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 2026 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 Finalists
State Collaborative on Reforming Education (SCORE), Tennesseans for Student Success, Tennessee Charter School Center, TennesseeCAN
Network Policy Pillar: High Expectations
SUMMARY
These policies helped advocates and legislators redirect anti-testing sentiment into productive, data-driven solutions. Instead of responding to efforts to weaken statewide assessments and accountability measures, these policies will lead to better understanding of local testing burden and will enforce accountability for chronically low-performing schools. This strategy built a coalition of champions willing to fight FOR higher expectations rather than the removal of foundational policies.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 1,000,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
In recent years, there have been numerous attempts to weaken Tennessee’s existing accountability and assessment system, including bills in 2025 that would have drastically reduced statewide assessments and impeded the state’s ability to monitor student outcomes. After defeating the harmful legislative proposals, our coalition of advocates worked with lawmakers in late 2025 and 2026 to develop proactive solutions for reducing local assessment burden and for holding low-performing virtual schools accountable.
Tennessee has built a strong trajectory of student growth on a bedrock of foundational assessment and accountability systems. Protecting these systems is critical for equity, but maintaining guardrails requires responding strategically when political friction threatens them.
During the 2025 legislative session, anti-testing sentiment peaked. Hearing complaints about testing burdens, legislators sought to rollback essential assessment and accountability components. SCORE, TSS, TNCAN, and TCSC met that challenge head-on, successfully amending legislation to instead create a legislative K-12 Innovations Committee to explore the issue. Our coalition then developed a strategy to preserve the statewide system: engaging the committee throughout the year with data-backed arguments and proactive, alternative recommendations. This illustrated how a strong offense can serve as the best defense—flipping the conversation and giving aligned legislators a productive, student-centered agenda to fight for. This strategic pivot matters for students in two profound ways:
- Optimizing Student Testing: Instead of letting opponents peel back statewide assessment, the Local Assessments Inventory bill directed energy toward the root problem. It required the state to identify local assessments that are fragmented, incoherent, or unaligned to district curriculum and student needs. This protected vital state data while paving the way to eliminate redundant local testing.
- Enforcing Rigor for Underserved Students: Our coalition then utilized this momentum to shine a spotlight on a chronically low-performing sector—virtual schools, which serve 15,000 students across 60+ schools.
By bringing student data to the forefront, we gave policymakers a vehicle to enforce accountability and protect students in settings that historically failed to meet expectations. Ultimately, this win preserved TN’s foundational policies by transforming a threat into an initiative that advanced higher expectations.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
SCORE, TSS, TNCAN, and TCSC formed a tight, coordinated coalition to execute a unified advocacy strategy. Our collective approach relied on deliberate coordination to shift the legislative conversation. The SCORE team dove into the data and investigated the claim that Tennessee has too many tests by analyzing our existing systems, peer states, innovations in assessment, and research on the purposes of various assessments. Through collaboration, our coalition then landed on a handful of proactive recommendations for improvement that would be responsive to legislator concerns. Leveraging these evidence-based recommendations, coalition advocates across organizations provided private briefings (either individually or in small groups) to every member of the K-12 Innovations Committee prior to the commencement of Committee action. We also released public memos and provided testimony to the Innovations Committee that outlined the proactive recommendations to streamline local assessments as well as improve the timeliness of results being returned to students and educators.
The TSS team commissioned targeted polling on key agenda items discussed by the K-12 Innovations Committee, including statewide assessments, teacher evaluations, school accountability measures, and postsecondary and workforce alignment. The resulting data was incorporated into TSS’s messaging strategy and news coverage provided by the TSS funded Tennessee Firefly. This provided needed political support for coalition efforts. TSS began its candidate recruitment cycle in Fall 2025, which continued through April 2026. During this process, TSS ensured assessments and accountability remained a centerpiece in all electoral engagements, providing early and strong support to candidates committed to defending foundational reforms. Through this seamless collaboration, our coalition demonstrated that a united front backed by creative, data deployment can completely change a legislative trajectory.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
The primary lesson for fellow Network members is that when foundational policies face intense political blowback, traditional defensive postures—such as repeating abstract arguments about why the state needs data—often fall flat. Advocates must, therefore, change the calculus by flipping the conversation and giving lawmakers a productive, student-centered agenda to fight FOR. Network members can take away two key tactical strategies from this campaign:
- Reframe the Problem to Target the True Friction: We consistently heard from legislators that their constituents were frustrated by an “overwhelming testing burden” while they saw minimal connection between data collection and student outcomes. Rather than arguing why the state test mattered, our coalition directed that constituent energy toward the root of the problem: an uncoordinated set of local assessments administered without intention or curriculum alignment and a long delay between testing and students and families receiving results. By shifting the focus to local testing, we protected vital state assessments while positioning advocates as problem-solvers.
- Use an Offensive Pivot to Re-Energize Stakeholders: Defense doesn’t mean standing still. While addressing assessment friction, the coalition simultaneously brought a chronically low-performing sector of schools to the legislature’s attention. By relentlessly highlighting poor student achievement and growth data in these environments, we shifted the legislative conversation from accountability rollbacks to strict enforcement of quality standards. Lawmakers were given a clear, data-backed mandate to protect students, changing the narrative from defending the status quo to advancing high expectations.
By diagnosing the true source of friction and pairing it with a high-stakes accountability target, the coalition gave aligned legislators the policy ideas and political cover needed to champion rigor, rather than letting opponents dominate the narrative.
RESOURCES
- The Future of State and Local Assessments in Tennessee
- Poll Finds Voters Oppose Removing Algebra II as a Graduation Requirement and Reductions in Required Exams | Tennessee Firefly
- Teachers Union Calls for Ending Annual Evaluations for Every Teacher, Even Though Polls Show Most Oppose the Change | Tennessee Firefly
- On the Fly: Rep. Scott Cepicky Discusses the Need for Virtual School Accountability
Illinois Network of Charter Schools
Network Policy Pillar: Innovative Options
SUMMARY
This policy helps charter school leaders operate and grow high-performing public schools so more students and families, especially in communities with few quality options, can access safe, supportive, and academically rigorous learning environments that prepare students for college, careers, postsecondary success, and meaningful lives.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 60,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
We defended Illinois public charter school law, enacted in 1996. This win matters because it protected educational opportunities for nearly 60,000 students attending Illinois public charter schools, approximately 96% of whom are students of color and 85% of whom come from low-income households. If Illinois charter schools were their own district, they would represent the second-largest public school district in the state. For nearly 30 years, Illinois charter school law has provided families with access to diverse, innovative, and high-quality public school options. These schools offer specialized academic programs, college-preparatory environments, career-focused pathways, and learning models designed to meet the unique needs of students and communities. This was not a defense against minor policy changes. SB3391 and SB4040 represented two of the most consequential threats to Illinois charter school law since its enactment in 1996. SB3391 would have imposed significant new financial and operational burdens on charter schools, diverting resources away from classrooms and increasing the risk of future school closures. SB4040 would have eliminated the statewide authorizer and independent appeals process, forcing high-performing state-authorized schools back under the authority of districts that had previously denied them and removing a critical pathway for families and educators seeking high-quality public school options.
Together, these bills would have significantly weakened Illinois charter school law, reduced opportunities for high-quality schools to open and grow, and limited educational options for current and future families. The victory was particularly significant because it occurred in one of the nation’s most challenging political environments for charter schools. Despite strong political headwinds in a deeply blue state with powerful union opposition, we successfully protected key safeguards within Illinois charter law and preserved educational opportunities for tens of thousands of students.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
Defeating these bills required a broad, statewide coalition united around protecting educational opportunities for students. We brought together charter school leaders, educators, parents, students, board members, and community advocates from across Illinois to elevate the voices of families most impacted by these proposals. Throughout the legislative session, more than 7,200 advocates filed opposition witness slips. Parents, educators, and school leaders participated in advocacy days, traveled to Springfield, made phone calls, sent emails, met directly with legislators, and delivered powerful testimony about the impact charter schools have on students and communities. Our coalition remained focused on students and families rather than politics. We elevated authentic stories from families whose children were thriving in charter schools and highlighted the consequences these bills would have on current and future students. We also worked across lines of political difference. In a deeply blue state with significant political opposition to charter schools, we maintained bipartisan support while persuading Democratic legislators and Democratic leadership that these bills would harm students and limit educational opportunity. Through sustained advocacy, relationship-building, and grassroots mobilization, we moved enough votes to stop both bills during the final hours of the legislative session. This victory demonstrated that even in highly polarized environments, diverse coalitions can unite around a shared commitment to students and families.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
Three lessons stand out from this campaign.
First, define the stakes early and consistently. We framed these bills not as charter school issues, but as threats to educational opportunity for nearly 60,000 students. By focusing on student impact, school quality, and family access rather than institutional interests, we built broader support and credibility with policymakers.
Second, pair grassroots energy with targeted legislative, political, and leadership strategy. More than 7,200 advocates filed opposition witness slips, but mobilization alone did not win. We combined grassroots engagement with direct legislator education, relationship-building, strategic communications, and timely advocacy at key decision points throughout the session. Equally important, sustained leadership and political investment created the conditions for success. Years of coalition building, political engagement, electoral work, and relationship-building helped ensure policymakers understood the impact charter schools have in their communities and were willing to listen when these threats emerged. Legislative victories are often the result of work done years before a vote is ever taken.
Third, do not assume political headwinds determine outcomes. Illinois is a deeply blue state with powerful union opposition and entrenched political interests. Rather than accepting defeat, we focused on building bipartisan support and persuading Democratic legislators through authentic parent, educator, and school leader voices. Ultimately, enough legislators recognized the harm these bills would cause and stopped them in the final hours of session.
The biggest lesson is that successful defensive campaigns require both discipline and persistence. By staying focused on students, maintaining a united coalition, investing in long-term political relationships, and consistently communicating what was at stake, we successfully defeated two of the most consequential threats to Illinois charter school law.
RESOURCES
PIE Network members, for resources, please contact Jodie Cantrell (Illinois Network of Charter Schools).
EdTrust, Educators for Excellence, National Parents Union (NPU)
Network Policy Pillar: Responsive Systems
SUMMARY
This coalition helps the nearly 50 million public school students in America — especially those from low-income communities, students with disabilities, students of color, and students in rural areas — to retain access to federally funded programs, civil rights protections, and a fully functioning Department of Education, so they can receive a fair, fully funded, and equitable public education free from political interference.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 50,000,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
The Education Protection War Room (EdPWR) has defended the full architecture of federal education policy, including the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA/ESSA, 1965/2015), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1975), Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), and the federal appropriations infrastructure that funds public schools. These landmark laws and federal education programs represent decades of bipartisan progress ensuring equity, opportunity, and federal investment in every child’s education.
The federal infrastructure for public education represents America’s most durable commitment to educational equity. For students with disabilities, those in poverty, English learners, and students of color, federal funding and civil rights protections are the difference between access and exclusion. Beginning in early 2025, that infrastructure came under unprecedented attack: the administration moved to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, withhold billions in appropriated funds, eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, use interagency agreements to transfer education offices and programs like the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (OESE) and IDEA to agencies without education expertise, and redirect public dollars to private schools.
EdPWR held the line and won:
- Federal funding preserved: The FY26 budget rejected $12 billion in proposed education cuts (15% of the prior budget) and maintained grant funding streams. This was a direct result of Hill visits, joint statements, and sustained coalition pressure.
- $7 billion in impounded funds released: When the administration withheld nearly $7 billion in appropriated funds—including afterschool and summer learning dollars—EdPWR mobilized parents, educators, and advocates until the administration relented.
- Civil rights protections defended: In January 2026, the administration dropped its effort to weaponize Title VI to censor teaching about controversial topics, following legal defeats supported by coalition advocacy.
- Department of Education preserved: Federal courts, including judges appointed by this administration, repeatedly blocked unlawful firings and ordered reinstatement of Department staff. These wins reflect 18 months of a coordinated defense by a coalition that refused to cede ground on America’s foundational commitments to its children.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
The Education Protection War Room (EdPWR) is a broad, nonpartisan coalition of more than 60 national and state organizations—spanning parents, educators, researchers, civil rights advocates, school leaders, and community groups—united around a shared commitment to public education. Its power lies in both diversity and discipline. Rather than requiring agreement on every policy question, EdPWR was built around what members share: opposition to dismantling federal education infrastructure, commitment to civil rights and equity, and belief in public accountability for public dollars. Facilitators re-ground members in shared goals at the start of every meeting, enabling rapid collective action in a fast-moving environment.
The coalition deliberately leverages each member’s strengths. EdTrust leads on research and policy analysis. NPU mobilizes parent voices across 1.7 million members and 1,800+ affiliates. E4E channels teacher voice, conducting Hill visits with members of Congress. Other partners lead on legal strategy, communications, and digital organizing, allowing the coalition to respond on multiple fronts simultaneously. EdPWR has united constituencies that don’t always work together—parents and teachers, national organizations and local community groups, policy experts and digital creators. Through a TrendingUp partnership, the coalition engaged creators with millions of followers to reach new audiences. For example, the Not One Step Back Town Hall drew 1,000+ RSVPs and featured two Governors, a U.S. Representative, parents, educators, a student, and a district leader. E4E conducted targeted Hill visits with Republican members, and more than 10 Republican Senators joined Democrats opposing funding freezes, critical to the FY26 appropriations victory.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
EdPWR offers a replicable model for how coalitions can mount an effective defense in a rapidly shifting policy environment. Six lessons stand out:
- Build the infrastructure before you need it. EdPWRs ability to respond quickly to each new federal action depended on infrastructure built in advance: biweekly coalition calls with 30+ organizations, a shared resource bank, aligned talking points, and rapid response protocols. When crises hit, the coalition was ready to act.
- Define shared principles, not shared politics. By focusing on a shared set of goals, EdPWR enabled organizations with different constituencies to act in unison—making it possible for 103 national organizations, 225 state and local organizations, and over 1,000 individual parents, educators, and community members to sign a single joint letter to Congress.
- Elevate authentic voices, especially parents, educators, and students. EdPWRs most impactful moments came when real people spoke. Policymakers and the public respond to lived experience, and the coalition consistently created platforms for those voices at rallies, town halls, and press calls.
- Match the tactic to the moment. EdPWR deployed different tools for different threats: joint statements for rapid response, Hill visits for legislative moments, town halls for public education, and digital toolkits for network amplification.
- Make it easy for others to act. The coalition consistently reduced barriers to participation by providing call scripts, sample social posts, white-label videos, action alerts, and advocacy toolkits that member organizations could deploy with minimal lift.
- Play the long game. The FY26 budget victory came after months of biweekly coordination, multiple Hill visits, joint statements from 30+ CEOs and executive directors, and sustained public pressure. Defensive wins require endurance.
RESOURCES
EdTrust in Texas, Teach Plus Texas, Texas 2036, The Commit Partnership, ExcelinEd
Network Policy Pillar: High Expectations
SUMMARY
This policy helps Texas parents, educators, and policymakers maintain clear, comparable, standards-based information on how every school and student is performing. This allows them to continue to make informed decisions about their child’s education, target support to the schools and students who need it most, and hold school systems accountable for closing achievement and opportunity gaps.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 5,400,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
Since the 1980s, Texas has maintained a series of rigorous, statewide assessments. The current assessment program, the STAAR test, was first administered in 2011-12. The Texas A-F accountability system was first created in 2015 and then subsequently updated in 2017 and again in 2021 to ensure the state could intervene when schools failed to improve after five consecutive years.
Texas has built one of the most rigorous and transparent assessment and accountability systems in the country, including a commitment to rigorous statewide testing, a first-in-class parent dashboard that provides assessment results, and a strong approach to school supports. But, for the past several years, Texas has faced bipartisan criticism of its state test, with opponents urging the legislature to move toward nationally norm-referenced testing and arguing that the accountability system should be diluted with input-based, subjective indicators that would inflate school ratings and make it harder to understand which schools and students need the most support. In 2025, “eliminate STAAR” became one of the most popular promises at the Capitol. The leading vehicle to do this, House Bill 4, would have replaced Texas’s standards-based test with nationally norm-referenced exams that would have no guarantee of measuring Texas-specific standards and would have provided results that could not be compared across districts.
The bill also adjusted the “Closing the Gaps” measure in the state’s accountability system (a measure of disaggregated performance by racial and income groups included in performance calculations) from 30% to just 5% of a school’s rating. With our own STAAR data showing only about half of Texas students meeting grade level in reading, math, science, and social studies — still below where we were before the pandemic — trading an honest yardstick for one that hides the problem would have hit Black and Latino students as well as students from low-income backgrounds hardest. Losing honest measurement and reliable, annual ratings would have taken away the only tool parents, educators, and policymakers have to see where kids are struggling and get them real help — at the exact moment Texas can least afford to fly blind on how our students are doing.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
Texas 2036, the Commit Partnership, EdTrust in Texas, Teach Plus Texas, ExcelinEd, and Center for Strong Public Schools built a cross-sector coalition throughout the session — business leaders, parents, teachers, and national assessment experts — knowing that “eliminate STAAR” was a popular message but that the substance underneath it was contested and not well understood, and lawmakers needed to hear an alternative and consistent message from multiple directions.
Texas’ coalition hosted an Assessment & Accountability Lunch and Learn for legislative staff and stakeholders featuring a former superintendent (Dr. Jeannie Stone, Richardson ISD), a business leader (Dallas Regional Chamber), a classroom teacher (Dallas ISD), and a parent and accountability expert, to ground the debate in real voices instead of policy jargon. We also coordinated direct engagement efforts to shed light on the flaws of relying on nationally norm-referenced tests, built a campaign to debunk common misconceptions, and centered student proficiency and needs at every turn. These broad-scale supports were magnified by consistent Capitol visits, public testimony, and back-room negotiations to support a compromise that allowed legislators to “eliminate STAAR” while replacing it with a new, Texas standards-based test that provides educators with aligned interim assessments, delivers faster results to parents, and limits the overuse of benchmark testing.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
Because the fight spanned across a regular session, two special sessions, and three bills, no single organization could sustain the defense alone. The InvestEdTexas coalition facilitated a working group of advocacy organizations, business leaders, parent groups, and national assessment experts to align on messaging, coordinate testimony, and strategically divide the work. That infrastructure allowed the coalition to respond quickly across chambers, parties, and bills without losing coherence or leaving gaps in coverage.
Sustained, coordinated testimony across both chambers over six months sent a consistent signal that the coalition was not going away. When lawmakers heard the same message from business, parents, educators, and equity advocates across every hearing, our voice became harder to dismiss as a narrow interest. Rapid-response materials gave every partner something credible to deploy when misinformation surfaced. A criterion vs. norm-referenced one-pager, a myths vs. facts sheet, an Assessment and Accountability 101 backgrounder, a comparison of state assessment models, and an A-F case study circulated across the coalition, so messaging was targeted and consistent, and rebuttal was never dependent on one voice being in the room.
Public polling gave the coalition political cover. Two statewide voter polls documented landslide, bipartisan support for the final bill’s goals: 71% in favor of clear A-F ratings and 85% in favor of 48-hour results. Earned media reinforced the same message, including an op-ed and independent editorial board agreement in the Dallas Morning News, plus coverage in the Texas Tribune, Community Impact, and statewide outlets. Texas students still have an honest, standards-based assessment and accountability system that tells every parent, educator, and policymaker exactly how students are meeting grade-level expectations. That outcome belongs to a coalition that built and sustained its defense across multiple sessions.
RESOURCES
EdTrust-New York
Non-Network Partners: International Network for Public Schools, New York Civil Liberties Union, New York State Association for Bilingual Education, New York State Language and Education Rights Network (NYS-LERN)
Network Policy Pillar: Responsive Systems
SUMMARY
This policy helps undocumented and immigrant students to access tuition-free K-12 education regardless of immigration status, so they are protected from exclusionary practices or violations of their civil rights, and makes schools safe places where ICE can only enter with a judicial warrant.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 2,421,491 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
Our advocacy focused on protecting immigrant students’ access to school, shielding families from being asked for immigration information except when required by law, and requiring districts to develop protocols for non-local law enforcement. Although some protections already existed, the state needed additional codification to eliminate legal vulnerabilities, especially with the Supreme Court’s Plyler vs. Doe decision under threat at the federal level.
In recent years, efforts have grown to overturn Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court decision that guarantees access to K-12 public education for all children residing in the U.S., regardless of immigration status. The ruling held that the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution prohibits states from denying children an education based on immigration status. Despite this long-standing precedent, there is a coordinated effort to introduce dangerous legislation aiming to provoke a lawsuit that would help the Supreme Court overturn Plyler.
This is not a hypothetical threat. As a state largely made up of immigrants, NY needed to prepare for an eventual challenge to the ruling. Several states introduced legislation inconsistent with the ruling, creating a direct path for legal challenges to be brought back to the Supreme Court in an attempt to narrow or overturn its holding. Opponents of Plyler have made their intentions to overturn the ruling clear. The threat to Plyler means that protections need to exist at the state level, but only a handful of states currently have strong safeguards in place.
Advancing these protections proactively in states like Illinois, Massachusetts, and New York could encourage other states to follow suit. Without a statute explicitly protecting the right of children to enroll in school tuition-free regardless of immigration status, the existing protections in NY could be eroded. Local policy implementation has been subject to misapplication, leaving students and families vulnerable. Many educators continue to lack clarity about what federal protections under Plyler require and how immigrant students’ education rights should be protected. Despite its immigrant population, NY still has a history of excluding immigrant students from educational opportunity. The state needed Plyler protections to be further codified to prevent future cases in a growing age of anti-immigrant sentiment.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
In Spring 2025, a statewide coalition was formed—the New York State Language and Education Rights Network (NYS-LERN)— to organize a state-level response to attacks on Plyler v. Doe. EdTrust-New York, International Network for Public Schools, and the New York State Association for Bilingual Education collaborated with the broader coalition, which was instrumental in mobilizing public support to codify Plyler. The coalition included immigrant rights advocacy organizations.
EdTrust-New York worked with Assemblymember Catalina Cruz to draft initial legislation. A bill was later introduced by Senator Shelley Mayer to codify protections for education for immigrant students. EdTrust-New York had previously met with Mayer to advocate for a bill to codify Plyler protections, since she represents a district with a large immigrant community. When Senator Mayer introduced the bill, EdTrust-New York secured Assemblymember Cruz’s sponsorship of the bill, brokering communication between their offices to get the bill sponsored in both houses. As a result of our advocacy, 5 Senators and 2 Assembly members signed on as co-sponsors of the bill.
The NYS-LERN coalition met to discuss the bill, working with organizations such as the National Immigration Law Center and the New York Civil Liberties Union to review it from national and state perspectives. Coalition members met with elected officials and the Governor’s team to show support for the bill. EdTrust-New York focused its advocacy on working with Governor Hochul to secure her support for the bill. The Governor’s team and the state’s Attorney General, Leticia James, signaled that a new bill might not be necessary given the existing statute. EdTrust-New York worked with EdTrust National to draft a memo providing legal analysis showing that the current statute was insufficient, given the likelihood of a Plyler challenge. This analysis was critical to convincing the Governor’s team that new safeguards had to be included.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
As in states such as Illinois and Massachusetts, the Plyler protections were codified in New York alongside broader protections for immigrants. Rather than a standalone education bill, the policy was successfully advanced in conjunction with a public push for state-level recognition of the risks that immigrants faced under the Trump administration and the large-scale chilling effect that federal immigration policies are having on all residents, not only those facing immigration enforcement.
Even in an affirmative state such as NY, where protections for immigrant students are comparatively robust, advocates made clear that those rights could not be taken for granted. A case still had to be made for why greater codification was necessary in the event that protections at the federal level are dismantled. It was still an uphill battle in New York. The broader immigrant rights community was understandably focused on immigration enforcement as a priority without a specific focus on Plyler. The Governor originally did not feel urgency to include Plyler protections, and many education advocacy organizations were unaware of the need for greater codification.
Groups that worked to protect immigrant students were resigned to giving up the fight this year and trying again next year. Navigating how to work with different constituents and political players required agile advocacy, using different approaches with each group, following cues from elected officials and the Governor’s team on when and how to push this over the finish line.
EdTrust-NY and the NYS-LERN coalition collaborated with immigrant rights advocates to support their cause, ensuring that the education protections would not undermine their efforts and gaining their support for Plyler protections. EdTrust-New York worked to raise awareness with non-immigrant rights organizations and advocates beyond the K-12 education space who did not know that immigrant students’ civil rights are currently under threat.
RESOURCES
- EdTrust-New York Backs Gov. Hochul’s Efforts to Defend Education Access for All Students, Regardless of Immigration Status
- Governor Hochul Highlights New Laws to Protect New Yorkers and Stand Against ICE Overreach
- Hochul moves to protect undocumented students’ right to public schooling as national challenges mount
Best Defense Honorable Mentions
Mississippi First
Network Policy Pillar: High Expectations
SUMMARY
This defense protected strong accountability, transparency, and student protections for all schools receiving public dollars so the state can sustain and build on its historic gains in student achievement.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 424,534 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
Our campaign aimed to prevent the passage of HB 2. We defended Mississippi’s public school accountability system and the principle that public education funding should be targeted to students with the greatest needs and accompanied by strong accountability and transparency requirements. These principles have been embedded in state policy over the past decade and have helped drive Mississippi’s recent improvements in student achievement.
Mississippi has made gains in student achievement by pursuing evidence-based reforms, investing strategically in public education, and holding schools accountable for results. This campaign sought to protect the policies that have helped drive that progress, including targeted funding for students with the greatest needs, transparent accountability systems, and safeguards for vulnerable student populations. Preserving these principles was significant because they ensure that public resources are directed where they can have the greatest impact, that families have meaningful information about school performance, and that policymakers can continue to identify where students need additional support.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
Mississippi First has a unique position in Mississippi’s education landscape. We strongly support public charter schools and other evidence-based public school choice options, but we also believe that all schools receiving public dollars should be held to strong standards of accountability, transparency, and student protection. That credibility allowed us to engage policymakers and stakeholders across traditional lines of difference. Rather than framing the debate as being for or against school choice, we focused on evidence, accountability, and student outcomes. This approach enabled us to work with diverse partners while maintaining constructive relationships with lawmakers and advocates who held differing views on the broader legislation.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
- Stay grounded in your organization’s values rather than the politics of the moment. Our message consistently focused on accountability and equity.
- Timing matters. We waited until the legislation was fully developed before taking a public position, allowing us to respond to the actual bill rather than speculation.
- Don’t just argue against a proposal. Remind policymakers what is already working. By highlighting Mississippi’s historic academic gains and the evidence-based policies behind them, we reframed the conversation to focus on protecting successful reforms rather than resisting change.
RESOURCES
- HB2: HB 2 (As Introduced) – 2026 Regular Session
- Mississippi First’s Summary of HB2: A Closer Look at House Bill 2: The Mississippi Educational Freedom Program Act of 2026
- Mississippi First’s Statement on HB2: House Bill 2: What It Does, What It Means, and Where Mississippi First Stands
Colorado Children’s Campaign, Colorado League of Charter Schools, Colorado Succeeds, Ready Colorado, Stand for Children Colorado, Teach Plus Colorado, Transform Education Now (TEN)
Network Policy Pillar: High Expectations
SUMMARY
This policy helps Colorado’s students and families to access transparent, comparable information about school performance so they can ensure every student is held to high expectations and every school is accountable for results.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 880,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
We defended Colorado’s statewide assessment and accountability system, first enacted in 2009 and strengthened through years of bipartisan legislative improvements. Most recently, following an independent statewide audit and a bipartisan legislative task force, the General Assembly overwhelmingly passed HB25-1278 to modernize and strengthen accountability. Our coalition successfully protected those reforms from being dismantled before implementation had even begun.
Colorado has spent more than fifteen years building one of the nation’s strongest school accountability systems. That system gives families transparent information about school performance, identifies achievement gaps, directs support to struggling schools, and holds schools accountable for improving student outcomes. Rather than weakening accountability, Colorado had recently spent years strengthening it.
- In 2023, an independent third-party audit concluded that the accountability system was working as intended, with particular success in identifying low-performing schools and improving their performance.
- In 2024, a bipartisan legislative task force then spent more than a year examining every aspect of the system, engaging parents, educators, district leaders, researchers, and advocates to develop consensus recommendations.
- Those recommendations became HB25-1278, bipartisan legislation enacted in 2025 that modernized assessments, improved reporting, strengthened school performance frameworks, and addressed some legitimate implementation concerns.
Before those reforms had even taken effect, legislation (SB26-068) was introduced that would have directed Colorado to dramatically reduce statewide assessments and pursue federal waivers to eliminate all testing. Had the bill passed, Colorado would have reversed years of bipartisan work before reforms could even be implemented. Families would have lost meaningful, comparable information about school performance. Policymakers would have had less reliable data to identify achievement gaps and direct resources. Schools would have had fewer consistent measures of student outcomes. In the end, our coalition did not simply stop a bad bill. We protected Colorado’s commitment to measuring what matters so every student, every school, and every community can succeed.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
Protecting Colorado’s accountability system required a broad coalition. We united organizations across the political spectrum around one belief: every student deserves high expectations, and every family deserves transparent information about school performance. Our coalition included business leaders, civil rights advocates, educators, school leaders, charter schools, and policy organizations from all sides. Each partner used their own strengths.
Center-left organizations worked closely with Democratic leadership, including helping secure a reform-minded replacement on the Senate Education Committee after a strong champion abruptly resigned. Center-right partners engaged Republican leadership and bill sponsors, ultimately persuading the House Republican sponsor to withdraw while helping stall the effort. Bipartisan organizations reinforced that accountability is an equity issue, since every student’s progress must be measured, and achievement gaps cannot be ignored.
We reminded lawmakers that Colorado had just completed its most comprehensive accountability review in years and should implement those bipartisan reforms before reopening the debate. When sponsors responded with a strike-below amendment, we recognized it as a repackaged bill that retained the same flaws and added another unnecessary task force. Rather than accept that compromise, we stayed united and kept pressing our case. The effort demanded constant adaptation.
When the State Board of Education tried to add credibility to parts of the proposal, we worked with leadership to hold an informational hearing on recent accountability reforms, replacing misinformation with facts and refocusing legislators on outcomes. Our coalition built and leveraged relationships with State Board members, and the board ultimately voted 7-2 to oppose SB68, helping to significantly slow the bill. Throughout the session, our coalition met weekly to share intelligence, coordinate testimony, and divide outreach. SB68 ultimately failed.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
Our biggest lesson is that successful defense campaigns begin long before a bill is introduced. When SB 68 was introduced, Colorado had just completed an independent audit of the accountability system, a year-long bipartisan legislative task force, and the passage of HB25-1278, a comprehensive bill strengthening accountability. Rather than debating accountability from scratch, we reminded lawmakers of the extensive bipartisan process already completed. The question became: Why reverse years of work before implementation has even begun?
Second, engage leadership early. Before committee hearings began, coalition members met with House and Senate leadership to explain how the proposal threatened recently enacted bipartisan reforms. Securing leadership support shaped the bill’s trajectory before public debate intensified.
Third, divide responsibilities based on relationships and credibility. Different partners led conversations with Republican and Democratic leaders, committee members, educators, business leaders, and other stakeholders. This avoided duplication and ensured lawmakers heard from the voices they trusted most.
Fourth, don’t simply oppose a bad bill—change the conversation. Instead of debating testing hours, we reframed the issue around educational equity and high expectations for all students. An informational committee hearing on Colorado’s accountability work reinforced that message and dispelled misconceptions.
Finally, remain disciplined but adaptable. Committee membership changed, sponsors amended the bill, the State Board of Education weighed in, and political dynamics shifted. Our coalition communicated constantly, shared intelligence, and pivoted when needed. Our coalition succeeded because we defended not only a policy, but also the bipartisan process, evidence, and trust that produced it.
RESOURCES
- Taskforce Page: Accountability, Accreditation, Student Performance, and Resource Inequity Task Force – Colorado Department of Education
- Taskforce Report: Accountability, Accreditation, Student Performance, and Resource Inequity Task Force Report
- Evaluation of Colorado’s K–12 Education Accountability System
- SB26-068 Modify Administration of Education Assessments | Colorado General Assembly
- CO Department of Education 2026 Legislative Update
- CO Children’s Campaign Senate Testimony
- For additional resources, Network members can contact Riley Kitts (Colorado Children’s Campaign)
DC Charter School Alliance
Network Policy Pillars: Great Educators, Innovative Options
SUMMARY
This policy change helps ensure that funding for all public schools flows through the funding formula so that resources are equitably distributed between the district and public charter schools. In addition, it ensures that funding for facilities is built into future budgets so schools have a predictable schedule of resources.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 48,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
2026 marks the 30th anniversary of the DC Charter Law—one of the oldest in the country. The DC Alliance’s efforts defended the intent and language of the original law that required the equitable distribution of funds.
This victory mattered because it protected access to immediate funding for 133 public schools across Washington, DC. The Mayor’s proposed FY27 budget would have widened an already significant funding disparity between public charter schools and DC Public Schools. Left unchanged, the proposal would have reduced schools’ ability to invest in the people, programs, and learning environments that drive student success. Public charter schools educate nearly half of DC’s public school students, the majority of whom are Black and Brown, with many coming from historically underserved communities.
These schools are held to rigorous academic and financial accountability standards while bearing unique costs such as financing and maintaining their own facilities. Yet they continue to receive significantly less funding per student than their district counterparts. Protecting equitable funding was critical to ensuring these schools could continue delivering the high-quality educational opportunities families have chosen for their children. Our advocacy secured a 3.8% increase in the Uniform Per Student Funding Formula (UPSFF), restoring approximately $15.7 million in formula funding for public charter schools.
We also protected $42.3 million in future facilities funding and secured targeted investments for students with significant disabilities, adult learners, literacy, mathematics, tutoring, transportation, and career readiness. These investments enable schools to recruit and retain excellent educators, maintain safe and effective learning environments, and continue offering innovative programs that meet students’ diverse needs. Beyond the immediate fiscal impact, this victory reaffirmed an important policy principle: public funding should follow public school students fairly and transparently.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
Protecting equitable funding for DC’s public charter schools required an unprecedented coalition built around a shared belief that every public school student deserves fair investment, regardless of the type of public school they attend. The DC Charter School Alliance convened and coordinated a diverse network of partners, including leaders from all 66 public charter LEAs, parents, educators, students, alumni, local organizations, disability advocates, and community leaders.
To ensure every stakeholder could participate, we created a centralized Budget Advocacy Hub that provided schools and supporters with timely updates, advocacy tools, messaging, guidance on testimony, and opportunities to take action. This shared resource empowered thousands of advocates to engage throughout the budget process with one coordinated voice. Together, our coalition generated one of the largest education advocacy efforts in recent DC history. More than 320 charter sector witnesses testified before the DC Council, 19,700+ advocacy emails were sent to Councilmembers and the Mayor’s Office, and nearly 400 advocates filled the Council Chamber during a Day of Action to demonstrate broad public support for equitable funding.
Our strategy combined data-driven policy advocacy with authentic community engagement. We met directly with elected officials, coordinated messaging across dozens of independent school communities, elevated the voices of families and educators, and centered students in every conversation. The coalition’s advocacy delivered meaningful results. In addition to securing a 3.8% UPSFF increase, generating approximately $15.7 million in additional formula funding and $42.3 million in future charter facilities investments, we also secured $2.7 million for St. Coletta Public Charter School to address years of chronic underinvestment in serving students with significant disabilities.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
Our campaign reinforced that successful advocacy is built long before a budget is introduced. Relationships, trust, and a shared strategy allowed us to move quickly and effectively when funding was threatened.
We can elevate the importance of making advocacy accessible. We created a centralized Budget Advocacy Hub that gave school leaders, educators, parents, students, and community partners one place to access talking points, testimony guidance, action alerts, legislative updates, and advocacy tools. By reducing barriers to participation, we enabled thousands of stakeholders—regardless of their advocacy experience—to engage confidently and consistently throughout the campaign.
Another key lesson was the power of coordinated, multi-channel engagement. Rather than relying on a single tactic, we combined direct lobbying, grassroots mobilization, earned media, digital advocacy, and public testimony into one integrated strategy. The result was more than 320 charter sector testimonies, 19,700+ advocacy emails to policymakers, and nearly 400 advocates filling the Council Chamber during a Day of Action. Together, these efforts demonstrated both the depth and breadth of community support.
Perhaps our most important lesson was to lead with students, not institutions. We framed every conversation around the impact funding decisions would have on children, educators, and families rather than organizational interests. By emphasizing educational equity, opportunity, and the needs of students—including those with significant disabilities and adult learners—we built support across diverse communities and strengthened our credibility with policymakers.
Finally, we learned that measurable wins matter. Demonstrating clear policy outcomes not only validates advocacy efforts but also builds momentum for future campaigns.
RESOURCES
National Parents Union (NPU)
Network Policy Pillars: High Expectations, Responsive Systems
SUMMARY
This case helps every public school student in America to keep the federal agency that guarantees their civil rights, funds special education under IDEA, and runs student aid, so they can learn in a system Congress built, and no president can erase with the stroke of a pen.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 50,000,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
The U.S. Department of Education and the programs Congress charged it with running: civil rights enforcement, special education funding under IDEA, and federal student aid. The Department was established by the Department of Education Organization Act of 1979 and began operating in 1980. The core programs it administers rest on landmark laws, including the Civil Rights Act (1964), IDEA (originally enacted as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act, 1975), and ESEA (1965).
In March 2025, the Trump administration moved to wipe out the U.S. Department of Education. They issued an executive order and continued a series of reductions in force that compromised the Department’s ability to serve students. The Office of Civil Rights was cut in half, grant distribution was disrupted, technical assistance that districts and states rely on was compromised, and programs were abruptly canceled. Democracy Forward was ready to take the Administration to court. A lawsuit needs plaintiffs with standing and spine, and the National Parents Union helped build the coalition ready to take this on.
In February 2025, NPU identified and recruited the Massachusetts school districts that became the backbone of the case, including Somerville, the district that gave the lawsuit its name. We brokered direct introductions to Somerville’s School Committee and Superintendent, who then brought in the Mayor and City Council. NPU lined up districts and partners across the country, as well as Tribal schools and culturally affirming charter networks, so the coalition reached far beyond one courtroom. On May 22, 2025, the district court entered a preliminary injunction halting the firings and blocking the transfer of student loans and special education from the Department, and ordered that the fired staff be brought back. The First Circuit upheld it. The case was consolidated with 21 states in New York v. McMahon. The Supreme Court stayed the injunction in July 2025, and the fight went on, but for months, the dismantling of the Department of Education was stopped by a coalition that did not exist until parent power built it.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
We built a broad, durable coalition that brought together superintendents, school committee members, and a diverse set of directly impacted parents, ensuring that those closest to our schools were centered in the work. Importantly, we also worked across lines of difference with labor unions, engaging in honest dialogue and finding common ground on shared priorities for students and families. By bridging perspectives that don’t always sit at the same table, we were able to move beyond entrenched positions and focus on what matters most: protecting the core functions at the Department of Education.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
The lesson here is that parent organizations are not only the public face of a fight; they are the talent scouts who make the fight possible. When the litigators needed plaintiffs with real standing and the nerve to sue a sitting administration, NPU delivered districts and partners. Three tactics:
- First, relationships beat cold calls. NPU did not pitch strangers. We went to school leaders we already trusted, made warm introductions to the Somerville School Committee and Superintendent, and organized parent voice to ensure local officials would make the decision to step forward.
- Second, build past the headline. One named district makes a caption. A national bench of districts, Tribal schools, and charter networks makes a movement, and it gives the legal team options if any single plaintiff wavers.
- Third, know your role and play it hard. NPU was not counsel and did not pretend to be. We did the one thing a parent network does better than any law firm: we organized and empowered the families and communities with the most at stake.
The broader takeaway for the Network: defense is not passive. The strongest way to protect students from a federal threat is to go on offense in court, and the fastest way into court is a partner who can produce plaintiffs in days, not months.
RESOURCES
- Democracy Forward case page: https://democracyforward.org/work/education-dismantle/
- Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse, Somerville Public Schools v. Trump, 1:25-cv-10677 (D. Mass.): https://clearinghouse.net/case/46281/
Massachusetts Charter Public School Association
Network Policy Pillar: Innovative Options
SUMMARY
This policy helps children and families access charter public school options so they can attend a public school that is a right fit for them, meets their needs, and enables them to thrive.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 46,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
In 1993, the Massachusetts Education Reform Act was adopted, creating multiple solutions to address chronic academic underperformance, including the creation of charter public schools. Later, in 2010, in response to strong academic outcomes and long waiting lists, the Achievement Gap Act doubled the charter net school spending cap in the Commonwealth’s lowest-performing districts, effectively enabling twice as many students in those communities to access charter public school options.
Charter public schools provide critical options for students and families across Massachusetts. Over 46,000 students are enrolled in Massachusetts charter public schools, and over 19,000 are on waitlists, awaiting an opportunity to enroll in the school their families believe is right for them. Students attending Massachusetts charter public schools are learning at a faster pace than their peers and achieving at high levels. Research shows that students attending Massachusetts charter public schools gain the equivalent of 42 extra days of learning in both English and math each year.
Moreover, students graduating from Massachusetts charter public schools are more likely to enroll in college than their district peers. Every child deserves access to a high-quality public school that meets their needs and enables them to fulfill their potential. In January 2025, as the 2025-2026 legislative session began, Massachusetts legislators, including the Senate Chair of the Education Committee, filed multiple bills that would dramatically reduce charter net school spending caps—eliminating the increased opportunity for students in the state’s lowest performing districts to attend charters and even further reducing the cap in all communities across the Commonwealth.
If these bills were adopted, charter public school funding would be cut so dramatically that schools would lose up to 70% of their per-pupil revenue—an insurmountable funding loss that would inevitably lead to the closure of nearly every charter public school across the state. Tens of thousands of students would be pushed out of the schools they love—schools where they are thriving—and thousands of highly effective educators would lose their jobs.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
In response to these significant threats to eliminate quality public school options, the Massachusetts Charter Public School Association (MCPSA) focused on building a powerful coalition of charter public school families, alumni, teachers, and board members from across the Commonwealth. We first worked to help every school understand the threats we were facing and the specific impact of these bills on their school communities. We then asked for their partnership in educating their communities and identifying advocates who could voice their opposition to these attacks.
Charter public school community members proved invaluable in our strategy. They attended legislative hearings, delivered powerful testimony, shared their stories in small group meetings with legislators, and flooded legislators’ inboxes with emails and phone calls. As a result of the strong outcry from charter public school community members across the state, in a hearing for one of these bills, a bill that had been authored by the American Federation of Teachers-Massachusetts, the AFT-MA president publicly retracted support from the bill language they had filed, asking the committee not to advance the bill as written. Ultimately, our strong coalition effectively stopped these bills from advancing at the earliest stages of the legislative process.
ADVOCACY STRATEGIES & TACTICS USED TO BUILD & EXECUTE A WINNING CAMPAIGN
In response to these significant threats, MCPSA recognized the need to ensure the voices of families and charter school graduates cut through the political rhetoric. Four key elements ensured our success.
- Aim to stop threats early and build a backup plan. We mapped each step a bill must clear to become law and identified key decision-makers and influencers at each stage. Strategically, we identified who we would need to influence at each stage, and then determined tactics to achieve the desired outcome. If we weren’t successful at an early stage, we were prepared for the next stage.
- Every advocate can play a meaningful role. We crafted a strategy that allowed advocates to engage in varied but equally important ways: delivering compelling public testimony; authoring written testimony; attending hearings to stand in solidarity; meeting with legislators; sending emails to lawmakers; and more. Knowing each advocate’s interests, strengths, residency, and personal story, we determined how they could be most impactful. We then provided individualized support to ensure they had the skills, knowledge, and confidence to play the role that best fit them.
- Personalize the issue. It is very challenging to motivate advocacy with generalized threats. We created customized, concise, clear one-pagers for each charter public school across the state, detailing the specific impact on their school from both financial and enrollment perspectives. These allowed educators, board members, and families to quickly understand the specific impact on their school and why they needed to act.
- Ensure sustained surround-sound. Legislators and their staff are attending to many critical issues every day. We designed a strategy that was carried out over multiple months, ensuring legislators would hear from varied voices – constituents, peer legislators, community leaders, lobbyists, and others – on an ongoing basis.
RESOURCES
ExcelinEd
Network Policy Pillar: High Expectations
SUMMARY
This policy creates a strong foundation for educational excellence by providing Utah parents, educators, and policymakers with accurate, transparent information about student learning and progress, enabling better decisions, driving higher student achievement, and increasing public trust in Utah’s schools’ performance.
Our policy and advocacy impacts 158,000 students.
WHY THIS WIN MATTERS
ExcelinEd in Action/ExcelinEd defended Utah’s standards-aligned statewide assessment and accountability system. RISE, a criterion-referenced assessment implemented in 2018-2019, measures students against Utah Core Standards and provides comparable achievement and growth data for Utah’s single ESSA-compliant system. Legislation HB234 would have allowed participating local education agencies to replace RISE with a norm-referenced test, undermining alignment with standards and statewide comparability.
Protecting this policy matters because Utah’s RISE system established a consistent, statewide approach to measuring student performance, giving educators, parents, and policymakers a clear, comparable picture of how students are performing across schools. By combining multiple assessments, RISE helps ensure results are aligned to state standards and reflect both achievement and progress. It is critical because it preserves transparency and comparability in reporting. Allowing districts to shift to alternative, norm‑based tests, as proposed in the legislation, risked creating inconsistent data that would make it harder to track performance statewide or to accurately identify achievement gaps. For students, this means maintaining a system that holds schools accountable, identifies where support is needed, and ensures all students are measured against clear, rigorous expectations. Without that consistency, it becomes more difficult to target resources effectively and ensure every student is on track for success.
WORKING ACROSS LINES OF DIFFERENCE & COALITIONS
ExcelinEd in Action collaborated with state leaders and focused on common ground: the shared belief that transparency and integrity are non-negotiables 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
- Session begins before session convenes. Months before the introduction, we identified this legislation by closely monitoring the Utah State Board of Education. Once an influential advocate advanced the concept and secured a sponsor, we quickly engaged the legislator to assess the proposal’s trajectory and identify key intervention points to ensure we were proactive rather than reactive.
- Use leadership and the rules to buy time. When efforts to persuade the sponsor to withdraw were unsuccessful, we elevated our opposition to leadership, highlighting risks to ESSA compliance. By partnering with allies on the Rules Committee, we secured a two‑week delay—critical time that allowed us to educate members ahead of the hearing.
- You can lose the committee battle and still win the floor war. HB 234 passed committee 8‑6‑1. In a supermajority trifecta, we viewed that outcome as progress, which signaled our message was resonating and that divisions existed within the majority. Our advocacy team then conducted a week‑long push, meeting with more than 40 rank‑and‑file members to make the case against the bill.
- Your champions are your best ambassadors. We equipped key allies with clear, concise messaging and supporting data, ensuring legislators heard consistent arguments from trusted peers. Their leadership on the floor helped sway undecided votes.
- The minority can be a crucial part of your majority. Although Utah operates under a Republican supermajority, the Democratic minority played a pivotal role. Their unified support was essential to reaching the 50% +1 threshold needed to defeat HB 234, making the effort genuinely bipartisan.
- The issue may be technical; the message must not be. Assessments and accountability are complex, often filled with jargon and misconceptions. Rather than relying on technical terms, we focused on clear, relatable explanations—grounding the issue in real-world impacts to ensure policymakers understood what was at stake.
RESOURCES
- Letter Opposing HB 234
- Argument against using the menu of assessments from Arizona: