Today, Reason Foundation published our 2025 K-12 Education Spending Spotlight, which brings together over two decades of school finance data for all 50 states. With nationwide funding approaching $1 trillion and outcomes declining—nearly 40% of 4^th graders aren’t reading at a basic level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress— it’s critical to examine how dollars are spent and why they aren’t producing better results.    

Reason Foundation’s interactive tool, which includes data on expenditures, staffing, teacher salaries, debt, and student outcomes, can help answer those questions and is available here.

There are five key trends to know, but here’s the big takeaway: despite record funding, K-12 finance faces structural problems that undermine student achievement.

Between 2002 and 2023, public school funding rose by 35.8% from $14,969 per student to $20,322 per student after adjusting for inflation. New York now spends $36,976 per student followed by New Jersey at $30,267 per student, and funding now exceeds $25,000 per student in eight states, including: Vermont ($29,169 per student), Connecticut ($28,975), Pennsylvania ($26,242), California ($25,941), Rhode Island ($25,709), and Hawaii ($25,485).

Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest increase in per-student spending has occurred in California, rising 31.5% from $19,724 in 2020 to $25,941 in 2023.

Michigan, Kentucky and Missouri were the next biggest percentage increasers, all spending 17% more per student in 2023 compared to 2020. Per student spending also rose by over 15% during that period in Hawaii, New Mexico, Arizona, Mississippi and Alabama.

Figure 1: Inflation-Adjusted Public School Revenue (2002-2023)

All 50 states increased K-12 funding from 2002 to 2023, but inflation-adjusted average teacher salaries fell by 6.1% between 2002 and 2022, decreasing from $75,152 to $70,548 per year. 

From 2020 to 2022, due in part to high inflation during and after the pandemic, the average teacher’s salary decreased by more than five percent in 38 states. They declined the most in North Carolina (−9.6%), New Mexico (−8.8%), South Carolina (−8.7%), West Virginia (−8.6%), and Mississippi (−8.2%).

Research shows that effective teachers are critical to student learning, so why aren’t more education dollars showing up in teacher paychecks?

One reason is that public schools are spending more money on non-teaching staff, such as instructional aides, counselors, social workers, psychologists, and instructional coordinators. Nationwide, non-teaching staff increased by 22.8% between 2002 and 2023, while public school enrollment only ticked up by 4.1%. 

This raises important questions, such as whether public schools have drifted too far from their academic mission and whether special education costs have gotten out of control.

Another reason teacher salaries aren’t increasing is that benefit spending has risen sharply, going from $2,221 per student in 2002 to $4,022 per student in 2023—an 81.1% increase. 

In 2023, employee benefit costs in New Jersey were the highest in the nation at $8,333 per student. In New York, the cost was $7,949 per student.

Research indicates that these costs are largely driven by teacher pension debt. States have failed to set aside enough funding to cover their pension promises, and now the bills are coming due. Benefit spending increased by 194.1% per student in Hawaii, 171.3% in Vermont, 169.9% in Illinois, 167.1% in New Jersey, and 166.4% in Pennsylvania.

Figure 2: Inflation-Adjusted Spending Per Student on Employee Benefits and Salaries (2002-2023)

But these aren’t the only structural issues. With enrollment falling by nearly 1.2 million students since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, public schools will need to become more efficient by closing schools and reducing staff counts. Available data suggest that school districts have been slow to close under-enrolled schools, and the number of non-teaching staff in public schools has increased since 2020. This is unsustainable, especially since the National Center for Education Statistics projects that enrollment losses will persist for years to come.

There are no quick fixes, but one thing is certain—policymakers can’t expect a good return on investment from public schools unless structural problems are addressed. Focusing on academics, paying down pension debt, and right-sizing schools are difficult but necessary reforms that can pay dividends in the long run. 

From the states

The New Jersey Senate Education Committee advanced a proposal that could significantly limit charter schools. It would ban virtual and prohibit charter school boards from contracting with for-profit entities to manage or operate the school, and “impose residency requirements for some charter school trustees,” the New Jersey Monitor reported. Harry Lee, the president of the New Jersey Charter School Association, argued that this legislation could be “read as a moratorium on charters.”

What to watch

Also in New Jersey, on the campaign trail, Gov.-elect Mikie Sherrill supported expanding the state’s Interdistrict Public School Choice Program–a form of open enrollment. This policy is in much need of reform and hopefully she will keep this campaign promise. As of the 2023-24 school year, more than 5,000 students used it to attend public schools other than their assigned ones. Despite being operational for more than 25 years, participation is one of the lowest in the nation due to an artificial cap imposed by then-Gov. Chris Christie’s administration in 2012. 

The New Hampshire Supreme Court issued a decision clarifying the state’s cross-district open enrollment law, which allows students to transfer to schools in other districts. The court stated that every school district must have an open enrollment policy and that a transfer student’s home district is responsible for 80% of tuition costs, even if the home district’s policy is not to have an open enrollment policy. New Hampshire’s law ranks 21st among the 50 states nationwide, according to Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices, but the state scored just 45 out of 100 points, receiving an F grade for its transfer policies.

Tennessee Speaker of the House Cameron Sexton (R-Crossville), expressed interest in expanding the state’s private school scholarship program. Launched last year, the program provided $7,300 scholarships to 20,000 students to pay for private school tuition. While the program is scheduled to increase the total number of scholarships available to 25,000 during the 2026 school year, Sexton argued that the expansion should be greater, as 42,000 students applied for scholarships.

The latest from Reason Foundation

–Public schools without boundaries 2025: Ranking every state’s open enrollment laws

–Policymakers are increasingly supportive of public school choice

–Open enrollment is an important part of school choice in California

–Los Angeles Unified School District celebrates mediocre test scores

Recommended reading 

Ohio school districts shouldn’t be allowed to declare students “impractical” to transport

Aaron Churchill at the Fordham Institute

“Ohio districts have used this loophole to deny transportation to thousands of public charter and private school students—and this was the way Columbus ducked their transportation responsibilities last year…Statewide, almost 23,000 charter and private school students were declared impractical last year (roughly 8 percent), while only 592 out of more than 1.4 million district students—a miniscule fraction—were deemed as such. In other words, non-district students were nearly 200 times more likely to be denied transportation than students attending district schools.”

Contested questions in public schools

Ilana Redstone at National Affairs

“Despite the post-pandemic increase in the popularity of private schools and homeschooling, the vast majority of American children have continued, and likely will continue, to receive a public education. However, doing so in an institution that hasn’t acknowledged its failures ensures that both the educational crisis and its associated erosion of democratic norms will persist. This means that rebuilding trust in this institution matters — although doing so will require us to first understand how public schools lost their way.”

Rulemaking must resolve ambiguities in federal school choice law—and fast

Jim Blew at Education Next

“Governors should be prevented from adding requirements not found in the federal law, such as prohibiting SGOs from focusing on specific student groups or educational approaches. Similarly, new governors should not be allowed to remove an organization from a state’s list unless that organization falls out of legal compliance; this stipulation would preempt the sudden disruption of a student’s education due to politics.”

___________________________________________________________________________

Are you a state or local policymaker interested in education reform? Reason Foundation’s education policy team can help you make sense of complex school finance data and discuss innovative reform options that expand students’ educational opportunities. Please reach out to me directly at jude.schwalbach@reason.org for more information.

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Study examines K-12 education spending, teachers’ salaries and benefit costs appeared first on Reason Foundation.

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, 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.

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.

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.

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.

Table 1: Status of 2024 Education-related Ballot Measures in States

All school choice-related ballot measures failed.

With seeming momentum at the state level, these school choice losses may seem counterintuitive, especially since voters in multiple states elected candidates expected to pursue school choice policies. For instance, after primarying and opposing members of their party who previously opposed school choice, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee strengthened their pro-school choice legislative coalitions and have said school choice proposals will be priorities in 2025.

As to why voters rejected school choice, Cato Institute’s Neal McCluskey told Reason magazine that “referenda for school choice are always at a disadvantage because you’re trying to take on entrenched, easily organized interests who defend the status quo and they can put a lot of money into defending the status quo and a lot of boots on the ground.”

In Kentucky, voters rejected Amendment 2, a constitutional amendment that would have let the legislature fund K-12 students outside of traditional public schools. According to the Courier Journal, only 35% of voters supported the amendment. Kentucky has no charter schools, and its open enrollment law is weak.

Similarly, almost 57% of Nebraska voters supported a referendum that struck down the state’s private school scholarship program, passed in 2023 but never implemented. Like Kentucky, Nebraska is one of the few states with no charter schools. While the state has a good open enrollment law, its strength is due to recent improvements during the 2024 legislative session.

In Colorado, by contrast, Amendment 80 fell short of voter approval. Theoretically, the higher support in Colorado than places like Kentucky could be because 334,000 students used public school choice, such as charter schools or open enrollment, during the 2023-24 school year, making voters more friendly to and familiar with school choice.

Yet, EdChoice’s Mike McShane argued the reason Colorado’s ballot measure failed was because it “fell victim to unclear ballot language, poor coalition management, and a lack of a clear ‘why.’” The purpose of provisions about school quality was unclear, leading many charter schools to take no position on the amendment and the Christian Home Educators of Colorado to oppose it. 

While it is disappointing these school choice ballot measures lost, school choice is still positioned to make significant gains in state legislatures in 2025.

Six of the 11 governor-elects have publicly supported robust private school policies, and seven fully support public school choice. 

Table 2: Support for Robust School Choice Reforms Among 2024 Governor-Elects 

Policymakers in states where governors are friendly to school choice should establish private school scholarship programs or strengthen existing ones, such as those in Indiana, Montana, and Utah.

For example, Texas’ Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said, “School choice is my top policy priority.” Additionally, “[Gov. Greg] Abbott said there are now more than enough votes to pass school choice in Texas,” Fox26 reported. 

Similarly, in Tennessee, the majority leaders in both chambers introduced a proposal that would give private school scholarships, valued at more than $7,000 each, to more than 20,000 students. 

At the same time, policymakers should codify strong open enrollment laws that let students attend traditional public schools other than their assigned ones with open seats. 

Most states that elected governors this month have weak open enrollment laws and received grades of ‘C’ or worse based on Reason Foundation’s 2024 open enrollment best practices. Open enrollment allows students to transfer to public schools with open seats. 

For example, Indiana’s and Missouri’s open enrollment laws received grades of ‘F’ on Reason’s scoresheet. Both states could significantly improve their open enrollment policies by ensuring students can transfer to any school with open seats in their grade levels.

Additionally, open enrollment can succeed in blue states, as evidenced by the strong policies in Colorado and Delaware. Accordingly, policymakers shouldn’t miss a chance to partner with governors, such as Colorado Gov. Jared Polis or Vermont Gov. Phil Scott, who are open to further strengthening open enrollment options for students.

In particular, the six states with newly divided governments, such as Michigan or Minnesota, give state policymakers a chance to introduce bipartisan proposals that appeal to conservatives and liberals and are popular with voters.

In 2025, policymakers should strengthen school choice policies so children can attend schools that are the right fit.

From the States

In other important education and school choice developments across the country, Texas and Tennessee policymakers identified school choice proposals as priorities for the 2025 legislative sessions.

As mentioned, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott primaried and campaigned against fellow Republicans who had opposed school choice and strengthened his coalition as “26 pro-school choice Republicans were voted into the Texas House, resulting in a net gain of two Republicans in the lower chamber,” The Texan’s Cameron Abrams reported. Abbott said, “With last night’s election results, Texas will finally be able to provide school choice for every Texan.” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, who presides over the Texas Senate, issued a statement “naming school choice Senate Bill 2” and urged Gov. Abbott to declare school choice an emergency for the 2025 session.

With the support of Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee, the House and Senate majority leaders introduced identical proposals that would provide private school scholarships to 20,000 students. The scholarships, valued at more than $7,000 each, could pay for tuition at state-accredited private schools. The proposal would also provide a one-time bonus of $2,000 for all public school teachers.

What to Watch

North Carolina policymakers may push through a school choice proposal before the end of the year.

After losing their supermajority, North Carolina Republicans may try to pass a private school choice proposal before existing members’ terms expire in January. GOP leadership would aim to override Gov. Roy Cooper’s veto and codify House Bill 10, providing private school scholarships to 55,000 students waitlisted from the program. Gov. Cooper claimed the bill would be “devastating for education across the board.”

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–Grading every state’s public school open enrollment laws at Reason Foundation

Reason Foundation released its latest open enrollment rankings and best practices, including letter grades for each state’s open enrollment laws. Oklahoma has the best open enrollment policies, and four other states received ‘A’ grades. Many states, however, still have much work to do— 33 states received grades of ‘F.’

–California’s open enrollment laws have room for improvement at The Orange County Register

Gov. Gavin Newsom recently made California’s District of Choice cross-district open enrollment program permanent. However, California policymakers can do more to expand open enrollment and strengthen their laws. California currently scores a ‘D-” on Reason’s scorecard.

Virginia’s K-12 funding system needs an overhaul, not tweaks at Reason Foundation

“Virginia continues to fund its public schools using its outdated Standards of Quality (SOQ) formula that was developed in the 1970s. This system is non-transparent, inflexible, and unfair. The state can do better by its students, but that requires ripping off the band-aid and pursuing a comprehensive school finance overhaul.”

Recommended reading 

What’s Ahead for Colleges, School Choice, and the Department of Education?
Frederick Hess, director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, at Education Next

“So, what will get done? The likeliest scenario is a substantial tax-credit program (presumably along the lines of the Educational Choice for Children Act) getting folded into next year’s extension of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. The program would allow donors to deduct contributions to scholarship organizations from their federal taxes. A bill which included something like a $5 billion tax credit would be small beans in terms of the budget impact but represent a major win for school choice.”

Study: Charters Hastened Catholic School Decline. Will ESAs Slow the Process?
Kevin Mahnken at The74

“Between 1998 and 2020, an average of 3.5 percent of students left their Catholic school within two years of a charter opening nearby, according to the paper’s authors. As the number of families transfering to charters grew, the Catholic establishments became significantly more likely to close.”

Public Schooling Culture War Appears to Be Cooling—Why?
Neal McCluskey at Cato Institute

“There is a clear leap in battles in 2021, after lulls in a generally upward trend between 2012 to 2018. We reached new records in 2021, 2022, and 2023. But the 2024 bar—a projection for the entire year based on our current pace—is well below 2023. Just 329 conflicts, compared to 540 a year earlier.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: How the 2024 elections affected the K-12 reform landscape appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Figure 1: Open Enrollment Best Practices and State Ranking Methodology

In the study, the policies and metrics that expand school choice options most, such as statewide cross- and within-district open enrollment, receive the highest values, while complementary metrics that bolster good open enrollment laws, such as transparency provisions, received lesser values. A good statewide cross-district policy requires all of the state’s public school districts to accept transfer students so long as seats are available at the incoming schools.

Overall, Reason Foundation found that only five states—Oklahoma, Arizona, Idaho, West Virginia, and Utah—scored an “A” in overall open enrollment policies. Oklahoma’s open enrollment law is the best in the nation, scoring 99 out of 100 points. The state’s only minor deduction was because school districts aren’t required to inform denied applicants in writing why they were rejected.  

Idaho’s open enrollment laws were ranked second best in the country. Arizona and West Virginia also earned “A” grades and tied for third place. 

Figure 2 summarizes every state’s open enrollment grade and overall score. 

Figure 2: Ranking States Open Enrollment Laws

Seven states’ open enrollment laws earned “Bs,” including Florida, Kansas, Colorado, and Delaware. In most cases, these states can easily improve their solid rankings by improving open enrollment transparency reports for parents and lawmakers. 

For instance, if Florida law required state agencies to collect and publish open enrollment data in an annual report, the state’s score would improve from a B+ to an A.

In many cases, states could significantly improve their rankings by requiring all school districts to participate in within-district open enrollment. For instance, if Wisconsin adopted this policy, it would improve to 5th place nationwide instead of 10th. 

Unfortunately for public school students, most states have a lot of work to do. Our rankings give 33 states grades of “F,” largely because they don’t require school districts to participate in cross-district open enrollment. Weak open enrollment policies like these let school districts opt out of the program and block transfer students they perceive as undesirable or don’t want to accept. 

In some cases, such as Ohio, state policymakers could expand existing cross-district open enrollment policies so all school districts participate. This reform would significantly strengthen Ohio’s law, as well as those in 25 other states.

However, some states don’t have codified voluntary open enrollment programs, leaving transfer policies wholly up to school districts. For instance, four states–Alaska, Maine, North Carolina, and Maryland–tied for dead last, scoring zero points in the report. While some school districts may permit transfers in these states, open enrollment is not codified in state law.

The good news is that open enrollment is succeeding in places where it has been implemented and there is a lot of appetite for open enrollment policy. Last year, state legislators introduced at least 85 proposals involving open enrollment. Ultimately, three states–Indiana, Oklahoma, and Nebraska–codified proposals that significantly improved their open enrollment laws.

Moreover, K-12 open enrollment is a popular form of public school choice with parents of school-aged children, with 75% of parents with kids supporting it, according to national polling by EdChoice and Morning Consult. Plus, data from Colorado, Wisconsin, and West Virginia show that open enrollment is the most popular form of school choice. 

In the 2025 legislative sessions next year, state policymakers and school choice advocates advance policies that help students attend schools that are the right fit, regardless of where they live, and open enrollment can be an important part of that.

What to Watch

Kentucky, Colorado, and Nebraska voters will consider ballot measures related to school choice while voters in Florida and California review ballot measures on school board elections and funding.

Kentucky advocates are making their final appeals to voters about Amendment 2, which would let the legislature fund K-12 students outside of traditional public schools. If the constitutional amendment passes, the legislature could codify school choice programs, such as charter schools or private school scholarships. In 2021, the legislature codified a tax-credit scholarship program, which was later ruled unconstitutional by the state Supreme Court the next year. Opponents of the amendment argue it will take funding away from traditional public schools.

In Colorado, Amendment 80, another constitutional amendment, would establish a right to school choice for every child. While Colorado has robust public school choice options via charter schools and open enrollment, the state does not offer private school choice programs. 

In September, the Nebraska Supreme Court ruled that a referendum to partially repeal a new private school choice program could appear on the November ballot. Last spring, the legislature codified Nebraska Education Scholarships, which families can use to pay for private school. Policymakers appropriated  $10 million to the program, which prioritizes students from low-income families.

Florida voters will decide about Amendment 1, which would implement partisan school board elections. Since 1998, school board elections have been non-partisan. If the amendment passes, candidates would have to disclose their political affiliations. Proponents argue that this will make elections more transparent, while opponents claim that the elections will become more politicized. 

A California ballot measure, Proposition 2, would let the state “issue $10 billion in general obligation bonds for the construction, improvement, and repair of educational facilities statewide,” Reason Foundation’s Christian Barnard wrote. Proponents argue that the school districts need funds to maintain school buildings, especially since approved funding from the last state bond initiative in 2016 is gone. Opponents argue that state bonds generally benefit wealthy school districts most and that local taxpayers should pay those costs instead.

After Student First Technologies failed to effectively roll out Arkansas’ Education Freedom Account–the state’s private school scholarship program–the Arkansas Department of Education will terminate its contract with Student First Technologies as of December and is seeking bids from new vendors. “A new contract is expected to be awarded by November 18,” the Arkansas Advocate reported. Five new companies submitted applications as of the Oct. 18 deadline.

Former President Donald Trump stated support for school choice at the federal level, calling it the “civil rights movement of our time.” While most education funding is state and local and should be that way, Trump said that “federal dollars [should] follow the student,” according to Fox News.

The Latest from Reason Foundation

–What the Birth Dearth Means for Public Schools at The Dispatch

Fewer students, increased competition from homeschools, charter and private schools, and a massive fiscal cliff mean that traditional public schools must adapt if they hope to successfully compete in the post-COVID education landscape. 

–Florida Amendment 1 would implement partisan elections for district school boards 

–Kentucky Amendment 2 would allow state funding for non-public education 

–California Proposition 2 would issue $10 billion in public education facilities bonds 

–Arkansas K-12 education finance series: Teacher pay before and after the 2023 LEARNS Act

–Arkansas K-12 education finance series: How to improve the state’s school funding system

–Virginia’s K-12 funding system needs an overhaul, not tweaks

Recommended reading 

Should the Wealthy Benefit from Private-School Choice Programs?
Derrell Bradford and Michael J. Petrilli at Education Next

“The well-off are a powerful constituency, and the public school apparatus has offered them an educational and financial package so lucrative that few people could (or do) say no, whether they reside in red states or blue. Thus, in building a “diverse” constituency to ballast themselves politically, the public schools have appealed not in a targeted way to the needy, but broadly and most beneficially to those who need very little. And, to date, this strategy of subsidizing the rich has worked brilliantly for the system.”

Earn-and-Learn Education
Bruno V. Mann at National Affairs

“Today’s earn-and-learn apprenticeships are cultivating both hard skills and soft networks. Building on the traditional registered-apprenticeship model, these programs foster opportunity pluralism at the K-12 and post-secondary levels. This moves the locus of learning from the campus to the workplace — and that is good news for young Americans.”

No Silver School-Spending Bullets
Marguerite Roza and Maggie Cicco at Education Next

“Districts can tweak their own budgeting processes, but some small nudges from states could help reorient budgeting on a larger scale. Specifically, states could require that student outcomes be reviewed as part of the budget process and that the budget be reviewed when new test scores emerge. And states could establish minimum financial training requirements for district leaders and board members so they are better equipped to factor in returns on investments during each budget cycle.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Grading states’ K-12 open enrollment laws appeared first on Reason Foundation.

This begs the question, ‘How exactly is the head of a federal agency fighting for public education?’ Even the chancellor of New York City Schools recently emphasized that K-12 education should remain a state issue. “Ultimately, I go back to the fact that education is still within the full purview of the states,” Chancellor David C. Banks told The New York Times.

Accompanied by Becky Pringle, president of the nation’s largest teacher union, the National Education Association (NEA), Secretary Cardona revealed some of his cards at a roundtable in Michigan, “When we talk about fighting for public education, we gotta fight for our educators too,” he said. 

In particular, Cardona emphasized how Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) programs signal a strong federal investment in K-12 education by forgiving eligible teachers’ student loans. To date, the PSLF program has covered approximately $4 billion in debt for nearly 470,000 teachers.

Unfortunately, we can’t say that PSLF for teachers paid off for students. “Despite decades of reform efforts, substantial public investment, and increased staffing levels, outcomes in public schools, especially those serving disadvantaged communities, have barely budged in half a century,” the American Enterprise Institute’s Robert Pondiscio explained.

For instance, Reason Foundation’s K-12 Spending Spotlight shows that, on average, 4th- and 8th-grade students taking the National Assessment of Educational Progress failed to make significant progress, if any, between 2003 and 2019 in math and reading.

Given this failure to improve national test scores and student learning, recently exacerbated by pandemic-induced learning loss, Secretary Cardona’s joint bus tour with the NEA’s president, campaigning for federal handouts for teachers, appears tone-deaf at best. There are important differences between fighting for public school students and fighting for teachers’ unions.

To make matters worse, PSLF programs help subsidize a broken system where teachers are rewarded for earning degrees that might not even help them improve student learning.

For instance, at least 46 states pay teachers with master’s degrees more on average than teachers with only bachelor’s degrees. However, Stanford University’s Eric Hanushek’s research showed that teachers’ master’s degrees don’t improve student outcomes. “Perhaps most remarkable is the finding that a master’s degree has no systematic relationship to teacher quality as measured by student outcomes,” Hanushek finds.

Taxpayers should not pay double for degrees that fail to impact student learning. Instead of promoting policies at the state and federal levels that encourage degree inflation, policymakers should reconsider how to make careers in public education more attractive and accessible. 

For one, state policymakers should ensure that increases in education revenues make it into instructional salaries. Teachers in many states have not seen salaries increase even as there have been massive increases in overall education funding. Reason Foundation research showed that total K-12 revenues increased by 25% between 2002 and 2020. However, “inflation-adjusted spending on instructional salaries hardly budged, increasing from $4,920 to $5,145 per student,” an increase of just five percent for teachers.

Additionally, state policymakers should remove unnecessary barriers to the teaching profession, such as requiring teacher licenses. These exams are poor predictors of candidates’ teaching abilities and impose financial barriers to entering the profession.

Reforms like these can help states attract and retain good teachers who can help students recover from learning loss and improve in the years ahead.

From the states

North Carolina policymakers vote to expand private school scholarship funding.

In North Carolina, the state Senate and House passed a supplemental spending plan that includes $248 million for the state’s Opportunity Scholarship, which parents can use to pay for student’s education expenses, such as private school tuition or transportation. This new funding aims to provide scholarships to the 55,000 children who were waitlisted for the program after the General Assembly removed eligibility caps from it. The proposal now goes to Gov. Roy Cooper’s desk, and the Associated Press reported that Senate leader Phil Berger anticipates a veto and “an override vote would be more likely in November.”

What to watch

Arkansas’ Attorney General Tim Griffin announced that private schools participating in the state’s private school choice program are not subject to Freedom of Information Act requests. He argued that even though private schools accept state funds, they are not intertwined with the state since private schools existed and operated independently of the state before the scholarships were established. Moreover, he argues the state did not delegate its education authority to private schools since public schools will continue to operate free of charge to students and “under State control,” Griffin announced, according to the Democrat Gazette. Opponents say private schools that accept taxpayer dollars should have to follow the same rules as public schools.

South Carolina’s Supreme Court ruled that the state’s Education Scholarship Trust Fund Program, a targeted education savings account, is unconstitutional. Codified in 2023, the program would have provided eligible recipients (students whose families earned 200% or less of the Federal Poverty Limit) with scholarships valued at $6,000. In a 3-2 ruling, the state Supreme Court stated that the program financially benefits private schools in violation of the South Carolina Constitution.

Recommended reading 

A Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy?
Jay P. Greene at Education Next

“If [Joshua] Cowen were to critically examine his own argument, he might consider alternatives to his contention that school choice has only spread across the country because billionaires used their wealth to weave a vast conspiracy that has hoodwinked people into ignoring the “overwhelming” evidence against vouchers. He might consider the possibility that other people interpret the evidence differently and also assign different importance to various kinds of outcomes.”

Should Schools Hire More Staff or Pay Teachers More?
Paul Peterson at Education Next

“We are still refining our analysis, but our early results indicate that the recent run-up in non-teacher employment is not as troubling as it seems. In states without a duty-to-bargain law, hiring other school employees yields at least as much gain in math achievement as hiring additional teachers. If districts have a shortage of employees who provide nutritional, medical, social, psychological, and other needed services, then hiring more of them may be beneficial. The need for additional hires may be especially large in states without duty-to-bargain laws.”

The Miseducation of America’s Teachers
Daniel Buck at National Affairs

“Our nation’s teacher-preparation system is broken. Our educators enter the profession woefully unprepared for their jobs. The large majority attend programs at university schools of education, where they read and discuss esoteric academic literature that contains no references to classroom-management techniques, lesson pacing, learning assessments, or other practical knowledge. These schools are boxing academies that don’t teach their students how to duck and weave.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Student loan forgiveness is not the answer to strengthening public education appeared first on Reason Foundation.

A new Reason Foundation report reviews the current open enrollment data collected and shows how to improve transparency for parents and lawmakers.  Most states don’t require state education agencies (SEAs) to collect or publish data on open enrollment. Only 13 states require their education agencies to collect data on the number of students using their open enrollment programs.

Even fewer states require agencies to collect school district-level data showing the number of denied transfer applicants and why those students were rejected. In some cases, SEAs collect these data but aren’t required to publicly publish their findings on their websites.

Only three states, Oklahoma, Kansas, and Wisconsin, meet Reason Foundation’s robust transparency best-practices recommendations. However, even Oklahoma could do more to improve its open enrollment transparency reports.

This data dearth is a problem for parents looking for public schools and policymakers looking to improve their laws. Thorough open enrollment reports, like Wisconsin’s, can inform policymakers, families, and taxpayers about how school districts need to improve. 

For instance, families can use these reports to hold school districts accountable for their open enrollment practices, especially districts that may reject transfer applicants, such as students with disabilities, at high rates.

Plus, open enrollment data can show how students use the transfer programs and how open enrollment can help school districts attract students and improve. 

For instance, the latest data from Arizona, Wisconsin, Florida, and Colorado showed that more than 658,000 students used open enrollment to attend traditional public schools other than their assigned ones. 

Figure 1: Open Enrollment Transfers in Select States

In these cases, approximately 10% of students in traditional public schools used open enrollment. However, 28% of Colorado’s public school students transferred to public schools other than their assigned ones.

Additionally, this data revealed that students tended to transfer to schools in better-ranked school districts. 

While urban and suburban school districts generally attract the most transfers, thousands of students also transferred to rural school districts in these states. Notably, 31% of Wisconsin’s cross-district transfer students chose rural schools. 

These findings are consistent with a 2021 report published by California’s Legislative Analyst’s Office, which found that small and rural school districts used open enrollment to bolster their enrollment. The per-student funding that comes with transfer students can help these school districts remain fiscally solvent, especially if the school district is experiencing declining enrollment. 

Unfortunately, many states, such as Georgia, don’t even require their SEAs to collect the data showcased here. This leaves the public in the dark about how open enrollment affects them, helps students, and the programs’ impacts on school districts. 

In 2023, at least three states codified proposals that require SEAs to collect open enrollment data.

This year, proposals in at least four states that would have required SEAs to collect open enrollment data were introduced but weren’t signed into law. 

State policymakers should ensure that their open enrollment laws are bolstered by robust transparency provisions to ensure that policymakers, taxpayers, and families can make informed decisions about open enrollment.

From the states

Texas policymakers prepare for the 2025 legislative session.

In Texas, the House Public Education Committee met to discuss private school choice efforts backed by Gov. Greg Abbott. Republican Chairman Brad Buckley said, “Parents have the ultimate power when they make a school choice decision. And they’re the ones that can decide whether or not the school is meeting the needs of their kids,” the Dallas Morning News reported.

What to watch

Florida’s Personalized Education Program, an education savings account administered through the state’s tax-credit scholarship program, expanded so up to 60,000 students can receive scholarships during the 2024-45 school year. So far, 81% of the nearly 40,000 applications submitted have been approved. Already, this is a 64% increase in participation in the program compared to last school year. Eligible applicants, like homeschooled students, cannot be full-time students at public or private schools.

A circuit court judge denied Arkansas’ attorney general’s motion to dismiss a lawsuit arguing that the state’s private school choice program is unconstitutional. The lawsuit claims that the program, codified under the LEARNS Act in 2023, violates the state constitution since it diverts funds from their intended purposes and uses public funds for unauthorized or illegal purposes. To date, more than 16,000 students applied for these scholarships for the 2024-25 school year.

Kentucky’s Pulaski County Board of Education faces scrutiny after posting information on its website urging voters to oppose an upcoming ballot initiative this fall, which would amend the state constitution to make private school choice programs legal. Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) accused the school district of breaking the law and engaging in electioneering. Amendment 2, the upcoming ballot initiative, is a contentious issue. In 2021, the state legislature overrode Gov. Andy Beshear’s veto, codifying a tax-credit scholarship program. But, in 2022, the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the program was unconstitutional. Amendment 2 aims to resolve the issue.

The Latest from Reason Foundation

—Rural West Virginia families embrace open enrollment
The state’s latest data shows large numbers of rural students using open enrollment, helping debunk the myth that open enrollment only benefits urban and suburban school districts.

—Oklahoma now has the best open enrollment policy in the country
The state’s 2024 updates to its open enrollment law make it better than policies in other top-scoring states, including Florida, Arizona, and Idaho.

—Arkansas K-12 education finance series: Adequacy review findings and recommendations so far
In the final installment of a three-part series, Reason’s Christian Barnard examines the details of Arkansas’ education funding system and how to improve it.

Recommended reading 

Why Markets Matter in Education
Michael Q. McShane at The Show-Me Institute

“Markets offer three mechanisms that facilitate school choice. First, they allow for a level of diversity in school offerings that traditional, centrally managed school systems are not able to. Second, they encourage competition between providers, improving the quality of school options for students and families. Third, markets are incredible information gathering institutions, and a more market driven system can help bring attention to better educational practices and ways to meet family needs that can then be copied by other schools.”

For Microschools, ‘Location Has Been the Hardest Thing.’ Florida Made It Easier
Greg Toppo at The74

“But policymakers are also realizing that if microschools are to thrive, they can’t be regulated the same as larger schools, Hoffman said. ‘They’re only serving 30, 40, maybe 50 families. They’re not serving hundreds of families. The size of the buildings that are necessary, the land that’s necessary, is not going to be the same.’”

Researchers: Higher Special Education Funding Not Tied to Better Outcomes
Beth Hawkins at The74

“From state to state, diagnoses are wildly inconsistent, raising questions about the subjectivity of how students are funneled into special ed. New Mexico, for example, diagnoses specific learning disabilities in 8% of students, versus less than 3% in Kentucky and Idaho. However, despite identifying a high number of children with learning disorders, New Mexico has some of the lowest literacy rates among special education students in the country.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Why open enrollment transparency matters appeared first on Reason Foundation.

These policies aim to provide school districts with predictable budgets and financial wiggle room as they adjust to fluctuating enrollments. However, according to a new Reason Foundation report, this comes at a hefty cost to taxpayers.

The study reviewed the cost of hold harmless provisions in California, Missouri, and Oklahoma. The most recent data showed that these provisions funded nearly half a million ghost students at an additional cost of almost $4.3 billion to taxpayers. This means taxpayers spent billions of dollars on students no longer at these public schools, including some who had already graduated high school or transferred to private schools.

In a 2023 EdChoice report, Martin F. Leuken found that “42 states offered either temporary or permanent protections during the pandemic (2020 to present) to help district finances through enrollment or hold harmless provisions.” 

Some hold harmless provisions, such as Colorado’s, used student counts from the previous five years. At least six states used student counts from the prior year or the prior three years–whichever is greater.

These policies cost taxpayers large sums of money, especially when student enrollment declines while school districts receive funds based on higher enrollment counts from prior years. According to data collected by Burbio, a company that measures K-12 spending, the number of public school students dropped in 18 states during the 2022-23 school year compared with the previous school year. 

Moreover, the number of public school students is likely to continue to decrease in many states. Enrollment projections published by the National Center for Education Statistics estimate that K-12 enrollments will drop by 2.7 million students between 2022 and 2031. If accurate, in 2031, public schools would have lost almost 4 million students since 2019.

To remedy this funding and enrollment problem, public schools should not receive funds for students they aren’t teaching. Instead, their finances should be enrollment-sensitive, like charter schools and private schools. Some states, such as Florida, Texas, Arizona, and Indiana, already base annual education funding on current-year enrollments.

Using current student counts is especially important in states with robust private school choice or open enrollment programs to ensure taxpayers don’t pay for a student’s education twice: once through the hold harmless provision and a second time through a private school scholarship.

While using the most recent student counts for funding purposes will be difficult for some school districts losing students, it comes with potential long-term benefits. “These dollars could be otherwise devoted to raising per-student funding for all school districts or to directing greater funds to higher-need students,” Reason Foundation’s Aaron Smith and Christian Barnard point out. With state budgets tightening, saved dollars could also offset state revenue declines. 

As many states face lower student counts and federal COVID-19 relief funds dry up this year, state policymakers should reconsider how public school funding works. Instead of propping up school districts by funding ghost students, policymakers should ensure school districts operate based on their actual student counts. 

From the states

Pennsylvania signs a major school finance reform into law, significantly increasing K-12 education funding.

In Pennsylvania, Gov. Josh Shapiro signed a bipartisan budget into law. The bill changed the state’s education funding formula and significantly increased K-12 education funding by $1.1 billion, 21% of which will go to Philadelphia schools. The bill did not include a private school program.

What to watch

Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds announced that more than 30,000 students will receive education savings accounts during the 2024-25 school year. This represents an increase of about 76% in student participation compared to last school year. Scholarships are currently valued at about $7,800 per student. While student eligibility is capped for families with incomes at 400% of the federal poverty level, all students will become eligible for a scholarship for the 2025-26 school year.

Taking political cues from Texas Gov. Greg Abbott, Tennessee Gov. Bill Lee withheld endorsements from Republicans up for reelection in the legislature who didn’t support his private school choice proposal this spring. Instead, Gov. Lee announced support for primary challengers who pledged to support his school choice policies. After Republicans failed to support the governor’s school choice proposals during the spring, he “pledged to vet GOP legislative candidates this election year based on his school choice agenda,” Chalkbeat Tennessee reported.

Recommended reading 

The Hidden Role of K–12 Open-Enrollment Policies in U.S. Public Schools
Jude Schwalbach at Education Next

“Overall, these data showed that, in Arizona and Florida, most students used open enrollment to transfer to urban and suburban school districts. However, in Wisconsin, rural school districts attracted the second-largest share of transfer students when compared to other locales in the state.”

Transparent K-12 open enrollment data matters to parents, policymakers and taxpayers
Jude Schwalbach at Reason Foundation

“Data on open enrollment programs are scarce since SEAs rarely distinguish between students using open enrollment from residentially assigned students in their annual reports on student enrollment. This makes it difficult for policymakers, researchers, and the public to assess the effect of open enrollment programs. Accordingly, state policymakers should require SEAs to publish highly transparent reports on open enrollment each year on their websites.”

A Unified Theory of Education
Frederick M. Hess and Michael Q. McShane at National Affairs

“In lieu of new spending schemes or exercises in technocratic adventurism, we should approach education from a place more explicitly grounded in practical, formative, human-sized solutions. Children are not abstractions, and parents are loath to entrust their child’s well-being to radicals who speak as if they are. Our approach is rooted in a particular kind of seriousness: a purposeful, formative, joyous kind.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Ghost students strip taxpayers’ pocketbooks bare appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Yet, according to Edunomics Lab, 40% to 50% of these relief funds were spent on labor costs “including increasing teacher salaries and adding more staffing, particularly learning specialists, tutors and counselors,” The Hill reported. 

Now, as federal relief funding dries up, many school districts can no longer afford to maintain these additional staff positions as public school enrollments as of the 2022-23 school year nationwide were four percentage points lower than pre-pandemic enrollments.

Even though state and local education funding is at an all-time high, these revenues aren’t enough to cover the difference as federal COVID-19 relief funds dry up. This is partially due to the fact that inflation significantly decreased the value of recent increases in state and local education funding. 

In fact, Reason Foundation found that “between 2020 and 2022, nominal non-federal funding grew by $1,485 per student but only $55 per student after adjusting for inflation.”

As a result, many school districts face major layoffs nationwide. The chart below highlights the magnitude of these layoffs in 10 school districts across the nation.

Moreover, in The74, Chad Aldeman estimated that school districts must eliminate 384,000 positions to return to pre-pandemic staffing levels. If this occurs, school districts would have to cut 20,000 more jobs than they did during the Great Recession, Aldeman noted.  

However, layoffs aren’t school districts’ only option. School consolidation can save existing jobs and money, especially when student enrollments decline. School districts can save big bucks by closing under-enrolled schools and reassigning staff.

Marguerite Roza and Aashish Dhammani of Edunomics Lab estimated in The74 that “when a district has under-enrolled schools, closing 1 of every 15 schools saves about 4% of a district’s budget, mostly in labor costs.”

But these closures don’t necessarily mean staff layoffs since school districts can save money by reassigning them to vacancies in other schools. “The cost reduction,” Roza and Dhammani explain, “comes from not rehiring to fill those vacancies.” 

Some school districts are already doing this. In Washington, Seattle Public Schools announced plans to close 20 schools. Similarly, Texas’ San Antonio Independent School District closed 13 schools last month. Closures could also occur in Hillsborough, Florida, and Plano, Texas.

Moreover, these closures are no surprise for many public school district administrators who have watched their enrollments steadily decline in recent decades and plunge during the pandemic.

These factors, combined with the expiration of federal COVID-19 relief funding and states’ temporary hold harmless provisions, which artificially inflated enrollments, have come to a head at once for many school districts, creating a “perfect storm,” White Board Advisors’ vice president and co-director of research David DeShryver told Education Week.  

School closures are challenging for communities and often face fierce opposition from teacher unions and families, but school districts can’t afford to operate schools that are only half full. To successfully thread this needle, school administrators must be transparent with families and give them options. 

In particular, state policymakers should ensure that families affected by painful but necessary school closures aren’t wholly left in the lurch. For instance, Utah Gov. Spencer Cox signed House Bill 341 into law this year, letting families affected by school closures choose their new public schools. 

Legislative tweaks like this give families agency in their new school selection process instead of herding them into new schools regardless of whether they’re a good fit. 

These reforms could make coming school closures and staffing cuts or reassignments less painful. Many school districts have no choice but to tighten their fiscal belts and including families in decision-making could make the process less painful. 

From the states

In other important education and school choice developments across the country, Louisiana’s legislature passed a universal school choice program, and Oklahoma established statewide within-district open enrollment.

In Louisiana, Senate Bill 313 awaits Gov. Jeff Landry’s signature. If signed into law, all students would be eligible for a private school scholarship, which they could use to pay for private school tuition and other eligible education expenses. Step Up For Students reported that the scholarship will only be available to recipients who use it to pay for a single provider during the first year of operation,  beginning in March 2025. However, scholarship recipients could use their funds to pay for multiple providers during the second year of operation.

In Oklahoma, Gov. Kevin Stitt signed H.B. 3386 into law which requires all school districts to participate in within-district open enrollment. This means that families can now transfer to any school inside their school district with open seats. Oklahoma is the first state to adopt all of the Reason Foundation’s best practices for open enrollment policies, making it the foremost leader in open enrollment nationwide

The Pennsylvania House passed House Bill 2370, which would establish a new funding formula and significantly increase K-12 education funding until 2031. Chalkbeat Philadelphia reported that Philadelphia schools would receive $1.6 billion during the next seven years if the proposal is codified. However, charter school supporters claim that the proposal shortchanges cyber charter schools since it caps school districts’ tuition payments at $8,000 per pupil. According to The Center Square, cyber charter schools’ tuition rates oscillate between $9,000 and $23,000.

Although the New Hampshire Senate approved House Bill 1665 last week, the House chamber voted to kill the bill, which aimed to expand students’ families’ income eligibility for the state’s Education Freedom Accounts. Scholarship recipients can use their accounts to pay for private school tuition, tutoring, and other approved education expenses.

What to watch

Applicants for the Oklahoma Parental Tax Credit last year exceeded the number of scholarships available. Approximately 36,000 students in Oklahoma applied for a scholarship, but nearly 16% of them or 5,600, were denied since the program is capped at $150 million. However, the cap is set to increase to $200 million next year and to $250 million in 2026. Depending on their income, recipients are awarded scholarships valued at $5,000 to $7,500 to pay for private school tuition. 

Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit in circuit court against Arkansas’ new education savings account program, claiming that it violates the state constitution. Last year, the program provided scholarships valued at about $6,600 to more than 5,400 students. 

Mississippi House Speaker Jason White announced plans to improve the state’s cross-district open enrollment law during the 2025 legislative session. Currently, the state operates a voluntary cross-district open enrollment program that allows students to transfer to schools in other school districts under very limited circumstances. Right now, Mississippi’s policy meets none of Reason Foundation’s open enrollment best practices. 

Recommended reading 

Interactive: In Many Schools, Declines in Student Enrollment Are Here to Stay
Chad Aldeman at The74

“Thirteen states — including Florida, North Dakota and Idaho — are projected to gain students by the end of the decade. But that means the rest of the country should brace for fewer students. Seven states — Hawaii, California, New Mexico, New York, West Virginia, Mississippi and Oregon — are all projected to suffer double-digit declines in addition to any losses they’ve already seen. California alone is projected to lose nearly 1 million public school students by 2031.”

Four takeaways from the U.S. Census Bureau’s latest school finance data
Aaron Garth Smith and Jordan Campbell at Reason Foundation

“Between 2018 and 2020, non-federal revenue went up nominally by $1,204 per student, resulting in a $769 increase in real terms. During this time, 43 states increased their inflation-adjusted non-federal funding per student. Had inflation stayed at its pre-pandemic level, non-federal funding would’ve gone up by roughly $938 per student between 2020 and 2022 rather than the $55 per student observed.”

Ohio’s school funding formula is hurting open enrollment
Aaron Churchill at Fordham Institute

“Funding policy should encourage rather than discourage districts to meet the needs of more Ohio families and students. The state’s new funding method misses that mark, and without change, we may see even more districts closing off open enrollment opportunities. The best way forward for state lawmakers is to restore the traditional approach to funding open enrollment by setting a simple, flat per-pupil amount that all districts receive when they open enroll.”

The post Funding Education Opportunity: Many school districts need to reduce staff, consolidate appeared first on Reason Foundation.