Policy Implications

Based on our analysis, several key policy implications emerge. While this report does not argue for the closure of any public school, it highlights substantial inequities and inefficiencies in Maine’s education model, particularly when comparing noncharter public schools and charter schools. The following recommendations address these issues:

1. Equalize Standards and Accountability

Maine should hold noncharter public and charter schools to the same standards and consequences. Currently, noncharter public schools benefit from emergency funding mechanisms and consolidation options when financially unstable, while charter schools face the constant threat of closure for similar or lesser fiscal issues.

Other states offer more balanced approaches:

  • Florida: Grants charter schools access to capital outlay funds and local millage rates
  • Arizona: Provides equalized funding and Charter Additional Assistance (CAA)
  • Colorado: Requires districts to share local revenues under certain conditions
Recommendation:

Adopt similar reforms to create equal footing for Maine charter schools, particularly regarding access to local funding and financial stability protections.

2. Recognize and Reward Fiscal Efficiency

Charter schools consistently outperform noncharter public schools in student outcomes per dollar spent, despite often serving higher-need populations with fewer resources. In our analysis of English Language Arts, Math, and Science across the 10 (only nine for Science) measured schools, we created a total of 18 subject based fiscal performance comparisons, considering per-pupil spending and academic outcomes. Out of all of these comparisons, only one charter school was below the mean noncharter public school cost per successful student outcome for any comparison.

Recommendation:

Focus on efficiency-adjusted outcomes, not just raw test scores or funding levels. Reward schools that produce better results per dollar, regardless of type.

3. Expand Charter School Capacity

Maine currently limits the number of charter schools to 10—a cap that restricts innovation and competition, especially given the success charters have shown in serving disadvantaged populations.

Recommendations:
  • Lift the cap on the number of charter schools
  • Lift the cap on enrollment in virtual charter schools
  • Restore the ability for universities to approve charters
  • Encourage charter growth, especially in underserved and underperforming regions
  • Increase the weight of per-pupil funding based on student needs, especially for nontraditional education models (e.g., special education status, behavioral challenges, or economic disadvantage)
4. Reform Charter Oversight Practices

Charter schools are evaluated using several standards that are either irrelevant to educational outcomes or not applied to noncharter public schools, such as:

  • “Mission implementation”
  • “Student persistence”
  • “School climate” exit surveys
  • Board meeting transparency and frequency, which has actual enforcement and consequences, like at noncharters’ public board meetings

Noncharter public schools are not held to many of these standards, and many standards do not reliably indicate quality.

Recommendations:
  • Remove or revise non-academic performance standards that do not meaningfully relate to student success
  • Use limited growth-based standards fully tailored to charter school students’ demographics and prior performance
  • Shift fiscal viability decisions to charter school boards unless there is clear evidence of harm to student performance. If the board thinks they can financially remain operational, then they should be allowed to.
5. Improve Transportation Access

Transportation remains a major barrier to charter school access, particularly for rural and low-income families.

Other states address this by:

  • Requiring districts to provide transportation to local charters
  • Paying charters directly to offer transportation
  • Reimbursing parents in rural areas
Recommendation:

Maine should implement transportation support policies to ensure all families can access charter options regardless of income or geography.

6. Embrace Educational Pluralism

Charter schools are public schools that operate under different rules and models. Their purpose is not to replace traditional schools, but to supplement and improve the public education system as a whole. If some public schools close because students choose better-performing charters or noncharters and overall student outcomes improve, that result represents a policy success, not a failure.

Bottom line: Maine’s education system should prioritize student outcomes and fiscal responsibility, not system preservation for its own sake.

While we do not have data on prospective programs, below we provide short profiles describing all 10 programs we analyzed, as well as the prospective “Moxie Community School,” which has been approved to fill Harpswell’s empty slot, officially opening Fall 2026. Since Moxie Community School has not yet opened, it cannot be analyzed alongside the 10 existing or former charters. 

7. Improving Transparency and Accountability in Maine’s Education Data

To strengthen transparency and accountability in Maine’s public education system, the state must significantly improve how it collects, reports, and publishes data through the Maine Department of Education (DOE). Our analysis of publicly available DOE datasets revealed a series of inconsistencies, omissions, formatting flaws, and system design issues that collectively hinder meaningful evaluation and public oversight.

Excessive Redaction Limits Public Insight

The DOE’s data redaction practices are overly broad, particularly in a rural state like Maine where small class sizes are common. While protecting student privacy is important, blanket redactions based on small sample sizes result in a severe lack of reliable public information on educational outcomes. This undermines the public’s ability to assess school performance, particularly in underserved or geographically isolated communities, and in turn reduces accountability, efficiency, and public trust in the education system.

More troubling is the pattern of redacting performance data from schools or subgroups that underperform. If redactions disproportionately obscure poor subdemographic outcomes, intentionally or not, they prevent policymakers, parents, and taxpayers from identifying areas in need of support or intervention. Transparency must be prioritized to enable informed decision-making and to uphold the public’s right to evaluate the effectiveness of their education system.

Data Gaps and Inconsistencies Undermine Trust

The DOE has not established clear standards for what data must be reported or why certain standards are missing. In multiple instances, schools lacked entries for key indicators such as chronic absenteeism and per-pupil expenditures—without clear explanation. In the data that was provided, we identified errors including duplicate entries and, in some cases, reported total per-pupil expenditures of zero dollars, which is patently impossible.

These issues raise questions about the integrity of the data and the DOE’s internal review processes. If basic data validation is not being performed, the reliability of any subsequent analysis may be seriously compromised.

Poor Formatting Obstructs Analysis

The formatting of DOE spreadsheets further complicates independent review. Rather than consolidating multiple data points into additional columns for a single school entry, the same school may appear on multiple rows, making aggregation and comparison unnecessarily complex. Moreover, the spreadsheets fail to indicate that enrollment figures used for per-pupil spending calculations are based on October counts, while other datasets use May enrollment. This discrepancy is noted in a dashboard footnote, but not reflected in the downloadable files themselves, leading to potential misinterpretation.

Science Performance Data Is a Major Blind Spot

Science achievement data is heavily redacted across the state due to its limited testing in only grades 5, 8, and 11, resulting in smaller sample sizes. Unlike English Language Arts and Math, where data is more readily available, the redaction of science scores creates a major blind spot in evaluating subject-specific academic outcomes. As a result, policymakers and educators lack critical insight into how Maine students are performing in an increasingly important field.

Recommendation:

Maine policymakers and the Department of Education must prioritize improvements in the consistency, clarity, and accessibility of public education data. This includes revising redaction policies to balance transparency with privacy, establishing clear data reporting standards, improving formatting practices, and ensuring completeness and accuracy across all standards. A robust and transparent data system is essential for evaluating performance, identifying areas for improvement, and ultimately delivering better outcomes for Maine students.