Limit School Voucher Spending Model

Limit School Voucher Spending Project
,
1

A Model State Law to Refocus Voucher Programs on Student Need and Fiscal Accountability

:white_check_mark: 1. TLDR

  • Limits school voucher (ESA) spending by ending universal eligibility

  • Preserves access for students with documented need (e.g., disabilities, military, low-rated schools)

  • Reclaims hundreds of millions to over $1 billion annually, depending on state size

  • Keeps school choice available while restoring public funding integrity

  • Requires annual reporting, oversight, and public transparency

:glowing_star: 2. Purpose

This model legislation helps states return education voucher and ESA programs to their original intent: supporting students who genuinely need alternative options instead of funding private tuition for families who never attended public schools.

It offers a simple path to limit runaway voucher spending, protect vulnerable students, and ensure public education dollars serve public purpose.

:mantelpiece_clock: 3. Background

Voucher programs — often called Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) — began in many states as targeted support for:

  • Students with disabilities

  • Military-connected families

  • Children attending low-rated or persistently underperforming public schools

  • Foster youth and students experiencing homelessness

⠀But over the past decade, several states (e.g., Arizona, Florida, West Virginia) expanded ESA eligibility to nearly all students — regardless of income, school performance, or demonstrated need.

The result in many states:

  • Tripled program costs in a single year

  • Over 60% of ESA recipients were already attending private or homeschool before enrolling

  • No consistent academic gains observed

  • Public schools lost per-pupil funding while remaining obligated to provide fixed services

:white_check_mark: 4. Proposed Solutions

:white_check_mark: Solution 1: Restore ESA/Voucher Eligibility to Need-Based Groups

Beginning January 1, 202X, public voucher or ESA funds may only be awarded to students who meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • Documented disability and qualification under an IEP or 504 plan

  • Parent or guardian is an active-duty military member

  • Student attends or is zoned for a low-performing public school (e.g., rated D/F or in bottom 5% statewide)

  • Student is in foster care or classified as homeless by state or federal law

⠀States may adapt this list based on original program statutes.

:white_check_mark: Solution 2: End Universal Voucher or ESA Enrollment

  • No new voucher/ESA applications may be accepted from students outside the eligible groups after January 1, 202X

  • Students currently enrolled under universal expansion may continue receiving funds through December 31, 202X

  • State agencies must notify families and provide information about in-district transfers, public magnet programs, and support options

:white_check_mark: Solution 3: Strengthen Oversight and Annual Public Reporting

The state education agency shall publish an annual report by June 30 each year that includes:

  • Total number of voucher/ESA recipients, categorized by eligibility type

  • Total disbursements, broken down by service (tuition, therapy, transportation, tutoring)

  • Administrative vs. instructional spending

  • Geographic and demographic impact

  • Any audits, fraud reports, or flagged misuse

⠀Oversight may be assigned to the State Auditor, Treasurer, or other designated enforcement body.

:bar_chart: 5. Evidence

:blue_book: Learning Policy Institute (2024)

  • 2022 expansion caused a 211% cost increase in a single year

  • Costs rose from $189M to $587M in 12 months

  • FY2025 projections exceed $860 million

  • Griffith, M., & Burns, D. (2024). Understanding the Cost of Universal School Vouchers. Learning Policy Institute. ERIC PDF

:blue_book: Grand Canyon Institute (2024)

:blue_book: ADE Q2 2025 Reports

:blue_book: Additional

  • Abrams, S.E. (2025). The Mounting Trouble with Education Savings Accounts. Great Lakes Center. PDF

  • Huerta, L.A., & Baisden, T. (2024). Strengthening Oversight of ESA Funding. National Education Policy Center. PDF

  • Roy, S., Schwartz, H.L., & Gable, A. (2024). ESA Impacts on Achievement Outcomes. RAND. PDF

  • McBeth, J. B. (2024). Opportunity Hoarding in Arizona’s ESA Expansion. University of Arizona. PDF

  • Berry, W., & Chait, R. (2024). ESA Accountability Landscape. WestEd. PDF

:pushpin: Recommendation for Local Adaptation

To maximize local credibility, campaigns using this model should include:

  • Their state’s most recent voucher/ESA cost projections

  • Any existing auditor general or legislative bureau ESA evaluations

  • Public opinion data or polling on school funding priorities (if available)

:blue_book: 6. Definitions

  1. Voucher Program / ESA: A publicly funded account used to pay for private educational expenses outside the public school system.

  2. Eligible Student: A student meeting clearly defined, need-based criteria for voucher or ESA funding.

  3. Universal Voucher: A voucher available to all families, regardless of income, need, or school rating.

  4. Transition Period: A one-year window during which ineligible recipients may continue receiving funds before reforms take effect.

  5. Low-Performing School: A public school in the bottom rating tier based on the state’s accountability system (e.g., D/F rating or bottom 5%).

:red_question_mark: 7. Clarifications

Q1: Is this a ban on school choice?

:b_button_blood_type: No. Families may still choose private, homeschool, or online learning. This proposal limits public funding to students with demonstrated need.

Q2: What happens to students currently enrolled?

:b_button_blood_type: They will receive a full one-year transition period before funding eligibility changes.

Q3: Does this save money?

:b_button_blood_type: Yes. Depending on the state, this reform could reclaim hundreds of millions to over $1 billion annually in redirected funds.

Q4: What happens to the savings?

:b_button_blood_type: States may reinvest these savings in core public education priorities — such as literacy, mental health, teacher salaries, or rural school access.

:hammer_and_wrench: 8. Implementation

  • Legal Form: Statutory reform (via state legislature or citizen ballot initiative, where applicable)

  • Effective Date: January 1, 202x

  • Transition End Date: December 31, 202x

  • Administered by: State Education Agency

  • Oversight by: State Auditor, Inspector General, or equivalent

  • Annual Report Due: June 30 each year

:megaphone: 9. Why This Proposal Is Critical

Universal voucher and ESA expansions are draining state budgets, weakening public school systems, and shifting education policy toward subsidizing private tuition — often for families already outside the public school system.

This proposal offers a responsible reset.

By limiting voucher spending to students with demonstrated need, states can:

  • Restore budget stability

  • Protect the integrity of public education

  • Support families who truly need alternatives

  • Stop funding private choices with public dollars — unless there’s a compelling reason to do so

:speech_balloon: 10. Call for Feedback

  • Which eligibility groups are most relevant in your state?

  • Does your state already publish ESA cost or outcome data?

  • Should the savings be earmarked or returned to the general fund?

  • What would make this message resonate with voters or legislators where you live?