Public education is supposed to be the great equalizer — the system that gives every kid, no matter their ZIP code, a real shot at success. But that’s not how it’s playing out. Across the country, millions of students are stuck in failing schools, bored by outdated lessons, ignored by overwhelmed teachers, and boxed into a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn’t work.
Meanwhile, those who can afford it flee to private schools or pay for tutors. The result is an education system that’s failing the very kids who need it most. That’s where school choice — especially charter schools — comes in. It isn’t just a political idea; it’s a chance to rebuild education from the ground up.
The U.S. Supreme Court just heard a case that could change everything. A Catholic charter school in Oklahoma — St. Isidore of Seville — wants public funding to operate like any other charter, even though it teaches religion. Liberal justices like Jackson and Sotomayor pushed back hard, saying it crosses the line between church and state. But the school’s lawyers argued that religious groups shouldn’t be banned from charters just because they have a faith-based mission — especially if participation in religious activities is voluntary. (RELATED: Stop Discrimination Against Religious Schools)
At stake is something much bigger than one school. The Court’s decision could open the door for families across America to choose religious charters, breaking the government monopoly on what counts as “public education.”
Too many district-run schools are overregulated, underperforming, and so inflexible they are nearing collapse. Charter schools, by contrast, are granted the autonomy to be different. They have the ability to develop their own curricula, emphasize real-world skills, and quickly adapt when students are falling behind. A major study by the Urban Institute found that students in Washington D.C. charter schools scored significantly higher in both math and reading than their peers in traditional public schools. (RELATED: For Baltimore’s Sake, Congress Should Expand School Choice)
Such success stems from the fact that charters are not bound by outdated methods. They are free to innovate and prioritize students over bureaucracy.
Even more compelling is the fact that charter schools frequently achieve superior outcomes while spending less. A University of Arkansas study examining seven major cities found that charter schools were 43 percent more cost-effective than district-run schools. Charter Schools help students learn more for less money. Another study showed that each dollar spent on a charter school student returned $6.25 in lifetime earnings, compared to just $3.94 for students in traditional schools. That kind of return benefits both families and taxpayers.
One of the most underappreciated strengths of school choice lies in its ability to raise the standard for all schools. Traditional public schools that face no competition have little incentive to improve. Once school choice is introduced, public institutions must work to earn the trust and enrollment of families. A review published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that even modest expansions of school choice prompted nearby public schools to improve slightly. With new alternatives available to parents, failing institutions could no longer operate without consequences.
These changes are already taking place. In cities like Indianapolis and Denver, charter schools are outperforming district schools while operating on leaner budgets. In Ohio, the EdChoice Scholarship program not only enabled students to leave low-performing schools but also improved the schools they exited. The sense of urgency introduced by competitive pressure has led to meaningful improvements across the board. (RELATED: Will School Choice Continue to Spread in 2025?)
The Left often claims that charter schools “cherry-pick” students or operate without oversight. The evidence does not support such accusations. Most charter schools enroll the same — or even greater — percentages of low-income students, English learners, and students with disabilities. And when charter schools do not deliver results, they shut down. No bailouts exist. No union protections shield failure. No decades-long tolerance for mediocrity is allowed. Real accountability defines the charter model — a level of responsibility rarely seen in traditional education.
Another common argument concerns the constitutionality of religious charter schools like St. Isidore. Yet if a faith-based institution can meet academic standards and deliver measurable results, exclusion based on religion alone cannot be justified. Public education is meant to serve families. Parents should have the right to choose the most effective option — including faith-based schools — provided those schools remain open, inclusive, and successful. Disqualifying such schools solely due to religious affiliation amounts to discrimination, not neutrality.
The existing system treats students as if their role is to support institutions. School choice restores the proper dynamic, compelling schools to serve students. Families gain the freedom to move away from failing schools and toward institutions that offer tailored instruction, agility, and inspiration. No model is perfect, and no policy framework is without flaws. But in comparison to the stagnant decline of the current system, charter schools and school choice offer a critical path forward.
The debate over education reform is not simply about policy preferences. It is about giving students real opportunities. It is about unlocking talent instead of suppressing it. Every child deserves access to an institution that sees their value, pushes their potential, and prepares them for a meaningful future. Access to such schools should never hinge on income or address. It should depend on one essential factor: choice.
READ MORE from Gregory Lyakhov: