By: JC Bowman, Contributing Editor
Florida and Arizona are regularly cited as examples of successful voucher programs that Tennessee should emulate. Yet, a closer examination reveals sign, significant red flags that Tennessee should seek to avoid on the front end rather than to repeat. TriStar Daily focused on the voucher numbers in Arizona last week. https://tristardaily.com/arizona-voucher-results-financially-and-academically-reveal-guidance-for-tennessee/
The results in Florida follow a similar pattern.
Florida’s voucher programs, mainly the Family Empowerment Scholarship (FES) and Florida Tax Credit (FTC) Scholarship, have seen rapid growth since House Bill 1 was passed in 2023. This bill made them available to all K-12 students, regardless of income. It removed previous income limits (up to 300% of the federal poverty level). It allowed funds to cover private school tuition, homeschooling, tutoring, and other educational costs through education savings accounts (ESAs).
Key Growth Metrics:
• Participation: From about 280,000 students in 2022-23 to over 524,000 in 2025-26, nearly doubling in three years. The Personalized Education Program (PEP) for homeschoolers, capped at 60,000 in 2024-25, will rise to 100,000 in 2025-26, then be removed entirely in 2026-27.
• Funding Trends: Expenditures have roughly tripled since the expansion.
This growth is fueled by universal access, with 69% of new applicants in 2023-24 coming from families already in private or homeschool settings, rather than transferring from public schools. The state estimates an additional 240,000 voucher users over the next five years, while public school enrollment drops by 66,000.
Impact on Florida’s Budget
The rapid expansion has significantly strained Florida’s education budget, diverting funds from the Florida Education Finance Program (FEFP)—the primary public school funding formula—to vouchers. Total state education spending is projected at $29.5 billion in 2025-26 ($15.8 billion for the state FEFP and $13.7 billion local), but vouchers now account for nearly a quarter of FEFP dollars, up from 12% in 2021-22.
This has led to:
• Direct Diversion: $3.8 billion in 2025-26 from FEFP to FES alone, compared to $1.4 billion in 2022-23. Overall, vouchers now represent 23% of all state education funds ($3.9 billion in 2024-25), leaving 77% for public schools—down from 88% in 2021-22.
• Per-Pupil Effects: Without offsetting revenue, public school state aid drops by approximately $900 per pupil (from $4,175 to $3,261 in the first year post-expansion). New voucher students receive full allocations of $8,000- $9,000, while existing public students receive roughly $50 in annual increases.
• District-Level Strain: Major districts like Orange County project losses of 3,100 students and $28 million in 2025-26. Statewide, this contributes to teacher layoffs (hundreds reported in 2024-25), program cuts, larger class sizes, and school closures (e.g., 10+ in 2024-25). Florida ranks last nationally in teacher pay and per-pupil funding, exacerbating inequities.
• Overall Fiscal Pressure: Of the $984 million education budget increase proposed for 2025-26, approximately $700 million goes to vouchers. A 2025 audit revealed $398 million in overruns for 2024-25, with $270 million unaccounted for due to tracking issues for 30,000 students. Critics argue that this creates a “new system” of funding outside public oversight, with little accountability for ROI.
Proponents claim long-term savings from reduced public enrollment, but evidence shows costs outpacing revenues, with the absence of caps post-2027 likely to further inflate expenses.
Academic Results in Florida
Research on Florida’s vouchers shows mixed outcomes. Early studies (pre-2023 expansion) indicated modest benefits for public school peers and long-term gains for participants. However, more recent analyses reveal neutral or negative effects on test scores for voucher users. Limited data exists on the universal phase, as private schools aren’t required to report standardized results like public ones.
For Voucher Participants:
• A 2019 Urban Institute study of the FTC program (pre-expansion) found 57% college enrollment vs. 51% for non-participants, with higher full-time attendance rates.
• However, a 2020 study using birth-to-school data showed “not very robust effects” on test scores, often nonexistent or negative (e.g., declines in math/reading). Post-2015 national reviews (including Florida) echo this: small positive short-term gains faded, with significant drops in analogous studies in Louisiana and Ohio.
• The Florida Policy Institute (2024) cites negative impacts on recipients, especially in universal models subsidizing affluent families (44% of vouchers go to households above 400% of the poverty level).
For Public School Students:
• Positive Spillovers: A 2023 University of Rochester study (2002-18 data) found growing benefits as the program scaled—slight test score gains, lower absenteeism/suspensions for grades 3-8, especially among low-SES students. Competition may drive public school improvements.
• Urban settings and Catholic schools show the strongest results for Black, Hispanic, and immigrant students.
• Broader Concerns: There is no uniform accountability; a 2025 audit highlighted “myriad challenges” in tracking outcomes. State SAT scores have declined since the expansion, though causation is debated.
Overall, 17 random-assignment studies (per American Federation for Children) show positive effects on participants and public peers, but recent evidence tempers this regarding achievement metrics. While growth promotes choice, it risks underfunding public education without clear academic benefits for all. Future budgets in Florida may need safeguards, such as outcome-based funding or public school offsets.
Conclusion
Parents must decide which schools their children attend, especially as private school choice programs continue to grow. Tennessee’s Education Freedom Act, the newest voucher program, aims to achieve a predictable result. With half of the initial 20,000 vouchers reserved for families earning below 300% of the federal threshold for free and reduced-price lunch—around $173,000 for a family of four—the state is essentially creating a new tiered model for education funding.
Although the program seems to focus on lower-income households, this perception is misleading. Going forward, the expectation is that vouchers will eventually be available without any income restrictions. Any fiscal analysis might suggest that this setup mainly benefits families who can already afford private school tuition, rather than offering genuine access to those in greatest need. This raises an important question that deserves honest consideration.
The projected cost over the next five years is expected to exceed $1.1 billion and is likely to grow as the program expands. Currently, every child already enrolled in private school may qualify for financial support, prompting a key question for taxpayers: Does this initiative genuinely improve public education—an obligation mandated by our Tennessee Constitution—or does it simply create a new entitlement program?
A concerning trend is emerging: voucher programs often do not aim to expand educational opportunities for disadvantaged or low-income students, especially those in underperforming public schools. Instead, they tend to shift public education funding toward private institutions.
High-quality private schools that are fully enrolled can choose to reject vouchers and the associated regulations. Conversely, struggling public schools accept both the funding and the rules that come with it. This means families already paying tuition still get taxpayer subsidies, regardless of their income. A mother in Shelby County working multiple jobs is treated the same as a multi-millionaire regarding universal vouchers.
Income-based vouchers serve as a social safety net for education, while universal vouchers are a broad entitlement program that supports wealthier students. This difference prompts important questions about the fairness and effectiveness of these funding methods.
When conservatives or others express concerns about “universal” vouchers, it does not mean opposition to school choice; instead, it shows a commitment to responsible management of taxpayer funds. It’s important to ask tough questions, demand transparency, and hold systems accountable.
So, whether you support universal vouchers or oppose them, that is your choice. They will not guarantee a better-educated child or a better citizen. But whether you support or oppose them is up to you. Hold your government accountable for your tax dollars, just as you would for any other subsidy or expenditure.
Disagreement is a natural part of American discourse. Disagreement over public policy does not render one side evil; it is a fundamental aspect of our political process. Engaging in such debates and challenging elected officials is how we navigate policy questions in this country. Disagreement is not only expected; it is essential. So, let’s have that debate, ask the tough questions, and turn the rhetoric down.
JC Bowman is the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee and contributing education editor for TriStar Daily.
Author
