The National Education Association, the nation’s largest teachers’ union, has offered some reasons for states to reject the new federal voucher program. Here are just two of those reasons:
2. It’s not free money. The state and public schools will bear the costs.
The federal voucher is no free lunch. On the contrary, it imposes real costs including:
- voucher-driven enrollment loss for public schools and less state per pupil funding;
- public school district instability, especially in rural areas;
- pressure on the state budget to backfill funding losses; and
- administrative burdens.
School districts and states bear all the financial risks—while the program’s promised benefits for public schools are diffuse, indirect, and unlikely to materialize in any meaningful way.
The truth is that the program will redirect federal tax dollars almost exclusively to private purposes such as private school tuition, room and board, or private tutors. Similar programs that already exist in states primarily provide subsidies to families with children already in private schools and fund big-box retailers.
Any benefits from that spending are speculative and cannot offset the strain the program will place on state and federal revenues for public education, including less support for Title I and IDEA.
Both federal programs already fund allowable expenses in a more direct, efficient, and accountable way.
3. It’s a net loser fiscally for states. Costs will outweigh the trickle of funds to public schools.
States and public school districts will bear real costs as described in reason #2. How do the potential benefits compare to the real costs?
By design, the statute will channel billions to private, not public schools. The program funds individual students through private intermediaries that pay vendors for services. This model aligns with existing private voucher operations, but poorly with public school funding models.
Moreover, the statute defines qualifying expenses in ways that closely track private school tuition, enrollment-based fees, and related charges.
By contrast, public schools do not charge tuition, and in many states, are prohibited by law from charging students and their families for many services.
The program is poorly suited to advancing public education goals.
Saying “no” to the program is the fiscally responsible choice.