Key developments reshaping charter school policy, and what they mean for states

• Nearly all states have charter schools but they still face opposition.
• Federal funding and Supreme Court rulings are impacting charter school policy in new ways.

It’s National Charter School Week, creating the opportunity to evaluate how charter schools are serving students.

In Utah, charter schools shine in the national rankings for the state’s best high schools. The Beehive Science and Technology Academy holds the number-one spot in Utah, while six charter schools rank in the top 10 statewide.

And in an era when public schools are experiencing overall declines in enrollment, charter schools are the only part of the public-school sector growing in enrollment, both nationally and in Utah.

Public charter schools are the result of innovation, public policy courage, and a commitment to giving parents education options. Policymakers should do all they can to understand and support charter schools, because parents deserve options.

Below, I dive into two developments in the charter school space that policymakers ought to be aware of so they can help charter schools thrive.

Most states have charter schools, but they still face opposition

Charter schools are popular, and state trends generally show that. During the 2022-2023 school year, 3.7 million students were enrolled in charter schools (7.6% of all public school students). Some areas of the country have an exceptionally high percentage of students who are enrolled in charter schools. According to EdChoice data, the highest share of students attending charter schools are found in Washington, D.C. (44.4%) and Arizona (18.3%). Other states with a high percentage (above 10%) include Colorado (15.7%), Nevada (13.8%), Louisiana (12.4%), California (12.0%), Delaware (11.9%), Florida (11.4%), Utah (11.2%), Michigan (10.6%), and New Mexico (10.3%).

At this point, all states and the District of Columbia allow charter schools, except for three: Nebraska, South Dakota, and Vermont.

That said, as demand for education choice grows, we might see hurdles in those states erode. In fact, both Montana (2023) and North Dakota (2025) recently passed laws authorizing the creation of public charter schools, so the number is narrowing over time. In general, charter schools are a popular, bipartisan policy issue, and the debate has shifted from whether they should exist to how aggressively they should be expanded, how they should be regulated, and how they should be funded.

At the same time, Kentucky took a major step back this year. In February 2026, the Kentucky Supreme Court unanimously ruled against the state’s 2022 charter school law, saying the law’s authorization and funding of these schools is unconstitutional. This seems to be part of a nationwide trend to challenge education choice programs. These challenges often cite public school obligation provisions in state constitutions, as was the case in Kentucky. This is all to say, the work of protecting and defending charter school options is not over.

Supreme Court rulings and federal funding are impacting charter school policy in new ways

Some important developments in charter school policy are happening at the national level. Charter schools and religious liberty questions have been in the national spotlight thanks to a case that reached the United States Supreme Court in Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond. A Catholic online charter school was initially authorized in Oklahoma, but the state supreme court later ruled the contract unconstitutional. The case was heard by the Supreme Court, and in 2025, the court reached a split decision (4-4), which meant the lower court’s ruling stands.

While the case resulted in that outcome for the Oklahoma school, the broader legal question of whether a religious charter school violates the Constitution was never resolved. However, there is movement afoot to bring it back, and scholars fully expect to see this issue addressed in the near future. Some legal analysis explained that the case lies at the intersection of Establishment and Free Exercise issues. If the charter program is seen as a public benefit, then a state cannot discriminate against a religious group seeking to create a charter school without violating the Free Exercise Clause, according to recent legal precedent. However, if charter schools are public schools and therefore state actors, allowing them to deliver religious education raises an Establishment Clause issue. To be fair, both outcomes have good and bad long-term policy implications for charter schools. Education choice advocates themselves are divided on what they think is the best outcome. We look forward to seeing how the issue is resolved.

Furthermore, President Trump continues to recommend more funding for the Charter School Program (CSP), which is part of its overall emphasis on education choice. The program began in 1994 under President Bill Clinton’s administration, during a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so it’s mostly been a bipartisan issue. The Trump administration has repeatedly sought to increase funding for the charter school program. Utah has been a recipient of these federal funds. We can anticipate continued support from the federal level under this administration.

Conclusion

While charter schools are popular and have had the benefit of widespread popularity for some time, the issues are evolving. Education leaders and policymakers ought to be aware of these developments and the needs of their own states so they can prepare to think through these changes and make decisions that protect charter schools in their states.