Recent primary results have underscored how fragile education reform can be. A wave of congressional candidates campaigned against public support for school choice, including charter schools—a 35-year-old reform that once enjoyed bipartisan backing in Washington.
With student proficiency rates in decline, the country cannot afford to abandon promising avenues for improvement. That's where Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Congress have a pivotal opportunity: to lock in policies that foster high-quality charter schools.
A new state-by-state scorecard from the Center for Education Reform shows that states with robust charter laws not only see better student outcomes but also lead in creating innovative public schools. The original federal charter school program, established in 1997 under the Clinton administration, was designed to incentivize states to pass laws that give educators and parents the freedom to start and operate their own public schools. Sponsored by the late Rep. Frank Riggs (R-Calif.) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.), the initiative aimed to use federal seed money to reward states that embraced charter autonomy.
For a time, the system worked. But over the years, regulatory creep and pressure from special interests have shifted the focus from operational freedom to meeting bureaucratic benchmarks. Connecticut, which ranks last on the scorecard, received $24.5 million in federal charter funds in 2022—yet much of that money went to an agency openly hostile to new charters, and the state still denies charter schools equitable funding. California, which got the largest grant in 2024, has restricted charter growth by requiring district approval. Rhode Island, earning a D-minus and ranking 45th, maintains a statutory cap on new charters and a highly centralized approval process.
While secretaries can steer programs through discretionary funding decisions, the fate of charter schools should not hinge on who occupies the Education Department. McMahon's team has already shown a better alignment with the law's original intent, directing major fiscal 2025 awards to states like Ohio, North Carolina, and Iowa that have maintained strong charter laws. But without codifying those principles into law, future administrations could reverse course without changing a single word of the statute.
Three pro-charter lawmakers have introduced bills this year to tweak the grant program, but their efforts risk undermining the broader goal of encouraging state-level reform. Instead, the original law's principles should be made a requirement for funding, not a discretionary choice. The scorecard offers a clear roadmap: independent authorizers, genuine operational autonomy, funding that follows students, and room for successful schools to expand.
Before another dollar goes out the door, the Education Department should ask the question Congress intended in 1997: Does this state's law actually let charter schools be charter schools? The answer lies in the scorecard, but Congress must codify those standards to ensure consistency.
McMahon can also use her platform to champion states that have done the hard work and pressure those that haven't—including her home state of Connecticut—to remove barriers to school innovation. The goal is to make Washington reward freedom, not bureaucracy.
Jeanne Allen is founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform and author of The Education Avengers. Her organization's scorecard provides the evidence needed to guide federal policy.
