Three emerging issues—each unfolding in a different branch of government—offer a telling snapshot of where federal education policy could be headed. On their own, each represents a flashpoint. Taken together, they provide a rare glimpse into the full machinery of federal influence—and a timely reminder that education policymaking in Washington still matters. In 2025, all three branches are asserting themselves on major K–12 issues, each shaping policy from a different perch of federal power.
Religious charter schools (judicial)
On April 30, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in a high-profile case concerning whether states that allow secular charter schools must also permit religious ones. At the center is St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School, greenlit by Oklahoma’s charter board as the nation’s first religious charter school. Predictably, lawsuits followed, and the state’s supreme court blocked the school’s creation.
The potential implications are sweeping. As my colleague Mike Petrilli has noted, if SCOTUS affirms the legality of religious charter schools, it would mark a tectonic shift in the charter movement—especially in blue states where “it would be easy to imagine [them] and their districts and authorizers clamping down on new charter schools altogether, especially given the political left’s antipathy to anything that blurs the line between church and state.” What’s more, if the Court allows religious charters, states may prohibit all charter schools from receiving automatic per-pupil funding—requiring annual legislative appropriations instead. Could the sector survive if its funding depends on yearly budget fights?
Among the many briefs filed in the case—including those from state attorneys general, charter support organizations, and constitutional law scholars—the most surprising came from a coalition that included the NEA and AFT. In a rare show of support for charter schools as public schools, the unions urged the Court to reject the authorization of religious charters. But if SCOTUS opens the door to them—the decision is expected by the end of June—don’t be surprised when the unions reverse course and declare, “See, we told you charter schools weren’t public schools after all!”
The Educational Choice for Children Act (legislative)
Over on Capitol Hill, the ECCA—sponsored by Representatives Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Burgess Owens (R-UT) and Senators Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Tim Scott (R-SC)—is the latest Republican-led push to create a national framework for private school choice. The bill proposes federal tax credits for individuals and corporations that donate to scholarship-granting organizations. These donations would fund tuition and other education-related expenses for families, with no federal dollars going directly to schools. The legislation has been introduced in both chambers and is expected to move forward using the reconciliation process, which could expedite its passage.
ECCA is notable for both its ambition and its architecture. If enacted as written, about 90 percent of students in each state will be eligible. The bill proposes a $10 billion cap on federal K–12 tax-credit scholarships, with 10 percent evenly divided among states. This means each state would have roughly $19.6 million in incentives on offer (i.e., $1 billion divided by fifty states and D.C.). If a state exhausts its share, the remaining 90 percent ($9 billion) will be available on a first come, first served basis. Since this is a tax credit program—not a grant—states don’t receive money directly. Rather, individuals and corporations reduce their federal tax liability by donating to scholarship-granting organizations. The bill also includes an escalator clause that would raise the credit cap over time if demand is strong, signaling a clear intent to expand the initiative. Still, how this revenue reduction would play out across states remains an open question.
By placing the program under the Treasury Department—not the Department of Education—proponents aim to avoid regulatory entanglements. ECCA would be folded into what President Trump has called a “big, beautiful bill.” While not a spending bill in the traditional sense, the proposed tax credit reduces federal revenue and could still face resistance in Congress, particularly from a vocal minority of fiscal hawks. Choice advocates remain optimistic, but if ECCA becomes law, they may soon regret inviting Washington into the fold. Even with Treasury at the helm, federal involvement often breeds unintended consequences. Indeed, history and experience show that even well-meaning national programs can unravel over time.
ESSA waivers (executive)
A lot of attention has focused on the president’s executive orders, whether expanding school choice or “abolishing” the Department of Education. But functionally, these EO’s tend to operate more like glorified press releases than binding policy. More consequential is how U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon handles state waiver requests—moves that could quietly reshape the contours of federal education policy.
Iowa and Oklahoma are the first states to test the waters. Iowa’s request is relatively comprehensive and thoughtful; Oklahoma’s far less so. Both seek to rewrite how federal education dollars flow to states and districts. On paper, Secretary McMahon lacks the authority to block grant these funds. But with enforcement mechanisms weakened by deep staffing cuts, what would have been swiftly rejected in previous administrations now faces a murkier fate. The more pressing question is not whether other states will follow Iowa and Oklahoma, but whether anyone in Washington will even push back.
McMahon and her team have until July to respond to Iowa’s and Oklahoma’s requests, so stay tuned.
—
These three developments aren’t unfolding in a vacuum. They’re playing out in real time, across all three branches of government. And they raise fundamental questions: What does it mean for a school to be “public”? What role should the federal government play in promoting school choice? How much flexibility should states have with their federal dollars?
The answers won’t come easily. But the process of wrestling with them—the push and pull among branches, the back and forth between Washington and the states—is part of what makes federal education policy both maddening and meaningful.
