National Charter Schools Week (May 10 to 16) rightly focuses our attention on the millions of students attending public charter schools. Less attention goes to the federal program that helped make much of that growth possible.
Today, charter schools are often treated as a partisan education fight. But the federal Charter Schools Program, or CSP, has a more practical, bipartisan story. Congress created it in 1994 as part of the Improving America’s Schools Act, the Clinton-era reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.
Created to help launch new charter schools, replicate strong models, and support facilities financing, CSP remains a modest federal tool with a large public purpose: helping communities create more quality K–12 public school options.
It remains the only federal program specifically dedicated to expanding public charter school choice nationwide. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools describes CSP as a catalyst that helps educators and communities create new public school options rather than a federal effort to run schools from Washington.
At its best, CSP is a problem-solving program. It helps states, communities, nonprofit operators, and school founders respond to family demand. It supports pluralism in public education, or the idea that students need more than one kind of school and more than one pathway to success.
The program is also modest by Washington standards. CSP is currently funded at $440 million annually (though in May 2025, the administration added a $60 million increase using its discretionary authority). That’s roughly 2 percent of federal K–12 education spending on Title 1. Yet nearly half of charter schools operating today received CSP support at some point, and today’s 8,140 charter schools now serve nearly 3.9 million students nationwide.
That makes CSP a useful case study in what federal education policy can do well: support innovation without imposing uniformity.
But if CSP is a quiet success, it’s also at an inflection point. The next phase shouldn’t be judged only by how many schools it helps open. It should be judged by whether it helps communities grow effective and accountable schools.
That starts with protecting and strengthening the program’s small but catalytic investment. CSP does not cover the full cost of opening or expanding schools, and it was never meant to. Its value is that it helps promising schools get started, especially in communities where new options are hardest to create. Congress should increase funding for the program, as the Trump administration is proposing.
Second, policymakers should simplify CSP without weakening accountability. For a program designed to support innovation, CSP has become unusually complex. The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools argues that it is now one of the most complex grant programs in the federal budget, with layers of compliance, reporting, and regulatory requirements that can slow funds from reaching schools. Accountability matters and public dollars require public oversight, but oversight should protect students and taxpayers, not create a maze that prevents good schools from opening.
That is why bipartisan modernization efforts deserve attention. For example, the Fostering Learning and Excellence in Charter Schools Act, or FLEX Act, would aim to modernize CSP so that funds reach schools faster and the program better reflects the needs of families and students. And the Empower Charter School Educators to Lead Act would provide early seed funding to qualified school leaders at the earliest stage of charter development. These are both practical attempts to make a federal program work better.
Third, Congress should address the biggest barrier facing many charter schools: facilities. Unlike district schools, charter schools often lack access to public buildings and local facilities funding. That means they must use money intended for classrooms to pay rent, renovate buildings, or finance construction. Federal policy cannot solve the facilities problem alone, but it can help.
Congress should protect financing tools such as tax-exempt private activity bonds, which provide lower-cost financing for charter school buildings. It should also consider the Equitable Access to School Facilities Act, a bipartisan proposal to provide more funding and flexibility within CSP subgrant programs for school building needs. Rural charter schools also deserve attention. The Department of Agriculture’s Community Facilities grants and loan programs already help finance community facilities in rural America, including public school buildings. But charter school access has been uneven. USDA should clarify that rural charter schools are eligible and encourage timely application approvals.
Thirty years in, CSP remains a small federal program with a large public purpose. It helps families find options, educators build schools, and communities expand opportunity.
The next step is to make a bipartisan program work better. For Congress, that means a simple test: protect what works, fix what doesn’t, and keep the door open for more students to find a public school that helps them thrive.
