David S. Knight is director of the Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy at the University of Washington, and David DeMatthews is an associate professor of educational leadership and policy at the University of Texas at Austin. They offer a warning to Washington state leaders contemplating the federal school voucher.
The Federal Scholarship Tax Credit, the new federal school choice program, could bring a sea change to the flow of education dollars in Washington. Advocates are marketing the credit as a win for families, taxpayers and states, but many of the claims do not withstand scrutiny.
For the first time, the federal government is creating a nationwide private-school voucher program while limiting state oversight of how the funds are used. Well-intentioned advocates are currently searching for ways Washington public schools could benefit from this program. But before opting in, Washington leaders should investigate several claims driving support for the policy.
The law provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to individuals who donate to scholarship granting organizations, or SGOs, which then distribute funds to eligible families for private school tuition and related expenses. States must opt in to the program, leaving governors and their constituents to decide whether participating is in their best interest. Thirty states have already opted in, but many including Washington are still weighing their decision.
Because states must opt in, advocacy organizations have launched well-funded campaigns urging governors to participate. Much of these campaigns portray FSTC as a “cost-free” opportunity to help “families in need.” As researchers who study school finance and school choice, we see a glaring gap between those claims and what evidence from similar programs suggest is most likely to occur when the policy goes into effect, in January 2027. Much debate centers on three primary claims:
First, supporters argue FSTC could provide a new source of cash for public schools. However, the FSTC prohibits public schools from directly receiving any fees from SGOs. To get around this, advocates have suggested public schools charge families extra fees that would pay for a “bundled set of enhanced services” such as field trips and science labs.
But this is unlikely to work in several states including Washington, where state law prohibits schools from charging families any fees for basic services, such as transportation for field trips, special courses or programs, or school textbooks. Other states like California have even stricter policies that prevent schools from charging families for extracurricular activities such as athletics, band or theater. Public schools will struggle to access these funds, while private schools already have an SGO infrastructure and a fee-for-service model that this program favors.
Second, advocates have argued that FSTC will help lower-income and rural households access private schools. In reality, most of the estimated $134 billion that FSTC will cost taxpayers nationwide is likely to go to wealthier households who already send their children to private schools. Research on similar taxpayer-funded school choice programs at the state level finds that over 90% of users already attend private schools.