Writing for EdTrust, Denise Forte argues that the federal voucher program is not what its fans claim. She debunks four specific claims.
Claim #1: The Program Benefits Public and Private School Students
Supporters argue that the program will help both public and private school students, but there is reason to question this claim. While the law technically allows states to direct funds toward public education, the rules currently being drafted by the U.S. Treasury Department may significantly limit that flexibility. Conservative advocacy groups aligned with the administration are asking that governors and state legislatures are prevented from using these funds as true supplemental support for public schools.
Voucher advocates highlight wraparound supports in public schools, such as tutoring, enrichment programs, and online educational materials, as an eligible expense and benefit of the voucher program. But these services can already be—and routinely are—funded through existing federal programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). As such, they are subject to statutorily required federal oversight and accountability conducted by the Department of Education and Congress, unlike this tax credit, which is only 5 pages of text and contains little about student outcomes.
Title I and other federal grants are designed to target students with the greatest needs, ensuring resources are directed toward low-income students, multilingual learners, rural students, students with disabilities, and students who are furthest from opportunity. Crucially, public school students retain their full civil rights protections under federal law. When students enter private schools, regardless of whether they use vouchers, those protections—including key disability and anti-discrimination rights—can be weakened or lost entirely.
The fact that this law emphasizes vouchers over Title I expansion is telling. If historically underserved students were truly the priority, Congress could have strengthened proven public-school funding mechanisms rather than diverting funds to private education.
In practice, public schools are unlikely to see meaningful new investments. Instead, the program appears structured to channel the majority of funds toward private school vouchers, while public schools are left navigating tighter budgets with fewer student supports.