Trump order boosts school choice, but there's little evidence vouchers lead to or better outcomes
The school choice movement received a major boost on Jan. 29, 2025, when President Donald Trump issued an executive order supporting families who want to use public money to send their children to private schools.
The far-reaching order aims to redirect federal funds to voucher-type programs. Vouchers typically afford parents the freedom to select nonpublic schools, including faith-based ones, using all or a portion of the public funds set aside to educate their children.
But research shows that as a consequence, this typically drains funding from already cash-strapped public schools.
We are professors who focus on education law, with special interests in educational equity and school choice programs. While proponents of school choice claim it leads to academic gains, we don't see much evidence to support this view – but we do see the negative impact they sometimes have on public schools.
The vast majority of children in the U.S. attend traditional public schools. Their share, however, has steadily declined from 87% in 2011 to about 83% in 2021, at least in part due to the growth of school choice programs such as vouchers.
Modern voucher programs expanded significantly during the late 1980s and early 1990s as states, cities, and local school boards experimented with ways to allow parents to use public funds to send their kids to nonpublic schools, especially ones that are religiously affiliated.
While some programs were struck down for violating the separation of church and state, others were upheld. Vouchers received a big shot in the arm in 2002, when the Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that the First Amendment's Establishment Clause permitted states to include faith-based schools in their voucher programs in Cleveland.
Following Zelman, vouchers became a more realistic political option. Even so, access to school choice programs varied greatly by state and was not as dramatic as supporters may have wished. Because the Constitution is silent on education, states largely control school voucher programs.
Currently, 13 states and Washington, D.C., offer one or several school choice programs targeting different types of students. Total U.S. enrollment in such programs surpassed 1 million for the first time in 2024, double what it was in 2020, according to EdChoice, which advocates for school-choice policies.
Voters, however, have taken a dim view of voucher programs. By one count, they've turned down referendums on vouchers 17 times, according to the National Coalition for Public Education, a group that opposes the policy.
Most recently, three states rejected school choice programs in the November 2024 elections. Kentucky voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to enshrine school choice into commonwealth law, while Nebraska voters chose to repeal its voucher program. Colorado also rejected a 'right' to school choice, but more narrowly.
At its heart, Trump's executive order would offer discretionary grants and issue guidance to states over using federal funds within this K-12 scholarship program. It also directs the Department of Interior and Department of Defense to make vouchers available to Native American and military families.
In addition, the order directs the Department of Education to provide guidance on how states can better support school choice – though it's unclear exactly what that will mean. It's a task that will be left for Linda McMahon, Trump's nominee for secretary of Education, once she is confirmed.
Trump promoted school choice in his first term as well but failed to win enough congressional support to include it in the federal budget.
The push to give parents more choice over where to send their children is based on the assumption that doing so will provide them with a better education.
In the order, Trump specifically cites disappointing data from the National Assessment of Educational Progress showing that 70% of eighth graders are below proficient in reading, while 72% are below proficient in mathematics.
Voucher advocates point to research that school choice boosts test scores and improves educational attainment.
But other data don't always back up the notion that school choice policies meaningfully improve student outcomes. A 2023 review of the past decade of research on the topic by the Brookings Institution found that the introduction of a voucherlike program actually led to lower academic achievement — similar to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.
A 2017 review by a Stanford economist Martin Carnoy published by the Economic Policy Institute similarly found little evidence vouchers improve school outcomes. While there were some modest gains in graduation rates, they were outweighed by the risks to funding public school systems.
Indeed, vouchers have been shown to reduce funding to public schools, especially in rural areas, and hurt public education in other ways, such as by making it harder for schools to afford qualified teachers.
Critics of voucher programs also fear that nonpublic schools may discriminate against some students, such as those who are members of the LGBTQ+ community. There are some reports of this already happening in Wisconsin. Unlike legislation governing traditional public schools, state laws regulating voucher programs often do not include comprehensive anti-discrimination provisions.
Criticisms of voucher programs aside, many parents who support them do so based on the hope that their children will have more affordable, high-quality educational options. This was especially true in Zelman, in which the Supreme Court upheld the rights of parents to remove their kids from Cleveland's struggling public schools.
There is little doubt in our minds that in some cases school choice affords some parents in low-performing districts additional options for their children's education.
But in general, the evidence shows that is the exception to vouchers, not the rule. Evidence also suggests most children — whether they're using vouchers to attend nonpublic schools or remain in the public school system — may not always benefit from school choice programs. And when it takes money out of underfunded public school systems, school choice can make things worse for a lot more children than it benefits.
While the poor reading and math scores cited in Trump's executive order suggest that change is needed to help keep America's school and students competitive, this order may not achieve that goal.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 hours ago
- Yahoo
White House Gets Touchy About Trump's ‘One Hit Wonder' Kennedy Center Pick
The White House took umbrage after a guest on CNN said the Kennedy Center had chosen to honor 81-year-old Gloria Gaynor merely because she is a person of color. On August 13, President Donald Trump unveiled this year's Kennedy Center honorees, which include Gaynor, known for hit songs 'I Will Survive' and 'Eye of the Tiger.' Tia Mitchell, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution's Washington bureau chief, told CNN's This Morning Weekend Saturday that Gaynor had been selected because of diversity considerations. 'I do believe as much as the Trump administration has attacked [diversity, equity, and inclusion], they wanted a person of color on the list of Kennedy Center Honorees,' Mitchell said. 'The fact that Gloria Gaynor is the one person of color on the list indicates that they struggled ot find a person of color to agree to be on the list.' While the Center usually picks 'people who are icons in their genre of the arts' with 'a huge body of work,' Mitchell described Gaynor as 'basically a one-hit wonder.' White House Director of Communications Steven Cheung took Mitchell to task on X. 'Some dipshit named Tia Mitchell went on CNN to say legendary singer Gloria Gaynor doesn't deserve to be a Kennedy Center Honoree and only chosen because she's Black,' Cheung posted. 'Liberal 'journalists' will twist an inspiring story because it involves Pres. Trump.' 'Total TDS,' he added, employing the oft-used acronym for 'Trump Derangement Syndrome.' The other Kennedy Center honorees include action man Sylvester Stallone, the band KISS, country star George Strait, and English actor Michael Crawford. The View's Anna Navarro encouraged Gaynor to turn down the award, saying on X earlier this week, 'Don't do it, Gloria!' 'Look, the woman is a goddess and deserves all the flowers that come her way,' Navarro said. 'But I wish she wouldn't accept an award from the hands of a man who has attacked the rights and history of women, people of color, and LGBTQ.' Tom Cruise also reportedly turned down a lifetime achievement award from the Kennedy Center, The Washington Post reported.
New York Post
5 hours ago
- New York Post
Trump weaponization czar teases ‘more' developments with Schiff, warns J6 Committee alums to ‘keep an eye on their mailbox'
President Trump's weaponization czar Ed Martin dropped hints that his team may soon take additional investigative actions against Sen. Adam Schiff and members of the since-defunct House Select Jan. 6 Committee who weren't pardoned by former president Joe Biden. Martin, who helms the Justice Department's Weaponization Working Group, took note of the criminal probe of Schiff (D-Calif.) over allegations of mortgage fraud and strongly implied something else is in the works. 'There's a referral from Bill Pulte about mortgage fraud about Adam Schiff. That's publicly discussed. His own lawyers have been out there,' Martin told Fox News' Sunday Morning Futures.' Advertisement 'Now there's more on Adam Schiff.' Martin did not specify what else could be coming down the pike. 3 Ed Martin teased that his weaponization working group has additional investigations into Adam Schiff and the since-defunct Jan. 6 Committee in the works. AP Advertisement 3 Sen. Adam Schiff was one of President Trump's top Democratic adversaries in the House during his first term. REUTERS Back in May, Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) Director William Pulte referred Schiff to the Justice Department for 'multiple instances' between 2003 and 2019 when the senator allegedly 'falsified bank documents and property records to acquire more favorable loan terms.' This includes accusations that he listed his Maryland home as a primary residence in multiple mortgage refinancing filings despite being an elected member of Congress from California at the time. Some lawmakers have homes in both their states and in the Washington, DC, Maryland and Virginia area during their time in Congress. But Pulte alleged that Schiff also sought a similar exemption on a Burbank, Calif., condo that he also dubbed his primary residence. Advertisement In a separate matter, Schiff recently faced surfaced accusations from a former Democratic House Intelligence Committee aide who alleged the then-congressman approved leaks of classified information to harm President Trump during the height of Russiagate. It is unclear if those allegations are what Martin was referencing. DOJ officials concluded Schiff may have had liability protections for those leaks under the speech and debate clause of the Constitution, according to an FBI memo on the accusations obtained by The Post. 'All we're going to do, again, is get to the facts of this and use all the tools that we have in our system,' Martin stressed. 3 Ed Martin inspected Letita James' Brooklyn home last Friday. New York Post Advertisement Last week, Martin was seen in Brooklyn checking out New York Attorney General Letitia James' multi-family residential property that is subject to a mortgage fraud inquiry. Pulte alleged that the AG may have 'falsified bank documents and property records to acquire government-backed assistance and loans and more favorable loan terms.' Similar to the Schiff accusations, Pulte alleged that James declared a Norfolk, Virginia, property purchased in 2023 her 'principal residence' while calling her Brooklyn brownstone she's owned since 2001 her second residence. Beyond Schiff and James, Martin also teased that he is reviewing members of the since-defunct House Select Jan. 6 Committee, despite Biden's sweeping 11th-hour pardon for the panel. 'We're all in that too,' Martin said. 'A lot of people did not get a pardon that were involved in the select committee, and they ought to be keeping an eye on their mailbox, because there's a lot to be asked about.' Martin didn't specify names, but noted that US Attorney General Pam Bondi 'let us loose on' issues of alleged government weaponization.
CNN
8 hours ago
- CNN
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.'
