates rise, and disciplinary incidents decline. In short, teacher diversity benefits all students.

Despite this, Illinois continues to face a deep representation gap: while 54% of public-school students are students of color, only 18% of teachers are people of color. Although progress has been made in diversifying the workforce, it hasn’t kept pace with the growing diversity of the student body.

A recent lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the MTI Scholarship poses a significant threat to this progress. It disregards the scholarship’s strong research foundation, its targeted design, and its critical mission to serve K-12 students. To date, MTI has supported more than 13,000 future educators, individuals who might not otherwise have been able to pursue teaching. Defending MTI was essential, not only to protect the program itself, but to uphold Illinois’ broader commitment to becoming the best state in the nation to raise a child. Losing MTI would have rolled back hard-won gains and harmed students most in need of representative educators.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

In a political context characterized by attacks on civil rights and DEIA, there were times when it was suggested that perhaps our time could best be used to determine how to re-share the scholarship to remove race. It was a struggle to find a balance between maintaining a robust defense of a program that we believe serves a very important and specific purpose in Illinois and in proactively planning for how we might continue to do the most good for candidates of color, and ultimately the p-12 students they will serve, if circumstances force the state to alter the program. In the end, we engaged on both fronts simultaneously—never wavering in our advocacy for the program as it currently stands and for the funding to continue it, even amidst legal pressure, and engaging in robust modeling and scenario planning to determine what alternative program models could continue to maximize support to aspiring teachers of color.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

We have been organizing and advocating for the MTI Scholarship for several years. When the lawsuit challenging its constitutionality was filed, it came as a surprise, but having an established network of advocates in place made all the difference. This foundation allowed us to respond quickly with coordinated, informed, and strategic advocacy efforts that were both timely and effective.

Although we didn’t have all the answers at the beginning, we prioritized transparency by sharing what we knew with advocates, legislators, and partners. We took a multi-pronged approach that combined storytelling, data analysis, and strategic mobilization. Each tactic reinforced the others: stories grounded the work in lived experience; data gave those stories context; and legal insight helped us frame the high stakes.

Our blog campaign kept the focus on students, by highlighting recipients and how the scholarship helped them, the challenges they overcame, and the success they are finding in their classroom. Simultaneously, our team provided data on teacher diversity gaps and shared how impactful MTI has been as a solution in addressing this gap.

In addition to defending MTI against the legal challenge, we also advocated for an $8M appropriation in the state budget, a dual effort that required strategic coordination and careful messaging. Thanks to strong systems and long-standing relationships, we were able to manage both efforts effectively. We were also mindful that some organizational partners felt more comfortable supporting the appropriation request than engaging directly in legal related advocacy. By respecting those boundaries, we created space for partners to contribute where they felt most aligned. This flexibility strengthened our overall advocacy efforts. Lastly, we remained proactive, particularly through policy analysis, by exploring alternative scholarship eligibility criteria in anticipation of potential legal outcomes.

RESOURCES

The Wrong Equation: Stopping Minnesota’s Rollback of Algebra Standards

EdAllies, EdTrust, ExcelinEd

Network Policy Pillars: High Expectations

SUMMARY

This policy helps Minnesota students to continue to be held to high standards in match so they can be more likely to take advanced math, attend college, and pursue STEM careers.

This defense ensured that over 800,000 current Minnesota students (those entering K-11th grade) will still adhere to the Minnesota algebra standards. Because this defense keeps the standards in place, it also ensures that those students who will continue to enter the school system will receive the same rigorous math standards as well. Because algebra is a statewide requirement, its repeal would protect all students across Minnesota as well as those who aren’t yet enrolled in kindergarten.

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

Our coalition acted to protect the current State of Minnesota graduation standards for mathematics, last certified in 2022.

During the 2025 legislative session, Minnesota policymakers proposed bipartisan legislation to eliminate algebra in both middle and high school. The proposal would have tracked students from historically underrepresented communities into lower-level math courses, robbing them of the opportunity to access college and leaving them without the necessary skills required in many professions.

Algebra is a critical gateway course. Students who complete algebra early are more likely to take advanced math, attend college, and pursue STEM careers. Colleges and universities throughout the country—including the University of Minnesota—require high school algebra before students can enroll in college courses. By eliminating algebra as an 8th grade standard and high school graduation requirement, the courses would be optional for schools to offer, creating a patchwork of students who can get ahead and those who unknowingly fall behind and an artificial ceiling on students’ life-long potential.

This proposal also came at a time when Minnesota is already facing alarming opportunity gaps. According to state data, only 22% of Minnesota Black students and Latino students met state math standards in 2024, compared to 56% of white students. Rolling back standards won’t close these gaps. In fact, evidence has shown that it will widen and cement them.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

Minnesota K-12 education advocates and organizations came out hard in defense of maintaining the algebra standards in the state, hearing testimony from EdAllies, EdTrust, ExcelinEd, local math teachers, and others. The messaging delivered was clear: Lowering algebra standards sends the message that we expect less from our students. Removing these standards assumes that Minnesota students—especially those from historically underserved communities—can’t handle rigor. Eliminating these standards is an abdication of our duty to prepare every student for any post-secondary path they choose. We should be investing in high-quality math instruction, equitable acceleration opportunities, and support systems that lift all students—especially those furthest from opportunity.

Advocates slowly undermined the proposal. We were first successful in reversing the elimination of Algebra I standards. We were initially dismayed by the inclusion of eliminating Algebra II standards in the Minnesota Senate Education bill, but because of our policy and communications work, the debate shifted and policymakers stood up in defense of our state’s strong math standards. We eventually defeated all proposals that would have weakened math instruction in Minnesota. Building on this momentum, we are meeting with local educators and partners interested in taking next steps to improve math instruction and further strengthen Minnesota’s math standards and align both policies and practices with what research shows helps all students achieve.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Sometimes we have to defend good policy without warning. This proposal was a surprise during an already chaotic Minnesota legislative session and we had little time to prepare. It was critical for us to work with experts at multiple organizations to showcase the impact removing standards will have on students and the case studies of other organizations that have tried similar proposals and failed.

RESOURCES

Best Defense Honorable Mentions

Leadership Matters! Leveraging Competition to Reimagine Principal Recruitment and Preparation

BEST NC

***Network Policy Pillars:* Great Educators, *Responsive Systems***

SUMMARY

This policy reimagined the principal talent pipeline, which is essential for improving teacher recruitment, retention, and quality.

Recruits, vets, and prepares the highest-caliber school leadership through a highly competitive process. The competitive process was defended in Fall 2024.
Only the top 8 of 23 MSA-granting programs are qualified to train candidates
Includes a full year, paid residency that ensures hands-on, job-embedded leadership training
No cost to the candidate (fully funded by the state) to remove financial barriers for our most talented future leaders
First year graduates are hired at a rate of 93%, compared to 33% for all other MSA programs in the state.
The program’s innovative design, implementation, and advocacy strategies and tactics resulted in a replicable model.

The NC Principal Fellows Program and BEST NC’s advocacy impact and estimated 400,000+ students each year by placing more than 700 competitively vetted and well-prepared administrators in schools across the state.

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

We successfully defended the integrity of the 2015 Principal Fellow Program by preserving its competitive grant structure. Proposals to expand the number of institutions or earmark funds would dilute program quality, undermining both the integrity of the Program and the effectiveness of school leadership across the state.

This win matters because it protects a policy that ensures only the most selective, high-quality institutions prepare NC’s future principals, resulting in stronger school leadership that directly improve teacher effectiveness, student achievement, and outcomes for an estimated 400,000 students statewide.

The Institutions Selected to Prepare NC Principal Fellows are the Best of the Best.
- The NC Principal Fellows Program is intentionally competitive: only the top 8 of 23 MSA programs qualify to participate
- The selective structure of the grant award process ensures only the top institutions are preparing principal candidates
The competition also raises the overall quality of MSA programs by incentivizing them to improve in order to receive or retain these grants
- The Program flips the traditional incentive model by rewarding rigor, effectiveness, and impact, not just enrollment numbers
- Institutions that Compete Based on Outcomes are Incentivized to Only Select the Best Candidates.
- Participating institutions become highly selective with candidates knowing that the 6-year grant renewal cycle depends on the outcomes of their graduates
In contrast, most MSA programs outside the Principal Fellows Program network accept 70%-100% of applicants with less emphasis on candidate quality.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

BEST NC worked across lines of difference by partnering with experts and policymakers to establish a ‘Development Grant’ for the runner-up institution that falls just short of receiving the grant. The Development Grant preserved the Program’s competitive integrity while expanding opportunity and successfully prevented expansion or dilution that would weaken the NC Principal Fellows Program.

Convene Stakeholders, Including Adversaries When Possible:

BEST NC collaborated with a diverse group of experts to publish a policy brief focused on protecting the NC Principal Fellows Program’s competitive integrity.
By understanding the pain points of the opposition and better articulating which were valid and which were inconsistent with program quality, we were able to lay out a more coherent diagnosis and solution.

Find Win-Win Solutions:

A key recommendation in the published NCPFP Brief was the creation of a “Development Grant” awarded to the runner-up institution each grant cycle.
The Development Grant offers up to $250,000 per year for six years, helping strengthen near-miss programs without lowering selection standards.
This solution balances quality and equity by expanding support to more institutions, while maintaining the high bar for full program participation.

Seek a Third-Party Endorsement:

The NC Principal Fellows Commission formally approved the NCPFP Brief recommendation and submitted it for legislative action.
The Commission includes MSA Program deans, so it demonstrated the universal acceptance of the recommendation.

Success!

Since identifying and publishing this collaborative, bipartisan solution, and by securing an endorsement by the governing body, no legislation has been introduced to dilute the program by expanding it to less-qualified or earmarked institutions.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

PIE Network members can learn that controlling the narrative was the key to our success in defending and, in fact, strengthening this policy.

Shape the narrative thorough a research-based brief

- Documenting a program’s history, purpose, benefits, and future path helps prevent misinterpretation as the policy ages Emphasize the shared goals of the program such as, in this case, school leadership quality and student outcomes.
- Convene diverse voices early, documenting where consensus can be found, but not requiring an endorsement so the opposition cannot claim they were unaware of these recommendations.
- Establish specific, actionable policy recommendations tied to an advocacy strategy. Look for opportunities that not only defend but also strengthen the program. In this case, we realized that providing a development grant would thwart opposition while it also helped sustain competition amongst the programs that are competitive for the lower-ranked spots, e.g., there might be 10 institutions that are competitive for spots 5-8 and we want an added incentive to keep them competing cycle after cycle.
Build a coalition around the recommendations.

Establish the brief and its recommendations as the most credible, viable option.
Work with the appropriate channels to build support. In this case, we worked with the Principal Fellows Commission to formally endorse this approach and recommend it to the legislature.

RESOURCES

NC Principal Fellows Program Brief: https://bestnc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/New-North-Carolina-Principal-Fellows-Program-Brief-Digital-Copy.pdf
NC Principal Fellows Program Landing Page: North Carolina Principal Fellows Program – BEST NC: https://bestnc.org/principalfellows/

Parents and Partners Stop City from Taking Millions in Education Funding

Kids First Chicago

Non-Network Partners: The Chicago Public Education Fund (The Fund) and the Civic Federation

***Network Policy Pillars:* *Responsive Systems***

SUMMARY

This policy helps Chicago Public Schools (CPS) families and students to protect essential school funding so they can ensure classroom resources are not diverted to solve the City’s budget challenges.

Our policy and advocacy impact more than 320,000 students in Chicago Public Schools. It also helped more than 30,000 educators within the system. And broadly speaking was a long-term benefit to the 2.7 million residents of Chicago.

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

We defended CPS’s fiscal independence and its legal right to retain its education funding. The City is legally obligated to pay its pension costs. CPS was never required to reimburse the City for this expense, and we worked to uphold that boundary.

This win preserved $175 million in CPS funding that the City of Chicago attempted to reclaim after paying its own legally required pension obligation. The City requested that CPS reimburse this payment, which would have left the district with no choice but to cut school budgets or borrow funds. Either option would have had a direct, negative impact on students and classrooms.

The decision to reject the City’s request protected critical education dollars during an already sensitive period of contract negotiations with the Chicago Teachers Union. It ensured that CPS could continue planning responsibly and funding its priorities based on student needs, not City Hall’s budget shortfalls.

Importantly, this was not a simple victory. More than half of the CPS Board members were appointed by the Mayor and were likely under political pressure to align with the City’s position. Additionally, the Chicago Teachers Union quietly supported the City’s request, as it would have triggered CPS borrowing, which the union viewed as a way to make additional space for its contract priorities. This alignment between CTU and the Mayor’s office added complexity and blurred traditional lines of advocacy.

Ultimately, this win did more than preserve dollars. It set a new precedent. Some Board members realized their votes would now be held accountable by parents, community members, and public interests, not just by political allies. This campaign elevated the importance of listening to stakeholders and reinforcing the core principle that students’ needs must come first.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

Kids First Chicago (K1C), in partnership with The Chicago Public Education Fund (The Fund) and the Civic Federation, led a successful effort to stop a major financial threat to Chicago Public Schools (CPS). The City of Chicago was pressuring CPS to hand over $175 million to help close its own budget gap. These funds would have come directly from schools and students.

With more than half the CPS BOE appointed by and facing political pressure to align with the Mayor, the proposal seemed likely to pass. The Chicago Teachers Union quietly supported the transfer as it would have forced CPS to borrow, creating room for more contract demands. Despite this political alignment, we knew families and educators did not support using education dollars to fix the City’s finances.

We began organizing in late February. We testified publicly at the CPS Board meeting to reinforce that CPS should not be asked to solve the City’s fiscal issues. In March, we hosted a bilingual public info session with more than 120 participants. Ninety-five percent of attendees opposed the transfer. Parents left the session prepared to act.

Our coalition rapidly grew. Parents, principals, and partners met with Board members, issued a petition, and co-authored op-eds. We helped circulate a letter signed by dozens of education leaders. When a financial analysis confirmed the harmful impact, we shared it with media and decision-makers.

Throughout the campaign, we prioritized accessibility. Our coalition included bilingual families, civic leaders, school-based staff, and policy advocates. We created clear materials, coordinated messaging, and ensured those most affected could speak directly to Board members.

This effort showed what is possible when communities organize. When the Board pulled the item from the agenda and seven members publicly opposed it, it marked a clear shift. Board members now understood that their votes would be scrutinized not only by City leadership, but by the families they serve.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Start early, stay aligned, and activate parents with clear, practical steps. Our campaign combined thoughtful policy analysis, public education, and grassroots pressure. Key lessons include:
Those directly impacted must be equipped to lead the work, on their terms, anchored ot their views.
Don’t underestimate the power of plain-language communication to break down complex budget issues.
Equip families and stakeholders with tools to act—emails, scripts, media templates.
Use public forums to gauge and reflect community sentiment in real time.
Build momentum across platforms: board meetings, op-eds, social media, direct engagement.
Success comes from layering advocacy strategies, not relying on just one.

RESOURCES

OST Stronghold: Protecting Access to Enrichment Opportunities Beyond the Bell

Parents Amplifying Voices in Education (PAVE)

***Network Policy Pillars:* Innovative Options, *Responsive Systems***

SUMMARY

In a tight budget year, nationally and locally, this policy helps families, especially those furthest from economic opportunity, continue to access out-of-school time (summer, after school, etc.), and other enrichment programs that allow students to build relationships, explore their passions, extend their learning, and prepare for future careers – a critical strategy to breaking the one-size-fits-all mold of education and supporting students’ academic recovery and wellbeing.

Our policy and advocacy impacts 37,000 students enrolled in afterschool programs and 32,000 students enrolled in summer programs across DC. As a result of our efforts, according to the 50CAN Education Opportunity Survey, DC ranked 1st across all states both in terms of the percentage of children who participated in a supervised summer program and the percentage of children who regularly participated in a supervised afterschool program in the past school year, regardless of income level.

HISTORY & WHY THIS WIN MATTERS

We defended millions of dollars in out-of-school time (OST) funding, including funding for programming; the My Out-of-School Time DC (MOST-DC) portal, a centralized platform for families to navigate programs, and coverage of security costs. PAVE Parent Leaders have advocated for OST funding since 2017; in 2018, we advocated for historic increases in OST funding. PAVE Parent Leaders have fought every year since then to protect and expand that funding, and successfully defended it again from cuts both during the pandemic and now in this especially difficult budget year.

Out-of-school time (OST) programming plays a vital role in student success, especially for students who need more time, support, and enrichment beyond the traditional school day. These programs boost academic performance, improve attendance, reduce risky behaviors, and provide a safe and engaging environment where students can thrive.

According to the Afterschool Alliance, 83% of DC parents say OST programs keep kids safe and out of trouble, and 80% say they reduce the likelihood of risky behavior. Families also report that OST makes their children more excited to learn and more connected to school.

But access remains a challenge. A 2023 D.C. Policy Center analysis found DC needs roughly 40,000 more PK3–8 seats and nearly 13,0000 more high school seats for universal coverage for after school programs. Cuts would have made this worse—forcing providers to scale back and increasing costs for families at a time when programs – and budgets – are already stretched.

Public investments have also supported innovation—like the MOST-DC portal, which helps families discover and navigate OST options, and the addition of security coverage that makes it easier for schools to host programs safely.

Protecting this policy in the local budget ensures thousands of students can continue to benefit from these opportunities, while the District works to grow the system to meet rising demand. Without it, DC risked losing momentum on one of the most impactful supports for student learning, well-being, and future success.

WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS

OST is a cross-cutting priority that transcends silos and even school communities. To defend funding, we activated a broad and diverse coalition—students, families, program providers, schools, policy partners, funders, and employers—all aligned in showing that OST is essential.

In October 2024, we hosted the OST Youth and Family Summit, bringing together 125 attendees including students, caregivers, elected officials, and representatives from 18 partner organizations. The event showcased the deep value of OST, the need to address barriers to access, and youth stories that moved stakeholders into action. Student panels elevated their lived experiences, while leaders from across DC’s education ecosystem publicly committed to protecting OST.

Ahead of the Summit, we formed a steering committee of partners and hosted an OST Summit Partner Convening with 25 organizations to design the Summit and align on shared priorities. Our approach was intentionally cross-sector and inclusive—bringing together organizations focused on academics, public safety, and workforce development, and ensuring all voices, especially youth and parents, were front and center.

In a moment where budget tradeoffs were inevitable, our coalition stood united. We showed up early, loudly, and together—proving that OST isn’t a nice-to-have, it’s a must-have and central to the academic success and future of our children.

ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN

Start early. Show up often. Stay aligned.

We knew that defending OST funding in this fiscal climate would be a challenge—so we didn’t wait for the budget to drop. We launched our defense months in advance, grounded in strong community voice, coalition strength, and policy knowledge.

Our October 2024 OST Youth and Family Summit served as a pre-budget moment of momentum. Policymakers saw early and clearly that this was a top priority. And by keeping OST centered in the public conversation throughout the year, we ensured it stayed off the chopping block.

We also built on years of consistent advocacy. PAVE Parent Leaders have made OST a priority since 2017—helping to institutionalize its value and earn long-term buy-in across sectors. That longevity gave us staying power when times got tough.

Fellow Network members can also take note of our strategy around convening. By bringing diverse stakeholders together—students, parents, CBOs, school leaders, and policymakers—we showed unity, generated positive attention, and created space for deeper shared learning and alignment.

Holding the line isn’t just about reacting. It’s about being proactive, consistent, and collaborative. That’s how we protected what matters most: safe, joyful, high-quality learning for kids beyond the school day.

Best Defense Winner

Best Defense Finalists

Best Defense Honorable Mentions

Get to Know the Network