My annual open enrollment study grades and ranks every state’s open enrollment laws based on seven best practices, as shown in Table 1.

Using Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices as a measure: 16 states have statewide cross-district open enrollment laws, 17 states have statewide within-district open enrollment laws, 27 states make public schools free to all students, 10 states make public schools open to all students, five states publish transparent state-level open enrollment reports; eight states make open enrollment policies and availability transparent at the district-level, and four states have a robust appeals process for denied transfer applicants. 

As with the 2024 edition, Oklahoma continues to lead the nation with the best open enrollment policy, scoring 99 out of 100 points thanks to a well-rounded law that lets kids transfer to public schools with openings, bans tuition charges for transfer students, and offers data and transparency to parents and policymakers. 

Thanks to an improvement that established a statewide within-district open enrollment law and improved transparency provisions, Arkansas now has the second-best policy in the nation, scoring 98 out of 100 points, surpassing Idaho, last year’s second-place state, which now ranks third.

Based on the Reason Foundation’s examination of open enrollment laws, six states—Oklahoma, Arkansas, Idaho, Arizona, West Virginia, and Utah–received “A” grades this year. 

Generally, these states tend to have excellent open enrollment laws, allowing students to transfer to any public school with available openings. However, their laws could be further improved by increased data sharing at the state- and district-levels or more effective appeal processes. 

Seven states — Florida, Kansas, Colorado, Delaware, Nebraska, South Dakota, and Wisconsin — received “B” grades in the report.

Two states—North Dakota and Montana—received “C” grades.

Two states — Iowa and California — earned “D” grades. California could improve its inter-district transfer laws and move all the way up to an “A” grade.

The remaining 33 states scored an “F.” 

Table 1: Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices

Three states that received an “F” grade still improved their overall scores from last year’s report.

Nevada codified a strong within-district open enrollment policy and adopted good state- and district-level transparency provisions, improving its score from 35/100 points to 51/100 points. It now ranks 17th overall, tied with Minnesota and Massachusetts.

Similarly, New Hampshire established a strong within-district open enrollment law, improving its score from 35/100 to 45/100 points. It now ties for 21st place with Connecticut, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania.

South Carolina has made its open enrollment policy more transparent at the district level, scoring 37 out of 100 points — an improvement of one point.

Lastly, Missouri’s open enrollment score dropped from 35/100 points to 5/100 points, ranking second-to-last, alongside Alabama and Virginia. This occurred because the state’s highly restrictive cross-district transfer options — the Metropolitan Schools Achieving Value in Transfer Corporation and Voluntary Interdistrict Choice Corporation — are either defunct or no longer accepting transfer applicants. As a result, Missouri has no cross-district transfer options.

Alaska, Maine, Maryland, and North Carolina continue to rank dead last, scoring zero out of 100 points. 

A detailed summary of the study, including its rankings and grades for every state, as well as its methodology, is available here. 

The full report, Public Schools Without Boundaries, is available here (PDF). 

Previous editions of the study can be found here.

If you have any thoughts or questions about the report, your state’s policies, or open enrollment, I’d love to hear them.

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Grading and ranking every state’s open enrollment laws appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Scholarship-granting organizations have yet to determine the amounts they’ll offer, but recipients will be able to use them to pay for approved education expenses, such as private school tuition, tutoring, and school uniforms. Moreover, many of the program’s details are still in flux because federal lawmakers have left a significant amount of discretion to the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury to establish rules governing the program. 

The letter of law appears to make students in traditional public schools or charter schools eligible. They could use “the funds to pay for items such as tutoring costs, test preparation courses, exam fees, internet services, and special-needs education,” the American Enterprise Institute’s Ian Rowe and Democrats for Education Reform’s Jorge Elorza argued.

Until the program’s rules-making process is finalized, many governors are likely to be hesitant about committing to participation. According to Education Week, many states will “await federal rules and guidance clarifying the provision” before making a decision on whether to participate. 

To date, only Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee (R) and North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) have clearly announced plans to opt into the program, while Oregon’s Gov. Tina Kotek (D), New Mexico’s Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham (D), and Wisconsin’s Gov. Tony Evers (D) have said they’ll opt out of it. 

While there is no guarantee that they will participate, based on governors’ public statements and analyses of them by EdChoice and ExcelinEd, it appears that 26 governors support school choice policies, and 14 governors have outright opposed them. Table 1 summarizes the stances of governors on school choice policies nationwide. 

Table 1: Governors’ School Choice Stances, Various Sources

The decision by North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein (D) to opt into the federal tax-credit scholarship program could be a harbinger of what’s to come in state governments that are divided over school choice. When Gov. Stein announced his intention to opt North Carolina into the federal tax-credit program, he also vetoed a state-level proposal that would have established a private school choice program, calling it unnecessary in light of the federal program.

This is because the new federal tax-credit scholarship has created a dilemma for staunch opponents of school choice programs. As the Fordham Institute’s Mike Petrilli explained: 

“Will Democratic leaders opt their states into the new federal school choice program, allowing families to accept scholarships that are funded by charitable donations from taxpayers nationwide—scholarships that don’t cost their state a penny, and therefore can’t be said to be taking any money from their public schools?

Or will they bow to the demands of the teachers’ unions and bar the schoolhouse door instead, creating a grand opportunity for GOP candidates running against them?”

National polling by EdChoice and Morning Consult found that 84% of parents supported school choice policies. Moreover, school choice policies are supported by 78% of Black parents and 83% of Latino parents.

Even if governors choose to opt out of the program, it’s not clear that the buck would stop with them in every case. The federal law states that decisions to participate must be made by a state governor or “by such other individual, agency, or entity as is designated under State law to make such elections on behalf of the State with respect to Federal tax benefits.”

Conflicts are likely to arise when state leaders disagree about who has the authority to opt in or out of the program, especially in states like Arizona, where the governor opposes school choice policies, but state legislators and agencies support them. This could lead to significant jousting between state officials in the years leading up to the program’s launch in 2027. 

However, much of this will be determined by the Department of the Treasury’s rulemaking. Governors typically opposed to school choice could be willing to opt into the program if the agency’s rules let them impose significant regulations on participating private schools or target the funds to students enrolled in public schools.

What to watch

Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) introduced House Resolution (H.R.) 5181, which would reauthorize the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, the federal city’s private school choice program, for another seven years. Since its launch in 2004, more than 12,000 low-income students in the District of Columbia have benefited from the program, receiving scholarships to pay for private school tuition. During the 2025-26 school year, elementary and high school students can receive scholarships valued at up to $10,000 and $15,000, respectively.

The Kentucky State Supreme Court is set to hear arguments this month about whether the state can fund charter schools. Since 2017, charter schools have been legal in Kentucky, but have lacked a funding mechanism. House Bill 9 was passed in 2022, which would let state and local education dollars follow students enrolling in charter schools. However, a Franklin County Circuit Judge ruled the law unconstitutional, stating that it would “establish a separate class of publicly funded but privately controlled schools” and create a “separate and unequal” system.

Laramie County District Judge Peter Froelicher denied the state’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit against Wyoming’s new private school scholarship program. Eligible recipients could use their $7,000 scholarship to cover a range of approved educational expenses, including private school tuition and tutoring.   

Recommended reading 

Risk Sharing: The Student Loan Reform Whose Time Has Come?
Preston Cooper at the American Enterprise Institute

“Requiring institutions to shoulder a portion of student loan risk would realign their incentives. Rather than maximizing student loan volume in any way possible, institutions would seek to disburse student loans only when they have a reasonable expectation that the loan will be repaid. While this would save taxpayers money, the primary beneficiaries would be students, who would face less pressure from institutions to take on debts they cannot afford. Going forward, lawmakers should keep in mind risk sharing as a tool for higher education accountability.”

COVID Worsened Long Decline in 12th-Graders’ Reading, Math Skills
Greg Toppo at The74

“The results, released Tuesday by the U.S. Education Department, are ‘sobering,’ said Matthew Soldner, acting commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics. He noted ‘significant declines in achievement’ among the lowest-performing students going back even before the pandemic. In one particularly grim indicator, a larger percentage of the Class of 2024 scored in the tests’ ‘below basic’ level in both math and reading than in any previous assessment dating back decades.”

Here Comes “The Big Shrink”
Marguerite Roza, Ph.D., at School Business Now

“Nationally, we can expect a 0.5% decline in enrollment per year. Some districts will be hit much harder. Over the next decade, Los Angeles Unified will lose about a third of its enrollment. None of this should be a surprise. When enrollment is down in the youngest grades, it means there are fewer students in the pipeline. Shrinking is hard. But it doesn’t have to erode systems and hurt students. With a strong plan, leaders can approach shrinking as a path toward a smaller, stronger, more nimble school system that better serves its remaining students.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: How states are reacting to the new federal tax-credit scholarship appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Since then, public schools have struggled to get a significant number of students to attend class regularly. Before the pandemic, only about 15% of students nationwide were categorized as chronically absent, meaning they missed 18 days of school, or approximately 10% or more of the school year.

When public schools reopened from their pandemic closures, chronic absenteeism skyrocketed to unprecedented levels, with 31% of students being labeled chronically absent during the 2020-21 school year. While many schools have reduced chronic absenteeism since then, it remains well above pre-pandemic levels.

The latest data from 40 states showed that, on average, 24% of students were chronically absent during the 2023-24 school year. That means that 8.6 million students missed approximately 155 million days of school cumulatively. Figure 1 illustrates the number of students categorized as chronically absent in 40 states collected from state education agencies so far, and the American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Return 2 Learn Tracker.

Figure 1: Chronic absenteeism rates during the 2023-24 school year

Alaska has the worst rates of chronic absenteeism, with 43% of its students chronically absent during the 2023-24 school year. Florida, Michigan, New Mexico, and Oregon were the other states with chronic absenteeism at or above 30% of their students in the 2023-24 school year. 

Notably, absentee data from Texas during the 2023-24 school year, which accounts for 11% of students nationwide, is not yet available. The state’s previous data, however, showed high rates of chronic absenteeism, significantly exceeding pre-pandemic rates. California, which has the most public school students in the country, got its absenteeism down to 21% in the 2023-24 school year. 

So far, no state has returned to pre-pandemic levels of chronic absenteeism. The states to come closest to returning to pre-pandemic rates of chronic absenteeism are Alabama and Virginia. During the 2023-24 school year, 15% of students were categorized as such, just four percentage points more than during the 2018-19 school year in both states.

However, students from the so-called Covid Cohort have suffered fewer consequences for missing 10% or more of the school year than past generations, according to a 2025 analysis of 22 states by AEI researchers, Nat Malkus and Sam Hollon. 

“Our most conservative estimates indicate that if attendance mattered as much as it once did, 100,000 fewer students would have graduated in 2022 alone. That’s more than the total number of 12th graders in New Jersey,” they wrote in The Washington Post.

Malkus and Hollon attribute this shift to a failure on the part of school administrators to roll back temporary policies implemented at the height of the pandemic to accommodate students, such as minimizing consequences for late or missed homework, allowing students to retake tests, or expanding access to online credit-recovery programs.

School administrators who want to improve student attendance desperately need to reverse course if policies like these are still in place. 50CAN’s Liz Cohen argued that if incentives fail to motivate students to attend school, then school officials should impose serious consequences, such as holding students back a year or requiring summer school if they fail to meet the minimum attendance requirements. 

“Think this unfair? It’s hard to conceive of something more unfair to children than passing them from grade to grade without ensuring they accumulate sufficient knowledge and experience,” Cohen explained in The 74.

This autumn will mark the fifth full academic year since schools reopened from their pandemic-induced closures. It’s time that school administrators get students to attend school regularly. 

From the states

In other significant developments, New Hampshire policymakers codified a robust within-district open enrollment law while North Carolina’s tax-credit scholarship proposal was vetoed.

In New Hampshire, Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed Senate Bill 97-FN into law, codifying a statewide within-district open enrollment program. Students can now transfer to any public school within their residentially assigned school district with available seats. New Hampshire is the 17th state to establish a robust within-district open enrollment policy based on Reason’s open enrollment best practices.

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein vetoed House Bill 87, which would have made North Carolina the first state to opt into the new federal tax-credit scholarship program. “School choice is good for students and parents, and I have long supported magnet and accountable charter schools because public schools open doors of opportunity for kids in every county of the state,” Stein said. “Once the federal government issues sound guidance, I intend to opt North Carolina in so we can invest in the public school students most in need of after-school programs, tutoring, and other resources.” However, Senate President Pro Tempore Phil Berger and Speaker Destin Hall hope to override the veto. The legislature has overridden the governor’s veto eight times this year already.

The latest from Reason Foundation

—New Hampshire could become the 17th state to adopt a strong within-district open enrollment law

—Improving Kentucky’s open enrollment program would help students and families

Recommended reading 

Plenty of schools have no-zeroes policies. And most teachers hate it, survey finds
Kalyn Belsha at Chalkbeat

“The most common practice — and the one that drew the most heated opposition in the fall 2024 survey — is not giving students zeroes for missing assignments or failed tests. Just over a quarter of teachers said their school or district has a no-zeroes policy. Around 3 in 10 teachers said their school or district allowed students to retake tests without penalty, and a similar share said they did not deduct points when students turned in work late. About 1 in 10 teachers said they were not permitted to factor class participation or homework into students’ final grades.”

It’s time for the left to come to the school choice table
Jorge Elorza at the Center on Reinventing Public Education

“If we want different results, then we need a different approach. A system of school choice where ‘the money follows the child’ is one of the most powerful student-centered levers available, and it can help reinvent American education. Progressives who continue to ignore this powerful tool are failing to embrace a 21st-century vision of public education, and they are denying students the academic and civic benefits that follow.”

A brighter future for K–12 education
Matthew Ladner at The Heritage Foundation

“Private organizations have supplanted state efforts to rate schools. The guardians of the education status quo cannot easily subvert private organizations, and the public has a greater degree of trust in them. In addition, private school rating platforms collect reviews, which research shows families value. Innovators have begun to expand these platforms beyond schools into a variety of education-service providers and to collect user reviews.”

Aug. 28, 2025, editor’s note: This newsletter has been updated to remove New York from states that haven’t reported 2023-24 absenteeism data.

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Chronic absenteeism rates remain too high years after pandemic appeared first on Reason Foundation.

However, state policymakers can expand students’ schooling options by strengthening Kentucky’s open enrollment law, which allows students to transfer to public schools other than their assigned ones. Enacted in 2021, this law required school districts to adopt cross-district transfer policies. But it falls short in removing barriers and enabling parents to choose a public school in another school district that best fits their children’s needs. 

For instance, the current policy allows school districts like highly rated Anchorage Independent to establish enrollment policies that accept no transfers even when seats are available. Other districts, such as Jefferson County, permit transfers only under restrictive conditions, such as living in a specific geographic area or having parents employed by the district.

A stronger open enrollment policy would ensure Kentucky students can transfer to any public school with open seats, prohibit public school districts from charging tuition to transfer students, and improve transparency, making the process more family-friendly.

Kentucky’s reluctance to fully embrace this policy by prioritizing district control over parental choice has resulted in one of the nation’s weakest open enrollment policies. According to a 2024 Reason Foundation report, only eight states have weaker open enrollment policies than Kentucky.

Despite these barriers, parents across the state are seizing upon the limited choices available. A recent Bluegrass Institute report shows that nonresident transfers have increased by 10% since the passage of House Bill 563 in 2021, with over 2,500 additional public school students enrolling in a different district.

In addition, enrollment at the Kentucky Virtual Academy (KYVA) more than doubled to over 3,000 students in the 2024-25 school year, its second year, up from 1,300 in 2023-24. Combined, Kentucky’s nonresident student enrollment has increased by more than 16% since 2022, indicating strong parental demand for public education alternatives.

About 5% of Kentucky’s students currently attend public schools other than their assigned ones. However, states with robust open enrollment laws see higher participation rates, averaging one in 10 students, compared to 5% in states with weak policies, according to a 2025 Reason Foundation report. In Colorado and Arizona, for example, 28% and 14% of students, respectively, attend traditional public schools other than their assigned ones. 

In December, the Kentucky Board of Education approved a regulation that would have immediately closed the fast-growing virtual academy, forcing thousands of students to return to schools that had failed them or to find other options. Lawmakers responded during this year’s General Assembly by passing legislation pausing the regulation for at least three years, allowing the KYVA to demonstrate academic improvement.

Strengthening Kentucky’s student-transfer policies would further empower families with the freedom to choose public schools – whether traditional or virtual – that best meet their children’s unique needs. 

Legislation introduced in recent General Assembly sessions offers a blueprint to improve Kentucky’s student-transfer policy by:

• Ensuring students can transfer to any public school with available seats.
• Eliminating tuition for nonresident students to ensure access for all families, regardless of income.
• Requiring school districts to publish clear information on capacities, vacancies and application processes, alongside detailed reports on enrollment and denials.
• Establishing a fair appeals process for transfer denials to protect parental rights.

By removing barriers and embracing transparency, Kentucky can join 16 states, such as Arizona and Florida, in leading the way on open enrollment policies, ensuring that every child in the state has access to a public education that sets them up for success.

A version of this column first appeared on LINKnky.com.

The post Improving Kentucky’s open enrollment program would help students and families appeared first on Reason Foundation.

If codified, this bill would ensure that students could transfer to any public school with open seats within their school district, allowing them to attend schools that are the right fit. It currently awaits the governor’s signature.

S.B. 97 would be an important step in the right direction for New Hampshire’s students. Per Reason Foundation’s 2024 national ranking of state open enrollment laws, New Hampshire has one of the worst policies in the nation–only seven states scored worse.

Robust open enrollment laws, like S.B. 97, guarantee that students can transfer to public schools with extra seats in their district. This helps students attend schools that are the right fit regardless of where they live. 

Research shows that strong within-district open enrollment policies, like S.B. 97, can help both students and schools improve. According to a 2023 Becker Friedman Institute report, the Los Angeles Unified School District’s within-district open enrollment policy positively affected participants, increasing student achievement and college enrollment, especially compared to non-participants. The authors also found that the lowest-performing schools improved the most, showing that these policies can benefit both students and schools. 

More broadly, students use open enrollment to escape bullying, access specialized courses, have smaller class sizes, or shorten their commutes. The latest national polling by EdChoice released in June 2025 showed that 78% of parents support open enrollment. Moreover, the policy’s support is bipartisan, with 80% of Democrats, 84% of Republicans, and 72% of Independents supporting it.  

Moreover, this support isn’t just talk. Reason Foundation found that 1.6 million students used open enrollment to attend schools that are the right fit, according to the freshest data from 19 states. Notably, 20% and 15% of students in Colorado and Delaware, respectively, used within-district open enrollment to attend schools other than their assigned ones.

This shows that strong open enrollment laws are an important form of school choice for students. Strengthening open enrollment laws so students are guaranteed transfer opportunities when extra seats are open is key to maximizing students’ schooling options.

State policymakers have taken note of open enrollment’s popularity. During the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers in 12 states introduced 25 proposals to establish robust within-district open enrollment. 

Eight of these proposals passed at least one legislative chamber, and two states–Arkansas and Nevada–codified them, increasing the number of states with these policies to 16.  If codified, S.B. 97 would make New Hampshire the 17th state to adopt a strong within-district open enrollment law. 

This would increase New Hampshire’s score on Reason Foundation’s annual open enrollment rankings from 35 to 45 points out of 100, scoring better than 18 other states. This means that New Hampshire would outscore or tie all of its New England neighbors, except for Vermont and Massachusetts.

New Hampshire should continue its policy of putting students first by establishing a statewide within-district program ensuring that students can attend public schools that are the right fit regardless of where they live.  

The post New Hampshire could become the 17th state to adopt a strong within-district open enrollment law appeared first on Reason Foundation.

However, this loss of public school students and funding for them shouldn’t come as a shock to state policymakers and school districts. Before the pandemic, 17 states, such as Illinois and Michigan, were already experiencing declining enrollment. 

One major contributing factor to declining K-12 enrollments is the birth dearth: fewer babies means fewer students. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the number of births in the U.S. decreased by 16% between 2007 and 2024, resulting in nearly 700,000 fewer children being born in the US in 2024 than in 2007. 

Fewer kids being born, combined with increased competition from private and charter schools, put lower enrollment rates on the horizon for many states. The pandemic exposed parents to many more educational options and made the enrollment decline happen faster and worse than expected in some cases. 

These lower student counts have significant implications for school district finances because education funding is generally based on the number of students enrolled. When school budgets shrink due to significantly fewer students, districts have to rightsize through a combination of staff reductions, school closures, or other cost-cutting measures. 

But many school districts delayed closures, relying on federal COVID-19 relief funds to keep their under-enrolled schools afloat. 

Reason Foundation research examined school closures in the 15 states that provided data, including California, New York, and Florida. Table 1 below shows the relationship between school closures and enrollment fluctuations before and after the pandemic’s onset in these 15 states.

Table 1: Public school closures before and after 2020

For example, as California’s enrollment declined by 0.9%, more than 55,000 students, between 2018 and 2020, the state’s school districts closed 63 schools. Yet only 65 schools closed in California between 2020 and 2024, when the state’s public school student counts plummeted by 5.2%, or nearly 325,000 students.

By contrast, Colorado’s public school districts faced the reality of declining enrollments sooner. Only 12 schools closed in Colorado between 2018 and 2020 as the state’s student population increased by about 0.3%. Yet this growth was reversed after the pandemic. Colorado closed 51 schools, as its public student counts dropped by 5.2%, or almost 48,000 fewer students, between 2020 and 2024. 

Unfortunately, Colorado’s initiative wasn’t the norm. Data from these 15 states showed that most delayed school closures, likely because they had federal funds temporarily bolstering their budgets. If this enrollment and closure trend holds in the other 35 states, it means that widespread school closures will likely need to occur in the coming years, as districts are forced to close or consolidate schools to reflect lower student counts and reduced funding.

To make closures fair and cost-effective, state lawmakers should have a process to identify empty schools. For example, when the student counts in Indiana school districts decline by 10% over a five-year period, they must review school building occupancy and identify schools that could be closed.  

Right-sizing schools and increasing transparency aren’t the only reforms available to policymakers. They can eliminate unfair funding protections, such as hold harmless provisions that provide funding based on outdated student enrollment figures and give districts funding for students who no longer attend those schools, spreading resources thin.

Notably, 15 out of the 16 states with declining enrollment provisions that give districts money based on outdated student counts experienced overall enrollment declines since 2020. These states are ripe for education funding reform. A better policy is to base education funding on current student counts so school districts have incentives to rightsize when their local enrollments drop. 

In the post-pandemic K-12 education landscape, there are fewer students enrolling in traditional public schools than in previous decades. Combined with the birth dearth, it’s unlikely that public school enrollments will rebound in the near future. This makes it imperative that policymakers and school leaders implement reforms that fund students and streamline school closures.

From the states

In other significant developments, policymakers in New Hampshire took a step forward on K-12 open enrollment while Vermont took a step backward, and a federal school choice bill became law.

In New Hampshire, lawmakers passed Senate Bill 97-FN, codifying a statewide within-district open enrollment program. Students can now transfer to any public school inside their residentially-assigned school district with open seats. The bill currently awaits Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s signature.

Vermont Gov. Phil Scott signed House Bill 454, which limits how families can use public dollars to pay for private school tuition. Previously, students who lived in school districts that didn’t serve their grade level could use public education funds to pay for tuition at the private school of their choice. Under the new law, however, eligible students cannot use their education funds to pay for private schools located outside of Vermont or for private schools located inside a school district that offers schooling at all grade levels, likely excluding private schools in areas with denser populations. Moreover, only private schools where 25% or more of students are publicly funded are eligible to receive public funds. This new law is a major blow to Vermont’s private school scholarship program, the oldest in the nation. 

At the federal level, President Donald Trump signed the Educational Choice for Children Act into law, codifying the first federal tax-credit scholarship program. Eligible students must come from households whose incomes don’t exceed 300% of the median gross income of their locality, according to the K-12 Dive. Scholarships are only available to students who live in states that opt into the federal program. Students can use their scholarships to cover approved educational expenses, including tuition, tutoring, transportation, and homeschooling costs.

What to watch

In Ohio, a Franklin County Judge ruled that the state’s EdChoice Scholarship, a voucher program benefiting 140,000 students, is unconstitutional. However, the judge did not order the program to stop until after appeals, acknowledging that shutting down the program would cause “significant change to school funding in Ohio,” according to The74. Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost has appealed the ruling.

In Wyoming, a Laramie County district judge paused the implementation of the state’s private school scholarship program, which was codified during the 2024 and 2025 legislative sessions. The ruling said the program likely violates the state constitution, which “bars the legislature from appropriating money for educational or benevolent purposes to any person or entity ‘not under the absolute control of the state,’” according to the Cowboy State Daily.

Recommended reading 

Democrats’ School Choice Dilemma
Michael J. Petrilli in The Wall Street Journal

“It’s a tough dilemma. Will Democratic leaders opt their states into the new federal school choice program, allowing families to accept scholarships that are funded by charitable donations from taxpayers nationwide—scholarships that don’t cost their state a penny, and therefore can’t be said to be taking any money from their public schools?Or will they bow to the demands of the teachers unions and bar the schoolhouse door instead, creating a grand opportunity for GOP candidates running against them?”

New Federal Tax Credit Boosts School Choice—But Blue States Face Big Decision
Matt Barnum in The Wall Street Journal

“The law, enacted earlier this month, will soon allow taxpayers to redirect a portion of their tax bill to nonprofit scholarship-granting organizations or SGOs. The taxpayer could write a check of up to $1,700 to an SGO but get that full amount back via a reduction of the same amount in their income taxes, instead of a regular tax deduction for the donation. It is a donation that doesn’t ultimately cost the donor anything.”

Parents Win Key Supreme Court Test in Mahmoud v. Taylor
Joshua Dunn at Education Next

“Recognizing what a disaster the case was for the school district and the public education establishment, American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten lamented on X that the case “should have been worked out on a local level, it’s a shame it went all the way to SCOTUS. Parents must have a say about their own kids, they are our partners in education.” Except a belligerent school board that was too stubborn or mathematically challenged to count votes on the Supreme Court made that impossible.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: School districts slow to close schools despite losing students appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Table 1 shows open enrollment participation in each of these states. 

Table 1: Open enrollment participation in 19 states

Public school transfer laws and policies vary widely by state. These 19 states were examined because they could provide data on open enrollment transfers. Colorado and Delaware have the highest participation rates in their programs, with about one in four students using open enrollment. 

The report also details open enrollment participation in other publicly funded K-12 education options. Between students using open enrollment, charter schools, and private school scholarships, about 16% of students choose publicly funded education options other than their residentially assigned schools in the 19 states examined. 

Figure 1 shows how many students use publicly funded private and public school choice programs in comparison to those who remain in their assigned public schools in these states.

Figure 1: Publicly funded K-12 education options

Of these 19 states, Arizona stands out the most. Over a third, 35% of Arizona’s publicly funded students chose education alternatives through open enrollment, charter schools, and private school scholarships during the 2022-23 school year. Open enrollment accounted for 10% of these students in the Grand Canyon State. 

After Arizona, students in Colorado, Delaware, and Wisconsin chose publicly funded alternatives to their residentially assigned public schools at the highest rates.

As more states expand and adopt universal private school scholarships and strong open enrollment laws, even more students will participate in these programs. In 2025, Texas, Arkansas, and Indiana established or significantly strengthened their school choice laws. 

Reason Foundation obtained data from seven states showing that open enrollment participation generally increases over time, as families become more familiar with their choices. Figure 2 shows open enrollment participation trends in select states.

Figure 2: Open enrollment growth over time in seven states

Wisconsin, which publishes the most extensive open enrollment data, shows that open enrollment participation has increased by about 14% each year, growing from 2,500 participants during the 1998-99 school year to nearly 61,000 participants during the 2023-24 school year. 

Accordingly, states that recently launched their open enrollment programs, such as West Virginia, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Arkansas, will likely see increased participation rates in future years. 

More states should maximize students’ transfer opportunities by codifying strong open enrollment policies. These laws can make a big difference in students’ transfer opportunities. On average, about 10% of students transferred via open enrollment in states with strong open enrollment laws, while only about 6% of students used it in states with weaker laws that allow public school districts to reject transfer students. This underscores the importance of adopting stronger open enrollment policies in the 34 states with weak ones. 

In the 2026 legislative sessions, state policymakers should support strong open enrollment policies so more public school students can attend schools that are the right fit, regardless of where they live.

From the States

In other important education and school choice developments, policymakers in New Hampshire, Louisiana and Nevada consider school choice proposals.

In Louisiana, the Senate Finance Committee cut $50 million from the LA GATOR private school scholarship program. The proposal provides $44 million to fund 6,000 scholarships for existing participants, but it eliminates the expansion backed by Gov. Jeff Landry and the House, which aimed to add 5,300 new scholarships to the program. 

Gov. Joe Lombardo signed Nevada Senate Bill 460 into law. This bill would establish a statewide within-district open enrollment program to let students attend public schools inside their district other than their assigned one with open seats. Nevada’s open enrollment program would improve its score by 15 points, improving its overall score to 50 out of 100 points in Reason Foundation’s next annual evaluation of every state’s open enrollment best practices.

New Hampshire Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed Senate Bill 295, which expands student eligibility for the state’s Education Freedom Accounts–private school scholarships—by removing the income cap. Program participation will be capped at 10,000 students during the 2025-26 school year, but after that, the cap will automatically increase “by 25% in any year when applications exceed 90% of the limit,” ExcelinEd in Action reported. According to EdChoice, 5,600 students received an account during the 2024-25 school year, which can be used to pay for private school tuition, textbooks, and other approved education expenses. 

What to Watch

The U.S. Supreme Court was deadlocked 4-4 on St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond. As a result, the Oklahoma State Supreme Court’s ruling that a publicly-funded religious charter school violates the separation of church and state remains in place.  

New data from Step Up for Students, the organization that administers education choice scholarships, showed nearly 1.8 million students, 51% of the state’s K-12 students, used some sort of school choice option during the 2023-24 school year. 

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–Strengthening open enrollment laws is key to unlocking public school choice for kids

–Which K-12 finance systems foster school choice?

–How LAUSD can start grappling with budget deficit, declining enrollment 

–Don’t trust the federal government with the nation’s largest school choice program

Recommended reading 

The pandemic is over. It’s time for schools to get the message.
American Enterprise Institute’s Nat Malkus and Sam Hollon at The Washington Post

“All signs indicate that many more of today’s students are falling behind academically but are still being allowed to graduate. What this means in practice is that more students will leave school underprepared for the world of college or work. School leaders need to act now to reset basic expectations — including consistent school attendance — for graduates, or pandemic exceptionalism will become the new normal.”

ESA rules review: Improving rulemaking for ESA programs
Jenny Clark, Michael Clark, and George Khalaf at State Policy Network

“While procedural and administrative rules are necessary for efficient program management, substantive decisions—such as determining eligible expenses and qualifying education providers—must remain in the hands of elected lawmakers. Otherwise, agencies risk overstepping their bounds, either by imposing burdensome restrictions or by slowly reshaping the program away from its intended purpose. ”

Schools closing in Arizona? Blame the failing schools, not school choice
Heritage Foundation’s Jason Bedrick and Matthew Ladner at The Daily Signal

“Critics claim that school choice “diverts funding.” But public education dollars are meant for students, not systems. In Arizona, when families leave a district school for a charter or private school, or to another district, the funding follows the child to the learning environment that works best for him or her—and away from one that didn’t. That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. That’s the system working to be responsive to the needs of students and their families.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Study finds more than 1.6 million students using K-12 open enrollment in 19 states appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Portable education funds are dollars sensitive to student enrollment, meaning school districts gain or lose funding with changes in student counts. Public schools generally lose funding when enrollment falls, but K-12 funding systems vary substantially across states.

Reason Foundation’s funding portability metric measures the strength of this relationship, looking exclusively at state and local education funding. The main benefits of having a higher portability score are:

• Compatibility with Private School Choice: When education funds are sensitive to enrollment, dollars can follow the child to public school alternatives.
• Compatibility with Public School Choice: Public schools have greater financial incentives to accept transfer students when greater shares of education funds accompany them across district lines.
• Better Incentives: Public schools have a stronger incentive to be responsive to parents’ needs when funding tracks closely with enrollment.
• Efficiency: Tying public school funding to enrollment gains or losses ensures that resources aren’t held up in declining-enrollment school districts.

This analysis examines the K-12 finance systems in five states through a portability lens. With public education changing rapidly, policymakers must assess whether their approach to school finance can support a dynamic ecosystem characterized by parent choice, competition, and tightening state budgets. We start with a brief overview of our methodology, summarize each state’s portability score, and then compare these scores to school choice funding levels in each state. 

The takeaway from our findings is clear: K-12 finance formulas can substantially impact how school choice programs are funded, which in turn can affect the options available to students and the costs to taxpayers.

Methodology

The criteria used to calculate funding portability scores are summarized in Table 1 below. For each state, we gathered data, reports, and other information directly from state education agencies and other public sources. We used school finance documents, state statutes, and direct contact with state education agency officials for each funding source or allocation stream to determine whether it is provided to school districts based on marginal changes in student enrollment. Importantly, local dollars that contribute to state formula funding were considered similarly to state formula dollars since they are essentially allocated from one pot of funding.

Table 1: Funding Portability Score Criteria

_{This approach was developed based on the work of researchers at Georgetown University’s Edunomics Lab, to whom we owe a debt of gratitude. Our work does not replicate their methodology and has a distinct objective. However, the results of our research might be similar in some instances. For more information, see https://edunomicslab.org/category/student-based-allocation/.}

State Scores

The following section summarizes the results of our portability analysis in each of the five states examined: Arizona, Arkansas, Georgia, New Hampshire, and Oklahoma.

1.      Arizona

In the 2023 fiscal year (FY), Arizona’s non-federal K-12 budget was $13 billion, or $11,503 per student. Of that amount, $10.5 billion, or $9,295 per student, is portable. As a result, Arizona’s portability score is 80.8%, the highest score of the five states examined.

Arizona’s public school funding is highly sensitive to student enrollment because a large share of K-12 funding is allocated through the state’s funding formula, which uses weighted-student funding to tie dollars to students. However, the state still has room for improvement.

The largest pot of dollars that aren’t portable are school district secondary property tax levies, which total nearly $1.8 billion. These are voter-approved levies for capital bonds, dollars to supplement district operations, and other purposes. Because these property tax funds are district-specific, they are not sensitive to student enrollment. Similarly, there is $186.4 million in other special property taxes that are district-specific and not tied to enrollment. From state funding sources, Arizona has $616 million in programs that aren’t allocated based on enrollment, as well as $370 million in state grants outside of its formula that are for specified school programs.

2.      Arkansas

In FY 2023, Arkansas’ non-federal K-12 budget was $5.6 billion, or $12,451 per student. Of that amount, $3.9 billion, or $8,730 per student, is portable. As a result, Arkansas’ portability score is 70.1%, ranking only behind Arizona in the states examined.

Arkansas scores high because a large share of K-12 funding is allocated through the state’s funding formula, the Matrix, which is sensitive to student enrollment. Additionally, many of the state’s largest grants outside of the formula—such as funds for low-income students, those in alternative learning environments, and English learners—are also allocated on a per-student basis and thus are portable.

Arkansas’ K-12 funding system still has a portion of dollars that aren’t portable, with the largest pot being non-formula property tax levies that total $771.0 million. These are voter-approved levies for capital bonds, dollars to supplement district operations, and other purposes. From state funding sources, Arkansas has $265.9 million in small, restricted grants for career education, special education, and other programs that also aren’t allocated based on enrollment.

3.      Georgia

In FY 2023, Georgia’s non-federal K-12 budget was $23.8 billion, or $13,652 per student. Of that amount, $10.3 billion, or $5,914 per student, is portable. As a result, Georgia’s portability score is 43.3%, a relatively low score compared to other states. This is mainly because a small share of K-12 funding is allocated through the state’s funding formula—the Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula—which is the only source of funding that is portable. Georgia also provides $545.8 million in funding to partially equalize local levies for school districts with low property wealth in per-student terms, dollars that are also sensitive to enrollment.

Most other funding sources outside the QBE, however, aren’t portable. The largest pot of non-portable dollars are school district property tax levies, which total nearly $8.4 billion when excluding property tax funds that contribute to the QBE. These are levies for capital bonds, dollars to supplement district operations, and other purposes. There is also $2.2 billion in various kinds of local sales taxes that are district-specific and not sensitive to enrollment. From state funding sources, there is $615.7 million in state grants for capital funding, pre-kindergarten, and other special programs that aren’t portable. Finally, the state also provides $387.1 million in categorical grants for transportation, nursing, sparse school districts, and other purposes that aren’t allocated based on enrollment.

4.      New Hampshire

In the 2022 fiscal year, New Hampshire’s non-federal K-12 budget was $3.3 billion, or $19,827 per student. Of that amount, $854.4 million, or $5,067 per student, is portable. As a result, New Hampshire’s portability score is 25.6%, the lowest score of all five states examined. Most of the Granite State’s portable dollars are allocated through its Equitable Education Aid (EEA) formula, which has several allocations tied to student enrollment.

The primary reason for New Hampshire’s low score is its reliance on local tax dollars that don’t contribute to the state’s EEA formula. In total, non-formula local revenue accounted for $2.3 billion or 70.2% of all K-12 dollars. Another key driver of non-portable funding is the state’s Stabilization grant, a hold harmless provision that provided $157.5 million to districts that experienced funding losses in 2012 when New Hampshire adopted changes to its funding formula. About 33% of school districts still receive Stabilization funding, the same share as when it originated in 2012.

5.       Oklahoma

In FY 2022, Oklahoma’s non-federal budget was $6.9 billion, or $9,888 per student. Of that amount, $6,402, or $4.5 billion, was portable. As a result, Oklahoma’s portability score is 64.8%, ranking third of the five states examined. The Sooner State’s relatively strong score reflects the fact that most of its K-12 dollars are allocated through funding allotments and weights in its Foundation Aid and Salary Incentive Aid formulas, which tie dollars to enrollment.

The lion’s share of non-portable dollars in Oklahoma’s funding system—about $2.4 billion—are local dollars that don’t contribute to either of the state’s funding formulas. Additionally, the state has about $211 million in intermediate revenues that also aren’t allocated based on student enrollment.

How does portability affect school choice funding?

Across these five states, there are a few drivers of non-portable dollars, including hold harmless provisions and state categorical grants. However, the primary factor harming portability is non-formula local dollars. It’s worth emphasizing that, in many states, many local K-12 dollars are portable since they contribute to the state’s funding formula. For instance, in Arizona, local funding accounts for 37.4% of state and local education funds, but less than half of this funding is non-formula. But in other states, such as New Hampshire, the bulk of local dollars are non-formula.

School choice policy designs vary, but each state’s portability score can be compared to the financial support provided to their programs. To do this, we first obtained school choice funding data for each state from EdChoice and public school funding from each respective state education agency. We then calculated the share of per-student dollars that school choice participants receive on average compared to the average per-student funding public schools receive. The results in Table 2 paint a clear picture: states with more portable K-12 funding systems tend to have a greater share of dollars following school choice participants.

The most striking comparison is between Arizona and New Hampshire. Both states tether school choice funding to their respective funding formulas: 83.2% of dollars follow the school choice participants in Arizona compared to only 25.7% in New Hampshire. This is due to the fact that Arizona’s funding system allocates most of its K-12 dollars through the state’s funding formula, while New Hampshire’s funding system relies heavily on non-formula local dollars that stay with school districts regardless of enrollment changes.

Interestingly, even in states where school choice funding isn’t tied directly to per-pupil formula amounts—Arkansas, Georgia, and Oklahoma —their portability scores still predict the share of funding that follows school choice participants. For instance, Oklahoma’s portability score of 64.8% is nearly identical to its school choice funding share of 65.7%. This is likely because school choice programs are designed to reflect the revenue lost when students leave public schools rather than trying to achieve funding parity for school choice participants. 

The takeaway is clear: when it comes to school choice, K-12 finance systems are important determinants of how much funding follows the child.  

Table 2: Comparing K-12 Funding Portability with School Choice Funding

_{Note: The ESA amount and public school funding comparisons were made using the most recent available data at the time of writing. As a result, some of the years might not match. However, this shouldn’t substantively affect the observed trends. 
*Includes ESA participants with disabilities, who receive higher scholarship amounts. The median award amount, excluding these students, is $7,409. Using this amount instead would yield a school choice share of 64.4%.
**Oklahoma funds participants based on family income. $6,500 is the median scholarship amount of the five tiers.}

Conclusion

Generally, states with weighted-student formulas that limit non-formula dollars will score highest on Reason Foundation’s funding portability metric. Low-scoring states can still implement private school choice programs, but incompatible K-12 finance systems could result in lower funding amounts for school choice participants. A large gap between per-student public school funding and choice scholarship amounts can have negative downstream effects. Choice programs with comparatively low scholarship amounts can limit students’ options since states that spend more on public education also tend to have higher tuition costs at private schools. Similarly, if policymakers in low funding-portability states want to achieve better funding parity between choice programs and public schools, they can only do so at an additional cost to taxpayers. 

At a time when school choice is fueling demand for new K-12 options, school finance reform is one way for states to incentivize a robust supply of providers. School finance reform can also help lessen the burden on taxpayers as public education enters a new era that features more choice and competition.  

The post Which K-12 finance systems foster school choice? appeared first on Reason Foundation.

On that front, Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders recently signed an open enrollment bill letting public school students attend any public school inside their residentially assigned school district that has vacancies. This builds on the state’s 2023 LEARNS Act, which allows students to transfer to public schools in other school districts. So, students in Arkansas can now choose to attend any public school that has open seats.

Strong open enrollment laws weaken the tie between housing and schooling, making it easier for students to choose public schools that are the best fit rather than the schools they are assigned by their address. In addition to Arkansas’ new law, open enrollment proposals in Texas, New Hampshire, and Alaska have already passed one legislative chamber and could become law this year.

With 16 states now having strong public school open enrollment laws, here are three of the most important reasons other states should push this form of school choice to help tens of millions of public school students.

Open enrollment helps students go to public schools that are the right fit

Open enrollment can help students access public schools that achieve better academic outcomes than their assigned schools.

Data from Texas, Florida, Wisconsin, and Arizona show that students tend to transfer to school districts that perform better on standardized state tests, suggesting parents are looking for higher-quality public schools.

Seeking schools with better academic offerings isn’t the only reason public school students use open enrollment, however. A 2016 report from California’s Legislative Office (LAO) showed that the state’s students also use open enrollment to escape bullying.

Studies from West Virginia indicate that families use it to improve their quality of life and streamline commutes, making getting to work, school, and after-school activities easier. In Colorado, students use open enrollment to transfer to choose public schools offering smaller class sizes.

Open enrollment helps schools maintain enrollment levels

Strong open enrollment laws benefit students and school districts. Some small and rural school districts in California have used open enrollment to remain fiscally solvent by attracting new students. Timothy Walker, a school administrator at Riverside Unified School District in California, explained how open enrollment helps his district. 

“Does it make money? No. But does it keep our people employed? Yes. Does it keep our financial situation stable? Yes. Does it increase educational options? Yes,” Walker told  Education Next.

Riverside shows how open enrollment can help public schools experiencing declining local enrollments balance their budgets, retain staff, and keep their doors open by creating classes and programs that attract transfer students.

While schools and policymakers often worry that school choice may take students away from small public schools, data from Wisconsin and West Virginia showed that school districts outside of cities and suburbs benefit from open enrollment transfers. In fact, school districts in towns and rural areas attracted 50% or more of all transfer students in these states. Rural Wisconsin school districts experienced a net increase of 2,500 students due to incoming transfers from other public school districts.

Open enrollment incentivizes school districts to improve

The Legislative Analyst’s Office studies on the effectiveness of California’s District of Choice program showed that the competitive pressures that open enrollment fosters helped some of the state’s school districts improve. Some districts that initially lost students through the state’s choice program got community feedback on ways to improve and subsequently attracted and retained students. These changes included offering more college preparatory courses, such as Advanced Placement (AP) classes, and increased focus on math and science.  

A Becker-Friedman Institute study by scholars Christopher Campos and Caitlin Kearns in 2023 found that schools participating in the Los Angeles Unified School District’s within-district open enrollment program had positive effects on student achievement and college matriculation. The study found that the worst-performing schools improved the most after implementing open enrollment.

Similarly, a 2023 Reason Foundation report showed Wisconsin school districts that initially lost students through open enrollment responded and produced improved standardized test results in the years following their enrollment losses. 

Open enrollment is a win-win for students and school districts. As policymakers in states such as Missouri, Nebraska, and Georgia look to expand education options for students, they should follow the lead of Arkansas, which just passed its law, and the 16 other states, including Oklahoma and Kansas, with strong public school open enrollment laws. Letting students attend whichever public schools are the best fit for them is a straightforward way to improve public schools and student outcomes in every state.

A version of this column first appeared at RealClearEducation.

The post More states should expand school choice for public school students appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Under the proposal, individuals and businesses would receive tax credits for donating to scholarship-granting organizations —nonprofits that would award funds to students for things like private school tuition, homeschooling curricula, and other educational purposes. The program would initially be capped at $5 billion annually, or enough to fund about one million students at $5,000 each.

Proponents say the federal program would bring school choice to all 50 states, making about 90% of all U.S. students eligible to participate overnight. While we share this goal, there are practical reasons to respect federalism with school choice. 

For starters, a federal school choice program would establish a one-stop shop for Congress to impose nationwide mandates on participating private schools. In its current form, the bill’s language already includes a deal-breaker: participating private schools would be forced to accept all students with disabilities and follow the Individualized Education Plans (IEP) created for them by public schools. IEPs are notoriously bureaucratic documents that specify things like required services and accommodations, paying little attention to student outcomes.

While many private schools specialize in special education—at least 137,000 special needs students participate in school choice—some aren’t set up to provide these services. And for students with disabilities, making private schools more like public schools defeats the whole point of school choice: providing alternatives to public schools’ byzantine special education system.

But this would only be the start of federal intrusion into private schools. The next time Democrats control Congress, they can rewrite the law to teachers’ unions benefit such as subjecting private schools to curricular standards, testing mandates, on-site inspections, admissions requirements, and more. 

While attacks on school choice are nothing new, a federal program that would be the biggest in the nation raises the stakes too high for everyone. Regulations like these would standardize private schools, resulting in fewer meaningful alternatives for families. It’s hard to see how this wouldn’t happen–just look at how Congress has weakened the federal D.C. private school voucher program over time, or the regulatory bureaucracy that has evolved around other federal tax credits.

A federal school choice program would also kill state-level momentum at a crucial time. School choice advocates are on a roll, passing 16 programs with universal student eligibility since the start of COVID-19. But even in red states, lawmakers phasing in these programs, including West Virginia, Louisiana, and Arkansas, face fierce opposition over the cost to state budgets, putting planned school choice program expansions at risk. 

“We have this line item [education savings accounts] that continues to just expand that may have been good in concept when we chose to do this, but the application now we see is causing some problems,” says West Virginia Republican delegate Dana Farrell, who, notably, is supportive of school choice. 

Even though state-level concerns about escalating choice program costs are overblown, a federal program might lead state leaders to decide that the budget battles aren’t worth it, while giving opponents an easy talking point. Similarly, states considering new policies, such as Mississippi and Montana, would have weaker incentives to invest state dollars if federal tax credits are covering the tab. 

Every family should be able to choose the education that aligns with their unique needs and values. For states without school choice programs, the best path forward is to convince state lawmakers and voters that private alternatives are good for kids and can strengthen public schools. But achieving this aim through Congress is shortsighted and threatens the core pillar of school choice: reducing the government’s role in K-12 education. Federal school choice would be a step in the wrong direction.

The post Don’t trust the federal government with the nation’s largest school choice program appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Guaranteeing open enrollment for students assigned to persistently dangerous schools

Federal guidance encouraged states to let students assigned to traditional public schools that have been designated as persistently dangerous transfer to safer schools. Under section 8532 of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), states must let students assigned to unsafe schools, or who are victims of a violent crime, transfer to other public schools. 

However, persistently dangerous public schools have long been underidentified because states set their own definitions of unsafe schools, which are often overly narrow. For example, an Ohio “high school of 1,000 students could have four homicides and 19 weapons possessions without being deemed persistently dangerous,” Reason magazine’s Emma Camp reported. 

Narrow definitions of unsafe, like Ohio’s, mean that many states have avoided designating public schools as unsafe even when common sense says otherwise. Unfortunately, this isn’t a recent practice. 

In 2003, California had the most K-12 students nationwide, yet the state reported no unsafe schools. Students and their families balked at this patent falsehood. “I don’t think there is safety here [Jefferson High School near downtown Los Angeles]. There are always fights,” junior Lorena Guerrero told the Los Angeles Times that year. 

Similarly, a 2019 analysis published by The74 showed that only six states–Oregon, North Dakota, Texas, Georgia, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maryland– identified any of their schools as unsafe. It noted that California has never identified any of its schools as unsafe.

Most recently, just five states identified 25 persistently dangerous schools during the 2023-24 school year. These low figures, however, don’t reflect reality as “public school districts reported through the Civil Rights Data Collection nearly 1.2 million violent offenses that school year,” District Administration reported. 

The Department of Education recommended that states review their definitions of persistently dangerous schools to ensure that students are afforded transfer options to safer ones, consulting state data, input from families, and the local community. 

State policymakers can expand the definition of persistently dangerous schools as they wish. They don’t have to limit themselves to homicides, gun infractions, or bullying. They could expand the definition to include failing schools and other situations that significantly hamper students’ learning environments.

Once a good definition is established, policymakers should also ensure that students assigned to persistently dangerous schools have real transfer opportunities. For instance, receiving districts could be required to accommodate these transfers regardless of their available space. 

Maximizing Title I flexibility

Earlier guidance released by the Education Department highlighted flexibility afforded to states under Title I, Part A of ESEA. During the 2021-22 school year, Title I provided $17.9 billion to states, earmarked for school districts with low-income students. However, states can reserve up to three percent of these funds to pay for Direct Student Services (Section 1003A), which can “allow parents to exercise meaningful choice in their child’s education.” 

Two permitted uses under Section 1003A could allow students to use open enrollment, which lets them attend public schools other than their residentially assigned ones, giving them access to academic courses not available in their assigned school, such as Advanced Placement (AP). This would ensure that supplemental dollars follow eligible students across district boundaries. Currently, federal dollars don’t follow transfer; reforming this, however, could create key fiscal incentives for districts to accommodate transfers. 

Similarly, students assigned to schools needing comprehensive support and improvement (CSI) could use these funds to pay for transportation costs to attend public schools not identified as CSI. Currently, 16 states have robust open enrollment laws, but most do not guarantee these students free transportation options. Only Florida and Wisconsin provide small transportation stipends to students using open enrollment. 

According to the federal guidance, Ohio is the only state to use Direct Student Services under Title I. While state education agencies can’t force school districts to use funds to pay for specific services, they could award the funds under 1103.A to districts whose priorities and goals align with the state agencies.

What this means for states 

The Trump administration cannot force states to adopt these recommendations because K-12 education, rightly, remains a state-level issue. Consequently, it’s up to state policymakers to implement the department’s guidance. One challenge in doing so, especially regarding funding, is state-level red tape. Most states layer additional regulations on top of federal ones to minimize non-compliance. Consequently, state regulations related to federal education funds are often stricter than those imposed by Congress. 

This practice unnecessarily restricts how federal funds are used at the state level. To ensure that federal funds provide students with the flexibility intended by Congress, state policymakers should identify and eliminate cumbersome regulations that stifle legal uses of federal funds. States shouldn’t let red tape stand in the way of students’ learning opportunities.

From the states

In other important education and school choice developments, as mentioned briefly above, policymakers recently codified significant public and private school choice laws in several states.

In Texas, Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 2 into law, establishing the state’s first private school choice law. The program provides $10,000 scholarships to 100,000 students to pay for private school tuition and other approved education expenses. Participants with disabilities would receive an additional $1,500. Home-schooled students are also eligible to receive scholarships of $2,000. 

Arkansas Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed Senate Bill 624 and House Bill 1945. Under the new laws, students can transfer to any public school across the state. It would also require the state Department of Education to collect and publish key open enrollment data. Moreover, school districts must post their open enrollment policies and procedures on their websites and inform rejected transfer applicants why they were denied in writing. Together, these laws will launch Arkansas’ open enrollment policies from 10th place to second best nationwide in Reason Foundation’s annual rankings. 

Senate Bill 2241 was signed into law by North Dakota Gov. Kelly Armstrong, letting charter schools operate in the state. North Dakota is the 44th state to permit charter schools. 

South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster signed Senate Bill 62, restoring the state’s private school scholarship. Last September, the State Supreme Court struck down the program as unconstitutional because it conflicted with its Blaine Amendment, which prohibits South Carolina from funding religious schools, leaving thousands of scholarship recipients in limbo. The new law, however, transfers state funds to a trustee who then funds the accounts, avoiding the court’s concerns. Moreover, scholarships are valued at $7,500 per student, a 25% increase. During its second year of operation, eligibility will expand to 85% of students. 10,000 scholarships will be awarded during the 2025-26 school year, increasing to 15,000 scholarships the following year. The number of scholarships can increase with demand after that.

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun signed a budget that eliminates income eligibility for the state’s voucher program. This means that every K-12 student is eligible for a $6,000 scholarship to pay for private school tuition. More than 70,000 students participated in the program during the 2023-24 school year. He also signed Senate Bill 1 into law, giving charter schools access to local property tax revenues as of 2028. The funding increases will be phased in over five years. Mind Trust estimated that charter schools would receive “an additional $3,750 per charter school student,” according to Chalkbeat Indiana.

The New Hampshire House approved an expansion of the state’s Education Freedom Accounts so that up to 10,000 students could receive scholarships. Students can use these accounts to pay for approved education expenses, such as private school tuition and tutoring. During the 2024-25 school year, 5,600 students were awarded scholarships.

What to Watch

In Utah, the attorney general’s office petitioned an appeal regarding the Utah Fits All Scholarship, which was ruled unconstitutional by a district court. According to the Salt Lake City ABC affiliate, the petition argues that the constitution doesn’t “limit the legislature’s authority to create educational programs; rather it sets the minimum, which the state has already met through the traditional public school system. Additionally, a 2020 ballot referendum, approved by voters, lets the legislature use income tax to “support children.”

The U.S. House’s Ways and Means Committee approved a budget proposal that would establish a $5 billion federal tax-credit scholarship program. If codified, students whose families’ income is 300% of their area’s median income in all 50 states would be eligible to receive a $5,000 scholarship. These can pay for approved education expenses, such as private school tuition and homeschooling materials.

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–Arkansas’ K-12 open enrollment slam dunk 

–Texas open enrollment bill would significantly increase school choice

–States can expand school choice to millions of public school students

–School choice could help defuse culture war fights

–Frequently asked questions about Montana school finance reform

Recommended reading 

Plenty of Room in District Schools
Ben Scafidi at Education Next

“At least five of these districts—Wichita, Auburn-Washburn USD, Shawnee Mission, Blue Valley, and Olathe—are self-reporting capacity at levels well below their building capacity—because they served many more students a mere five years ago. For example, the Auburn-Washington district experienced a decline of 468 students after fall 2019 yet reported no capacity to serve transfer students five years later. The Andover school district self-reported more open seats (344) than indicated by the change in enrollment method, indicating that the district had open seats back in fall 2019.”

What Would Religious Charter Schools Mean for Education Choice?
Nicole Stelle Garnett and Derrell Bradford at Education Next

“Charter schools ought to fight any suggestion that they are government schools. They are, by design, freed from government control so as to enable innovation. A decision that they are government actors would undermine that goal by placing them in a constitutional straitjacket. And that decision’s ramifications would also threaten the autonomy of government-funded private organizations that provide services other than education, including health care, foster care, community development, and poverty alleviation,” Garnett wrote

The New Frontier Of School Choice: Zoning
Michael McShane at Forbes

“Some cities, for example, require private schools to get a special exception in order to open but allow public schools to open by right (that is, without all of this lengthy process). If new schools cause issues with traffic, or risk ruining the architectural character of the neighborhood, or are hazardous in one way or another, one would think that would be equally true if the school was public or private. When only one sector needs to jump through all of the hoops, it suggests that those hoops are not serving the purpose they purport to.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: The Trump administration’s role in supporting school choice appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Currently, in Reason Foundation’s analysis of every state’s laws, Texas has one of the weakest open enrollment laws in the nation, lagging far behind other states with strong laws, such as Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Florida.

Texas lets school districts reject transfer applicants for arbitrary reasons, even when the schools have open seats. And even when transfers are permitted, school districts can charge these students out-of-pocket tuition to transfer to public schools.

For instance, Lovejoy Independent School District, north of Dallas, charged $9,000 per transfer student during the 2023-24 school year. This limits the public schooling options for students whose families can’t afford to pay pricy tuition or live inside a school district’s boundaries. 

It’s also unnecessary, because school districts are already compensated for transfer students through the state’s funding formula. While local revenues don’t follow transfers to their new district, state dollars are more than enough to cover the cost of these students..  As evidence, Lovejoy ISD accepted transfers free of charge during the 2021-22 school year when the legislature seemed poised to limit districts’ tuitioning practices. Yet when the reform failed, Lovejoy reinstated its $9,000 tuition rate on transfers the following year. State funds are sufficient to educate transfer students, but some districts will charge tuition to rake in extra funds.

Senate Bill 686, however, would stop public schools from charging tuition to transfer students. If codified, students could transfer to any Texas public school with openings, regardless of where they live. School districts would no longer be permitted to charge transfer students tuition, ensuring that public schools are free to all students. 

The policy would give students access to more schooling opportunities. Research shows that many students use public school open enrollment to escape bullying, access specialized courses, such as Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate classes, shorten commutes, and learn in smaller class sizes. 

Reason Foundation research shows that Texas, Arizona, and Florida students typically transferred to highly rated school districts when given the opportunity. Strong open enrollment policies help students attend schools that are the right fit, regardless of where they live.

Open enrollment can also benefit school districts. Some school districts in California and Wisconsin have seen their enrollment levels increase. The funds that accompany transfers could be critical to helping many school districts stay afloat financially, especially those facing local enrollment drops due to the birth dearth.

Finally, SB 686 would codify key transparency provisions at the state and district levels to help parents know when, where, and how to apply for a transfer and ensure that this information is published online and available to parents and taxpayers.

These public school choice reforms would significantly strengthen Texas’ open enrollment policy, making it one of the best open enrollment laws in the nation. Currently, Texas scores just 36 out of 100 points and ranks 24th, tied with New Jersey, in Reason Foundation’s review of every state’s open enrollment policies. But if SB 686 is passed, Texas would improve to 94 points out of 100 on Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices and climb to fifth best in the nation.

The open enrollment improvements in Senate Bill 686 would help Texas seal the deal and establish itself as a true leader in public and private school choice. Most importantly, it could help millions of students in Texas find the right public schools for them, regardless of their home zip code. 

The post Texas open enrollment bill would significantly increase school choice appeared first on Reason Foundation.

However, this setback hasn’t deterred the Trump administration from taking a sledgehammer to the agency by slashing over a thousand staff and reportedly eliminating dozens of federal contracts. Winding down the Education Department, an agency long considered dubious by many conservatives and libertarians, is welcome news, but the Trump administration’s slash-and-burn technique could have negative unintended consequences that even undermine its own initiatives.

Winding down the U.S. Department of Education

In March, the Department of Education announced that it would cut its workforce by approximately 50% or 1,900 jobs via layoffs or voluntary resignations. The American Enterprise Institute’s Senior Fellow and Director of Education Policy Studies, Frederick Hess, estimated that these cuts would save taxpayers $400 million in salaries and benefits.

However, the layoffs lack precision because the executive branch can’t cut individual staff; instead, it can “only eliminate whole units or ‘subcomponents’” due to civil service rules, Hess noted. Accordingly, the department’s sweeping staff reductions could result in unintended consequences.

For instance, even though U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon claims she is committed to retaining the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)—the biannual exam often called the nation’s report card administered by the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), which provides insights into students’ progress nationwide—only three employees remain at NCES after the administration slashed its workforce by 97%. 

As a one-of-a-kind study, boasting decades of research that predates the 1980 establishment of the Department of Education, NAEP has often been used by researchers and school choice supporters to make apples-to-apples comparisons of states’ progress and outcomes. Cutting NAEP so sharply shows how the far-reaching layoffs could unintentionally undermine school choice and reform initiatives the Trump administration wanted to retain. 

The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) also audited the Department of Education and claims it terminated 89 contracts, valued at more than $881 million. However, AEI scholar Nat Malkus argued that DOGE’s estimated savings are significantly overstated, and that more accurate savings are closer to about $197.6 million in savings, approximately 22% of DOGE’s estimate. 

Altogether, Hess’ and Malkus’ estimated total savings amount to about $600 million or 0.4% of the Education Department’s 2024 budget. 

Hamstringing the Department of Education vs Rebuilding It

While the savings gained through downsizing are underwhelming, the staffing cuts could portend major cultural shifts, especially in the agency’s research branch, the Institute of Education Studies (IES), where 90% of the staff were laid off.

AEI’s Mark Schneider, who led IES during the first Trump and the Biden administration, said he encountered “laziness, [and] corruption” during his tenure there. He even recounts how one staff member openly admitted to being captured by a special interest (which is illegal). 

Bureaucratic red tape often stopped Schneider from implementing even modest reforms, he says. As a result, he argued that the Trump administration’s slash-and-burn techniques at the agency were long overdue. “Every once in a while, you just need to just blow the shit up and rebuild,” he explained.

Rebuilding the Department of Education and its research division, however, is a hotly contested debate on the right. In an interview with the Manhattan Institute’s Chris Rufo, The New York Times columnist Ross Douthat argued that the Trump administration should rebuild the department, filling it with conservatives who would “run the actual bureaucracy.”

Rufo, on the other hand, viewed the department as “beyond reform,” arguing that the Trump administration should cripple the agency as much as legally possible. Unlike Douthat, Rufo believes that conservatives lack the manpower to successfully compete in the Department of Education’s bureaucracy.

So far, Rufo’s arguments seem to have resonated with the Trump administration, especially in light of Secretary McMahon’s recent skepticism of IES’ value to taxpayers. 

Overall, these changes show that the Trump administration plans to run the Department of Education on a skeleton crew and significantly reduce the federal role in K-12 education research. Although future administrations could try to expand the federal department to its previous size, it would likely be a monumental task, especially since many would-be workers could be skeptical of their long-term job security.

What’s next for federal and state lawmakers

While downsizing the Department of Education should be a success, much work remains. Even if the department ceased to exist, many federal grant programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), such as Title I, which sent approximately $16.5 billion to school districts in 2021, would continue to operate.

Unfortunately, these funds are allocated opaquely, inflexibly, and lack portability. For example, Title I funds do not follow low-income students who transfer to new schools through public or private school choice programs. 

The next step for Congress is to rethink how federal education funds are distributed. Proposals, such as the A PLUS Act (introduced by Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT) in the Senate and Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI) in the House), would increase federal education funds’ flexibility so state policymakers can use them for any education purpose under state law.

If codified, most state policymakers would have a chance to change how about 10% of their state education budgets are allocated. Yet, Congress often attaches strings to its funding, and the flexibility of these federal funds would depend much on the federal requirements that accompany them. Plus, to maximize funding flexibility, state policymakers would need to update any related state laws and regulations, which often stifle federal funds’ versatility just as much as federal ones. 

Federal education funding needs to be reformed, and the Department of Education can certainly be downsized, but these efforts should be strategic and student-focused. 

From the States

In other important education and school choice developments across the country, as mentioned briefly above, policymakers advanced public and private school choice laws in New Hampshire, Arkansas and North Dakota. State policymakers are also considering school choice and funding-related proposals in Texas and Alabama.

In Texas, the House approved Senate Bill 2, a private school choice proposal, sending it back to the Senate for concurrence. This is the first time a private school choice bill has successfully passed the state’s lower chamber, according to The Texas Tribune. If signed into law, the program would provide $10,000 scholarships to 100,000 students to pay for private school tuition and other approved education expenses. Participants with disabilities would receive an additional $1,500. Home-schooled students are also eligible to receive scholarships of $2,000. The Texas House also approved a K-12 education funding package amounting to $7.7 billion, increasing per pupil revenues by $395 and providing raises for teachers. 

The Arkansas House and Senate passed Senate Bill 624, which would ensure that students can transfer to any public school inside their school district. It would also require the state Department of Education to collect and publish key open enrollment data. The bill awaits Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders’ signature. If codified, Arkansas’ open enrollment law would tie for third best nationwide in Reason Foundation’s annual open enrollment best practices rankings with West Virginia and Arizona. 

Lawmakers in the New Hampshire House passed House Bill (H.B.) 741, which would establish a universal open enrollment program, allowing students to attend public schools with open seats regardless of where they live. If codified, New Hampshire’s open enrollment score would rank fifth nationwide per Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices. Additionally, the lower chamber also passed H.B. 115 to expand eligibility to students whose families’ incomes are 400% of the federal poverty limit (current law limits participation to students whose families’ income is 350% of the federal poverty limit).

Due to higher demand than anticipated for Alabama’s new private school choice program, the House Education Budget Chair, Rep. Arthur Orr, proposed increasing the program’s funding from $100 million to $135 million. So far, nearly 37,000 students have applied for scholarships, which are valued up to $7,000 per pupil attending an approved private school. 

The North Dakota House approved Senate Bill 2241, letting charter schools operate in the state. Currently, North Dakota is one of seven states that don’t have any charter schools. 

What to Watch

Despite codifying a robust private school choice law in 2024, Louisiana lawmakers are backpedaling and may not fund the scholarships. 

After 33,000 students applied for Louisiana’s LA GATOR private school choice scholarships, state policymakers want to cut the program’s $50 million in funding. Instead of providing the promised scholarships to students, the legislature’s leadership announced they will use the funds to pay for teacher and support staff stipends. Using the funds set aside for the LA GATOR program would only pay for about 25% of the proposed stipends. 

This month, all Iowa students will be eligible to receive an education savings account valued at nearly $8,000 per student. This new expansion lifts income restrictions that previously limited student eligibility. During the 2024-25 school year, almost 28,000 students received a scholarship.

Utah’s Third District Court ruled that the state’s private school scholarship is unconstitutional. The program, launched in 2024, provided eligible students with scholarships valued at $8,000. In her decision, Judge Laura Scott found that the program’s funding came from revenues reserved for public schools. Utah Governor Spencer Cox plans to appeal the decision.

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–Why open enrollment laws that let public schools reject transfer students aren’t good enough 

–Open enrollment can help New Hampshire’s students and school districts

–Kansas schools fought open enrollment but now need it to stay afloat

–The push for greater oversight of homeschoolers

–Missouri’s 2025 K-12 open enrollment proposals

Reason Foundation also testified or submitted public comments on open enrollment proposals in Montana, Nevada, Maine, and New Hampshire.

Recommended reading 

Less Than Half of Student Borrowers Are Paying Their Loans
Preston Cooper at American Enterprise Institute

“In February 2020, the last month before the payment suspension took effect, 60 percent of Nelnet’s [the largest federal student loan servicer] borrowers were in current repayment on their loans. By February 2025, the share in current repayment had dropped to just 38 percent. Current repayment rates have not risen above 40 percent in the past five months since the payment pause effectively ended.”

Trump’s anti-DEI funding threat hit like an earthquake. This is what’s happened since.
Erica Meltzer at Chalkbeat

“The Trump administration is signaling that states should take its threats to withhold funding seriously. In an unprecedented move, the U.S. Department of Education said Friday it was moving to strip K-12 aid from Maine following an investigation under Title IX — the federal law banning sex discrimination in education — into the state’s policy for transgender athletes.”

The Supply Side of School Choice: What Happens To Private School Tuition When Demand Grows?
Marty Lueken at Informed Choice

“Economic theory predicts that in the short term, both targeted and universal choice programs will increase tuition prices to some extent. In the short term, supply is relatively inelastic. Private schools can’t instantly add seats, build new classrooms, or hire more teachers. As a result, families at some schools may face higher prices and limited availability while the financial assistance from the choice program may or may not cover the new higher tuition.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Trump gutted the U.S. Department of Education—what this means for taxpayers and the public appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Nearly 50 years ago, more than 90% of students were enrolled in public schools nationwide, with less than 10% attending private schools and only 20,000 students homeschooling. 

But during the 1980s and ‘90s, more parents began to look for better fits for their children, and cracks started to show in traditional public schools’ monopoly: charter schools and open enrollment laws were codified, letting students attend public schools other than their residentially assigned ones.

Today, “public education is on the verge of an unprecedented crack-up. In fact, it’s already underway,” the American Enterprise Institute’s Robert Pondiscio argues. In the past decade, state lawmakers in these 14 states expanded targeted private school choice programs so that all or nearly all students could use public funds to pay tuition at private schools. 

These reforms officially broke the dam on private school choice as state after state codified expansive private school choice laws. Already, these laws are changing the educational landscape in those states. 

As Figure 1 shows, more than 1.8 million students in six states used public funds to attend public or private schools of their choice. Delaware and Colorado do not have publicly funded private school choice programs. These states were chosen on data availability.

Figure 1: Students using publicly funded school choice in select states

In these six states, charter schools gained the lion’s share of the students leaving public schools—859,000 students or 45% overall. Open enrollment, meanwhile, was the second most common form of school choice in these states, accounting for 36% of transfers or 686,000 students. Lastly, more than 351,000 students or 19%, used private school scholarships to attend private schools. 

In states that lack private school choice programs, students participated in public school choice programs at high rates. For instance, in Colorado and Delaware, 28% and 22% of traditional public school students, respectively, used open enrollment to attend a school other than their assigned ones.

Today, education marketplaces in states such as Florida and Arizona are experiencing major growth with the introduction of universal private school choice programs. Notably, the number of students using public funds to attend schools other than their residentially assigned ones increased by about 150,000 Florida and 49,000 Arizona students—increases of 19% and 14%, respectively—between the 2021-22 and 2022-23 school years.

Overall, these data indicate that parents and students are increasingly choosing public or private school options other than their residentially assigned ones as they seek schools that are a better fit for their academic and family needs. 

Across the country, declining birth rates and increased student mobility mean that traditional public schools can no longer assume guaranteed market dominance. In this new education landscape after the COVID-19 pandemic, public schools must consider dynamic strategies to attract and retain students. 

There are signs this is happening. For instance, the four finalists for the 2025 National Superintendent of the Year all hailed from public school districts in states with universal or near-universal private school choice programs. According to Edweek, each of these superintendents stated that developing “school-to-career pipelines” were key to making “public schools a competitive option for students.”

This sort of innovation is how charter and private schools have carved out niches in the education marketplace. It’s time that public schools responded in kind, creating a diverse schooling ecosystem that is responsive to students’ needs and interests.

From the States

In other important education and school choice developments across the country,  as mentioned briefly above, policymakers passed private school choice laws in Wyoming, Tennessee, and Idaho. School choice proposals also advanced in Missouri and New Hampshire.

Gov. Bill Lee signed House Bill 6004 into law in Tennessee, establishing an education savings account program. As of 2025, 20,000 students can receive scholarships valued at $7,100 to pay for private school tuition and other approved education expenses. Applicants from low-income families will receive priority. The number of scholarships will increase by 5,000 each year after 2026 if 75% or more of available scholarships from the previous year are distributed.

Idaho Gov. Brad Little signed House Bill 93, codifying a $50 million tax-credit scholarship program that provides recipients with scholarships valued at $5,000, which could pay for private school tuition, tutoring, and other approved education expenses. Students with disabilities are eligible to receive $7,500 scholarships.

Gov. Mark Gordon signed Wyoming House Bill (H.B.) 199 into law, establishing a universal education savings account program. Participants can receive scholarships valued at $7,000 to pay for private school tuition and other approved education expenses. In a victory for homeschoolers, Gov. Gordon also signed H.B. 46, eliminating existing regulations that made homeschooling families share their curricula with the local school district.

Missouri House Bill 711 passed the House and is headed to the state Senate. The proposal would establish a voluntary open enrollment program and let school districts cap the number of departing students at 3% of the previous year’s enrollment.

The New Hampshire House passed House Bill 115, and the state Senate passed Senate Bill 295, both of which would make the state’s Education Freedom Accounts universal. Scholarship recipients can use these accounts to pay for private school tuition and other approved education expenses. If codified, the proposal would expand income eligibility over two years so that all students would be eligible to receive an average account valued at $5,400 per year during the 2024-25 school year. The Senate will now consider the bill.

In Texas, the Senate Education K-16 Committee approved Senate Bill 686, which would establish a strong open enrollment law. It would ensure that Texas students could attend any public school, regardless of where they live, for free—without being charged transfer fees. If signed into law, the proposal would improve Texas’s grade from an ‘F’ to an ‘A’ in Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices scoresheet, moving the state up to fourth best in the rankings.

What to Watch

Oklahoma Catholic charter school takes its arguments to the U.S. Supreme Court and the White House seemingly tones down plans to dissolve the U.S. Department of Education.

The U.S. Supreme Court has taken a case about Oklahoma’s Catholic charter school claims that it faced religious discrimination after the Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the state board of education to rescind its contract. The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state and U.S. Constitution “prohibit the State from using public money for the establishment of a religious institution.” The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to hear the case on April 30.

After numerous reports that President Donald Trump would issue an executive order calling on  U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to shut down the Department of Education, the administration did not do so. As many legal experts have noted and the secretary has announced, the agency can not be eliminated unless Congress votes to do so. However, the department announced its plans to cut its 4,133-person workforce in half. According to Chalkbeat, one-third of the agency’s workers will be eliminated due to a “reduction in force,” and additional staffing cuts will occur via “voluntary buyouts.”

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–Open enrollment is a school choice policy that both blue and red states can embrace
While many perceive school choice as a red state phenomenon, K-12 open enrollment bucks this trend. Statewide open enrollment laws, which allow students to attend any public school with open seats, have succeeded in seven states, including California, Colorado, Delaware, and Kansas, whose governments were either purple or leaned blue when the laws were passed.

Figure 2: States’ political leanings when codifying statewide open enrollment laws

–Debunking Missouri’s K-12 open enrollment fears
While opponents of open enrollment in Missouri claim that it would create fiscal chaos for public schools and force school closures, these fears are overwrought. Data from other states show that open enrollment helps rural school districts attract students, helps struggling school districts improve their educational programs, and can serve as a stabilizing revenue stream to districts.

–Nebraska aims to have the third-best open enrollment policy nationwide
Nebraska’s open enrollment policy currently scores a grade of B on Reason Foundation’s open enrollment scoresheet of best practices. However, if Legislative Bill 557 is signed into law, it could boost the state’s score to a grade of A.

–Southern California school districts are serving fewer students and facing massive budget deficits

–California bill would make public school interdistrict transfer program more accessible

–Iowa House File 68 would be a step backward for open enrollment

Recommended reading 

Student Well-Being, School Choice, Higher Ed Top Governors’ Priorities for 2025
Bella DiMarco at The74

“School choice remains a key topic this year, with 15 governors addressing the issue. While initiatives to let families use public money for private schooling dominated the discussion, several governors proposed expanding public-school choice, sometimes alongside private-school initiatives.”

Many Children Left Behind: The 2024 National Assessment of Educational Progress Results Indicate a Five-Alarm Fire
Mark Schneider at The American Enterprise Institute

“The 2024 NAEP scores underline a continuing decline in educational achievement in the United States. For years following the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the nation focused on the noble but unattainable goal of bringing all our students up to NAEP’s proficiency level. This two-decades-long focus on proficiency hid one of the most damaging—and worsening—trends in American education: the growing number of students who don’t even meet NAEP’s “basic” level of performance.”

The Anti-D.E.I. Crusader Who Wants to Dismantle the Department of Education
Ross Douthat at The New York Times

Douthat: “A big reason that American education writ large is left leaning is that many people who go into it are left leaning. You and I know this very well. Some of my best friends are left-leaning graduates of America’s many fine educational schools. It just seems like it’s sort of pre-emptive despair on the part of conservatives to say, Well, we have political control over this agency that has a certain kind of influence over American education, and we’re just going to give it up because we can’t find enough people.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Data on 1.8 million students attending schools of their choice across six states appeared first on Reason Foundation.

And state policymakers are taking note. Since 2020, nine states have significantly strengthened their open enrollment laws, opening opportunities for students and increasing transparency for parents and lawmakers. Most of these states have improved their laws by ensuring students can transfer to any public school with open seats outside their assigned school district (cross-district open enrollment) or by letting students transfer to any school with open seats inside their assigned district (within-district open enrollment).

Last year, state policymakers introduced 85 open enrollment-related proposals. This year, 18 states have already introduced 41 proposals related to K-12 open enrollment during the 2025 legislative sessions. Approximately half of these proposals would positively impact the state’s scores on Reason Foundation’s open enrollment scoresheet, which examines each state’s open enrollment laws in seven critical areas, including allowing cross- and within-district transfers, and making public schools free for all students, which includes not charging transfer students additional fees or tuition. Figure 1 highlights the states whose 2025 open enrollment proposals would pack the biggest punch for students and parents if codified.

Figure 1: Most impactful open enrollment proposals of 2025

Most notably, Alaska’s open enrollment proposals would launch the state from dead last on Reason’s ranking of open enrollment policies to 5th best nationwide, surpassing states with good open enrollment policies, such as Florida and Colorado. Similarly, three other states–Missouri, Nebraska, and Texas–are reviewing proposals that could improve their open enrollment scores from grades of ‘F’ to ‘A’ in Reason Foundation’s rankings. 

In other cases, legislative proposals would make modest but important improvements to their open enrollment laws. For example, Wyoming Senate File 109 would ensure students could transfer to any public school with open seats inside their assigned district. 

Overall, if all the bills in Figure 1 are signed into law, the number of states with strong cross-district open enrollment laws would increase from 16 to 21. Additionally, the number of states with strong within-district open enrollment laws would increase from 14 to 20.

Even in states where proposals don’t significantly improve open enrollment laws, many are still small steps in the right direction. For instance, Oklahoma House Bill 2259 ensures that current transfers can remain in their new school district year after year without reapplying annually.  

In other cases, proposals need only minor tweaks to be vastly improved. Rhode Island Senate Bill 112 requires all districts to adopt an open enrollment policy that lets students transfer schools, but it should be clarified that transfer applicants can only be rejected due to schools having insufficient capacity. 

As the 2025 legislative sessions continue, policymakers should ensure that open enrollment proposals are designed to maximize learning options so every public school student can attend a school that is the right fit.

From the states

In other recent important education and school choice developments across the country, Tennessee policymakers finally passed a private school choice law. School choice proposals also advanced in Texas and Idaho.

Gov. Bill Lee signed Tennessee House Bill 6004 into law, establishing an education savings account program. It would provide 20,000 scholarships valued at $7,100 to students to pay for private school tuition and other approved education expenses. 

In Texas, Senate Bill 2 was passed by the Senate. House Speaker Dustin Burrows stated that the proposal already has enough support to pass in the lower chamber. This proposal would provide $10,000 scholarships to 100,000 students to pay for private school tuition and other approved education expenses. Participants with disabilities would receive an additional $1,500. Home-schooled students are also eligible to receive scholarships of $2,000. Gov. Greg Abbott supports the proposal and declared school choice to be an emergency item.

The Idaho House passed House Bill 93, establishing a $50 million tax-credit scholarship program. Participants would receive scholarships valued at $5,000, which could pay for private school tuition, tutoring, and other approved education expenses. Students with disabilities are eligible to receive $7,500 scholarships.

What to watch

Florida private school scholarship participation continues to surge.

More than 120,000 students applied for Florida’s private school scholarships in the first two days of applications opening. While most applicants sought scholarship renewals, 18% of them were new to the program. Since all of Florida’s private school scholarships became universal, participation has skyrocketed. Between the 2023-24 and 2024-25 school years, participation increased by nearly 85,000 students.

The latest from Reason Foundation

–Alaska aims to be the 10th state to improve K-12 open enrollment in five years 

–Southern California school districts are serving fewer students and facing massive budget deficits 

The expiration of federal COVID-19 relief funds and the loss of students in California’s public schools is causing financial turmoil in many districts. With fewer students meaning less funding for school districts, some districts may have to permanently close schools to right-size operations and best serve remaining students. 

–Assessing the fiscal impact of the Montana Academic Prosperity Program for Scholars

Reason Foundation conducted a fiscal analysis of Montana House Bill 320, which would establish a tax-credit education savings account program that would be available to all students. The analysis examines the potential fiscal impact of the program on the state budget and finds that the net program costs would be affordable to taxpayers--comprising no more than 0.2% of the state budget in its first year. Further, the analysis finds that the total amount of tax credits allowed under the program could be quadrupled and would still equal no more than 1% of the state budget.

–Fiscal Analysis: How Arkansas’ Education Freedom Account program is impacting taxpayers and students 

“For each participating student who would have otherwise enrolled in an Arkansas public school, the state’s EFA program generates about 10% in net state savings because EFA scholarship values are 90% of per-student public school formula funding from the prior year. On the other hand, EFA students already using private education represent a pure cost to the state because they weren’t previously receiving any public resources,” Reason Foundation’s Christian Barnard explains.

Recommended reading 

Trump's plan to abolish the Education Department could fall short yet still hamstring the agency
Erica Meltzer at Chalkbeat

“Sweeping education cuts could be felt just as much by red states as blue states, Resh pointed out. Meanwhile, he said, Congress can’t sit on the sidelines forever. The government is only funded through March. That could force Congress to confront Trump’s spending decisions or provide an avenue to legitimize them.”

The Whirlwind in Washington
Frederick Hess at Education Next

A more nuanced view posits that the [Trump} administration’s ultimate goal is to reduce Washington’s sway in schools and colleges but that accomplishing this requires first uprooting the discriminatory practices and destructive dogmas abetted by past federal activity. Indeed, some conservatives versed in deterrence theory argue that only when Republicans harness the Department of Ed like this will Democrats discover the merits of shrinking Washington’s footprint.

The State of Educational Opportunity in America: A 50-State Survey of 20,000 Parents
50Can and Edge Research

“With many of the activities and experiences explored in this study, lack of opportunity is not just a phenomenon among low-income families. It is a middle-class challenge as well. In many cases, the challenges and barriers faced by middle-class families are much closer to that of low-income families than high-income families.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: The best K-12 open enrollment proposals of 2025 appeared first on Reason Foundation.

With falling birthrates—and parents looking to K-12 alternatives such as private schools and homeschooling—state and local policymakers will need to right-size public education. In school districts with significantly fewer students—and presumably fewer dollars— public school closures will be necessary since under-enrolled schools spread resources thin, are costly to maintain, and are often lower-performing.

The most recent federal data from 2021-22 shows that school closures were down by nearly one-third compared to pre-pandemic levels. That’s because many school districts could plug budget holes with the $190 billion in federal COVID-19 relief funding they got during the pandemic. Now that these federal dollars are expiring, public schools are feeling the fiscal impact of losing students.

As states and districts begin grappling with having fewer students and their fiscal realities, new data published by Reason Foundation indicates that public school closures were on the upswing across states in 2024. Reason obtained school closure data from 15 states, including California, Colorado, Florida, and New York, finding that total school closures returned to pre-pandemic levels in 2023-2024. Across the 15 states with data available, there were 98 public school closures in 2023-2024—nearly the same number closed, 99, in 2019-2020.

Despite losing over 5% of their public school students, California’s public school closures declined each year since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2023-24, only seven public schools in California closed—down from 31 closures in 2019-2020. This was fewer closures than in rural states like Utah, South Dakota, and Iowa.

One reason is that California’s public schools have been flush with state and federal cash, giving them little incentive to right-size. California’s public schools got $23.4 billion in federal COVID-19 relief funds during the pandemic, while non-federal funding increased by $1,691 per student in real terms between 2020 and 2022—the highest growth rate in the country.

In the coming years, school closures will be a heated issue on school board agendas in California and other states. Already, battles are taking place in big cities experiencing significant enrollment declines, such as Oakland, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, and others.

Reason Foundation offers five recommendations for how state policymakers can address declining public school enrollment, including shoring up teacher pension systems that can drain money away from classrooms, eliminating hold harmless funding protections that give schools money for students no longer there, and modernizing facilities funding and management by right-sizing operations, selling unused land and buildings. 

Lawmakers should also pay close attention to Indiana, which offers a model for shining a light on empty school buildings and strengthening rights for charter schools. In 2023, Indiana lawmakers established reporting requirements for school districts whose enrollment declined by 10% or more in the preceding five years. These districts must conduct an annual review to identify buildings eligible for closure under the policy and report their findings to the state. Importantly, under-enrolled school buildings are now included in the state’s right of first refusal policy, which gives charters access to vacant or under-utilized facilities for just $1. Policymakers in other states could also consider extending these protections to non-profit education providers.

Public schools must adapt to their new enrollment reality. This won’t be easy, but in the long-run it’s best for students, taxpayers, and communities. 

From the States

In other important education and school choice developments across the country, South Carolina policymakers are seeking to bypass constitutional challenges to private school choice, and Tennessee and Wyoming policymakers introduced proposals to significantly expand existing private school choice programs.

In a proclamation, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee called for a special legislative session, beginning Jan. 27, to pass expansive private school choice reforms. Nearly identical proposals in the state House and Senate would make about $7,100 private school scholarships available to 20,000 students annually. The first 10,000 scholarships would be reserved for students whose families’ incomes are below 300% of the federal poverty limit. Currently, private school scholarships are only available to students from low-income families in Davidson, Shelby, and Hamilton counties.

South Carolina’s State Supreme Court struck down the state’s private school choice program in 2024 as unconstitutional, stating that the state cannot directly fund private schools. However, South Carolina policymakers aim to circumvent this ruling with funding tweaks. Instead of funding the program via the general fund, the new proposal would use funds from lottery revenues. If passed, 15,000 eligible students could receive scholarships valued at $8,500 to pay for private school tuition in 2027.

In Wyoming, House Bill 199 aims to expand the state’s limited education savings account into a universal program, providing $7,000 scholarships per family to pay for non-public education costs. Last year, state policymakers passed an expansive private school scholarship program, but Gov. Mark Gordon line-item vetoed the proposal to limit student eligibility to those whose families’ income was less than 150% of the federal poverty limit.

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott announced he has the necessary votes to pass school choice proposals this year. Moreover, Sen. Brandon Creighton, the Chair of the Senate Education Committee, introduced Senate Bill 2 which would provide private school scholarships to 100,000 K-12 students valued at $10,000. Scholarship recipients could use these funds to pay for tuition at accredited private schools, textbooks, and other eligible education expenses. Moreover, the bill would provide recipients with disabilities scholarships valued at $11,500. Additionally, homeschooled participants could each receive scholarships valued at $2,500.

What to Watch

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun called for universal private school choice.

In his first state budget, Indiana Gov. Mike Braun announced plans to increase K-12 funding by 2% each year and make the state’s near-universal private school scholarship universal. Currently, students whose families’ incomes are less than 400% of the federal poverty limit can receive $6,200 scholarships, which can pay for private school tuition.

The U.S. Supreme Court announced that it will hear oral arguments regarding religious charter schools which were ruled unconstitutional by Oklahoma’s State Supreme Court last summer. The virtual charter schools would have been operated by the Catholic Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa. All concerned parties must submit their briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court by April 21, 2025.

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–More than 20 percent of publicly funded students in Delaware use open enrollment to choose schools About 26,000 students, more than 20%, used K-12 open enrollment in Delaware during the 2020-21 school year. This policy can help students escape bullying, access specialized courses, smaller class sizes, and shorten commutes.

–Public school closures were on the upswing in 2024 Permanent school closures seemingly paused during the pandemic as districts were temporarily buoyed by federal pandemic relief funds. But as those funds expired and districts felt the effects of lower enrollments, school closures increased in regularity. 

Fiscal Analysis: How Arkansas’ Education Freedom Account program is impacting taxpayers and students “The Arkansas EFA program’s true cost (i.e., net cost) is substantially lower than its total cost. That’s because switchers generate substantial offsetting state fiscal savings that can account for as much as half of the total costs” writes Reason’s Christian Barnard.

–Public school enrollment is plummeting. Here are five things policymakers can do about it Instead of delaying the inevitable, policymakers should proactively consider how they can shore up districts’ finances, especially as K-12 enrollments drop and enrollment projections look grim. Solutions include shining a light on vacant facilities, strengthening rights for charters and other K-12 providers, eliminating funding protections, and shoring up teacher retirement systems.

Universal School Choice Programs Probably Cost States Money. They’re Worth It. At Education Next, Reason’s Christian Barnard analyzes how universal school choice policies impact state budgets by using Arizona’s universal education savings account program as a case study. He argues that while it’s likely that universal school choice costs states money in the short run, the costs aren’t nearly as high as opponents claim and are still a small portion of state budgets. Additionally, he argues that the benefits of expanding educational options on a large scale are worth the cost tradeoff.

Recommended reading 

Public Schools Added 121,000 Employees Last Year, Even as They Served 110,000 Fewer Students
Chad Aldeman at The74

“Despite all the continued attention to supposed teacher shortages, the truth is that schools employ more educators than ever. At the same time that student enrollments fell by 1.3 million (a decline of 2.5%) over the last five years, schools added the equivalent of 55,000 teachers.”

Shrinking Indianapolis Schools Could Be Dissolved, Turned Into Charters
Patrick O’Donnell at The74

“The bill targets districts where so many students have left for charter and private schools that fewer than half remain in district schools. It would shut all five districts, including the Gary Community School Corporation near Chicago, by 2028. Schools would then be turned over to charter schools that would be overseen by new panels appointed by the governor, Indiana charter school boards and local officials.”

Don’t want to close underenrolled schools? Here’s how to make the math work.
Marguerite Roza at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute

“What isn’t financially viable? A school with the full complement of typical school staff but fewer kids. These aren’t purposely designed small schools, rather they’re underenrolled large schools (sometimes called “zombie schools”). Los Angeles Unified School District, for instance, has a slew of tiny schools spending over $30,000 per pupil. Such schools vary in performance, but all sustain their higher per-pupil price tag by drawing down funds meant for students in the rest of the district. In the end, no one wins.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Public schools closing as enrollments decline appeared first on Reason Foundation.

There are two types of open enrollment: cross-district, which lets students attend public schools outside their assigned district, and within-district, which lets students transfer to public schools inside their district but outside their catchment area.

Data provided by the Delaware Department of Education for the 2020-21 school year showed that about 26,000 students, or 22% of publicly funded students, used open enrollment to attend a public school other than their assigned one.

Most open enrollment participants in Delaware–nearly 18,000 students—use the within-district option, representing 15% of students in traditional public schools. Additionally, more than 8,000 students, or 7% of students in traditional public schools, transfer to schools in other districts.

Notably, open enrollment is growing in popularity among Delaware families. Between the 2016-17 and 2020-21 school years, open enrollment participation increased by more than 4,000 students. 

Because Delaware’s student counts were nearly stagnant during this time, the increased number of students using open enrollment almost certainly happened because families like being able to choose their child’s public school. About 3,000 more students used open enrollment to attend schools in districts other than their assigned one during the 2020-21 school year than during the 2016-17 school year. 

Delaware holds its own compared to other states with similar open enrollment laws, such as Colorado, Florida, and Wisconsin, per Reason Foundation’s national open enrollment scoresheet. In fact, students living in Delaware are almost as likely to use open enrollment as those in Colorado and more than twice as likely to use it as students in Florida and Wisconsin.

Open Enrollment Participation in States with Similar Laws

High open enrollment participation isn’t surprising. National polling by EdChoice-Morning Consult showed that 73% of parents with school-aged children support the policy. Moreover, parents’ support is not based on partisan ties. At least 71% of parents identifying as Republican, Democrat, or independent support it.

Open enrollment is popular because it increases students’ free education options, helping them find schools that are the right fit. For example, some students use it to escape bullying or because they feel unsafe at school. In Delaware, school districts with high rates of out-of-school suspensions and incidents of violence in 2019 lost nearly 2,800 students–38% of all cross-district transfers–through open enrollment.

Research shows that students also use open enrollment to access college prep courses, smaller class sizes, or shorten their commutes. They also use it to access better schools. Data from Florida, Arizona, and Texas show that students tend to transfer to higher-rated school districts. 

Delaware’s open enrollment law is among the top 10 nationwide, ranking seventh in a recent Reason Foundation report examining the open enrollment policies in all 50 states. Yet, Delaware policymakers can further improve and strengthen the policy.

Delaware’s open enrollment program can be made more family-friendly if school districts post their available capacity by grade level. This ensures that families looking to transfer know which seats are open. 

The Delaware Department of Education should also publish an annual open enrollment report showing district-level data, such as the number of transfers, rejected applicants, and why they were denied. Policymakers, families, and taxpayers can use this information to hold school districts accountable for their open enrollment practices.

Delaware’s open enrollment program gets a lot right and deserves praise. However, policymakers can do more to make the open enrollment process more transparent and fair. 

The post More than 20 percent of publicly funded students in Delaware use open enrollment to choose schools appeared first on Reason Foundation.

However, to do this, President-elect Trump will need the support of Congress. U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) announced plans to introduce a proposal to abolish the department in 2025. Massie told ABC News, “There’ll be one sentence—only thing that will change is the date: The Department of Education shall terminate on December 31, 2026.” Rep. Massie has introduced proposals to eliminate the department since 2017.

This isn’t the first time the department has been on the chopping block. In 1982, President Ronald Reagan supported closing the agency, but Republican lawmakers didn’t have the votes necessary to eliminate it.

Today, President-elect Trump could face the same problem. Even though Republicans control both the U.S. House and Senate after the November elections, they fall short of holding a supermajority in the Senate chamber by seven votes. 

As Cato Institute’s Director of Educational Freedom Neal McClusky explained, it’s doubtful that the Trump administration could convince seven Democratic senators to break ranks with their party and support Republican efforts to abolish the department. 

Even if Republicans managed to collect the necessary votes, shuttering the agency would be a much larger task today than in the 1980s. 

Since its establishment, the department’s appropriation grew from nearly $53.6 billion in 1980 to about $111 billion in 2021 after adjusting for inflation, an increase of 106%. While the Department of Education delivers some funds for K-12 education, most go to higher education. The New York Times reported that “more than 70% of its $224 billion annual budget goes to the federal student aid program.”

However, closing the Education Department wouldn’t eliminate every program or end all federal spending on education. The Heritage Foundation’s Lindsey Burke, who wrote the Project 2025 chapter on dissolving the department, argues that federal policymakers should “reform, eliminate, or move the department’s programs and offices to appropriate agencies.” 

For instance, she suggested block-granting most funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and moving its administration to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

Yet others are worried that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze. The American Enterprise Institute’s (AEI) Kevin Kosar explained to The74, “Go ahead, abolish the Department of Education…But if you scatter all of its programs to other departments, you’ve gotten rid of 4,100 people, and you have to hire people in other departments to process those grants and aid applications anyway. So how much juice are you getting from that?”

Plus, some argue that the temptation to use the Department of Education as a cudgel against opponents in deep blue states may prove too great for Trump, as AEI’s Rick Hess pointed out in Education Next.  “We’re likely about to see something we’ve never seen before: a Republican Department of Education aggressively and unapologetically exploiting every last bit of its executive authority,” Hess writes. 

The president-elect has yet to announce his plans to eliminate federal agencies, large or small. Regardless of the scope of his ambitions, the incoming president and his supporters should anticipate dogged attacks from teacher unions and school districts that support a large federal role in K-12 education. At the end of the day, the agency should pursue policies that are in the best interest of students and their families.

From the States

In other important education and school choice developments across the country, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum called for universal school choice and North Carolina policymakers sent more funds to the state’s private school choice program.

After the South Carolina Supreme Court ruled the state’s private school choice program unconstitutional, the Chairman of the Senate Education, Sen. Greg Hembree (R-District 28), is exploring alternatives. Specifically, he aims to introduce a private school choice proposal with different funding mechanisms to circumvent the issues raised by the court.

In North Dakota, Gov. Doug Burgum called for universal school choice earlier this month in his budget address. Last year, the governor vetoed a school choice proposal because he said the bill didn’t “go far enough.” In his address, Gov. Burgum explained, “This is not about public versus private education. This is about ensuring that every student has what they need to support a pathway to career, college or military readiness. We recommend the Department of Public Instruction develop a program that drives an ESA [education savings account] forward to continue putting North Dakota on the map for serving all students — public, private and homeschool.”

The North Carolina General Assembly overrode Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto and codified a proposal that sent $95 million to public schools and an additional $463.5 million to the state’s Opportunity Scholarship. According to EdNC, this likely ensures that all children on the program’s waitlist will receive a scholarship.

In Mississippi, House Speaker Jason White (R-District 48) announced plans to introduce a proposal to establish a targeted private school choice program in 2025. The program would provide education savings accounts to students assigned to failing public schools.

What to Watch

New Hampshire policymakers will divvy up education-related proposals by funding and policy.

This year, education-related bills in New Hampshire will be split between two House committees, one focusing on policy and the other on funding. Between 2008 and 2022, the number of education-related bills introduced increased by about 160%, overwhelming committee members. The Speaker of the House decides which committee bills will be sent to.

In January, students can submit applications to Alabama’s new private school scholarship program. Eligible applicants’ families’ income can’t exceed “300% of the federal poverty line for the preceding tax year,” 1819 News reported. 

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–The most consequential school choice and education freedom bills of 2024 at Reason Foundation
Reason Foundation tracked 156 bills across 35 states. Twelve of these proposals were signed into law, expanding both private and public school choice for students.

–The most important public school open enrollment laws and proposals of 2024 at Reason Foundation
Three states significantly improved their open enrollment laws this year. These reforms included key changes, such as making public schools free to all students, establishing statewide within-district open enrollment, and improving transparency.

Recommended reading 

“Education Should be Handled at the State and Local Level”
Frederick Hess’s interview with Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) at Education Next

“Sending 300 percent more funding to K–12 schools than what is typically allocated by the Department of Education without instituting strong transparency and accountability measures is reckless. Money is not a cure-all, and it is irresponsible to throw more money at a problem and call it a solution.”

Red-State Referendum Defeats Are Cause for Contemplation, Not Bravado
Frederick Hess at Education Next

“For what it’s worth, it strikes me that, in Kentucky and Nebraska, choice advocates forgot what had fueled their recent success. The tough work of navigating legislatures has brought a healthy discipline to choice advocacy. In wooing individual legislators, advocates have focused on program design, showing minimal short-term budget impact on district schools, and delivering the practical, reassuring message, “We just want to give families more options.” The referenda fights lacked that tight focus. The appeals got too online and too abstract.”

School Closures Are Way Down, but Delaying These Hard Choices Makes Things Worse
Chad Aldeman at The74

“Too many district leaders closed their eyes to financial reality and hoped for societywide population trends to suddenly reverse. But there are signs they may be starting to grapple with the harsh budget truth.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Will Trump shutter the U.S. Department of Education? appeared first on Reason Foundation.