A couple weeks ago, I described the costly illusion that is the new federal voucher program. The program is full of false promises that try to convince taxpayers, families, and traditionally underserved students that public education is not at risk. The truth is that the program is an existential threat to public education because of its enormous cost and its potential to reshape how policymakers define “education investment” in the first place.

Structuring the program’s funding through tax credits is a thinly veiled attempt to conceal that our tax dollars pay for these vouchers — to the tune of up to $51 billion annually, according to one estimate. (For comparison, the federal government’s largest funding stream for public schools, Title I, is only $18.4 billion a year.) This huge, permanent new expense will intensify pressure on lawmakers to offset costs elsewhere. We have all witnessed past budget fights; and when the nation’s treasury is emptied by outflows of tax credits to extremely wealthy people, it will be public investments, in programs like Title I, IDEA, SNAP, and Medicaid — all of which support students in public schools — that will be on the chopping block.

Among the pro-federal voucher crowd, a less-than-honest argument has been swirling that public schools are going to significantly benefit from the program because students will be able to use voucher funds for after-school, summer learning, and tutoring programs. But between the Medicaid and SNAP cuts in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act and the large influx of new dollars into unaccountable, inequitable private schools, any benefits will be outweighed by larger consequences.

How the Federal Voucher Program Could Reshape State Education Spending

Here’s the truth: Governors and state lawmakers will have to make tough decisions about how to allocate limited resources, and the existence of the federal voucher program may lead state leaders to treat the voucher program as a substitute for direct investments in public education. Once that happens, the question is no longer whether students need after-school programs, high-intensity tutoring, transportation, or specialized supports — it is whether lawmakers will fund them.

For example, governors might ask themselves:

• Do we still need to sustain state investments in after-school, summer learning, or tutoring programs if some providers can now draw down federal voucher dollars?

• If 20,000 students in our state use federal vouchers to attend private schools, do we still need to give the same amount of money to our public schools?

• If Congress is giving us $100 million less for Medicaid this year, can we repurpose the money we were going to use for state-funded education programs to fill this Medicaid gap, since the federal voucher program is providing other education funding?

How the Federal Voucher Program Could Reshape Federal Education Spending

At the same time, Congress will confront similar tradeoffs, but on a far greater scale. Unlike state governments, Congress does not have to pass a balanced budget (i.e., they can add a program’s cost to the deficit rather than finding ways of paying for it). But that does not mean a massive, uncapped, permanent tax expenditure carries no consequences. Over time, lawmakers will still confront pressure to justify its cost, limit other spending, or redefine what counts as an education investment. As these costs continue to grow, lawmakers might start asking:

• Do we need to fund Title I, IDEA, or other public education programs at the same levels if we’re already investing in education through the federal voucher program?

• If the federal voucher program can be used to pay for after-school and summer learning programs, why should we continue federal investments in services like 21^st Century Community Learning Centers?

Perhaps not right away, but vouchers will come to be viewed as interchangeable with public investment, even though public schools and public programs are the only education institutions obligated to serve all students, including students with disabilities, multilingual learners, students from low-income backgrounds, and students experiencing homelessness. Many of those same students will also be the least likely to have meaningful access to the federal voucher program.

What Does This Mean for Students, Families, and Schools?

These budget decisions aren’t a theoretical possibility — they’re already proposals in federal budgets and realities in states. The President’s Budget for FY2027 includes a proposed $3 billion in funding cuts for public education and the complete elimination of programs supporting many of the highest-need communities. And in Arizona, the state’s voucher program is on track to cost nearly $825 million and has led to school closures, mass teacher layoffs, and cuts to critical programs like college scholarships for students from low-income backgrounds.

If these patterns expand across the country, we will see:

• A weakened public education system, with fewer support services for students, larger class sizes, and less accountability to ensure student success
• The elimination of programs targeting students with additional needs, leaving already underserved students without critical support
• A further stratified education system in which those with power, money, and privilege have access to educational resources, while students with additional needs are left behind
• Private dollars eroding public investment and making public education — the foundation of America’s democracy — a relic of bygone era

In short, the real question is not whether the federal voucher program will change education funding — it’s which programs will be deemed “unnecessary”. Regardless of the programs eliminated, the end result will always be the same — traditionally underserved students will pay the price. Instead of passing policies that allow our public tax dollars to be siphoned into unaccountable private institutions, Congress, governors, and state lawmakers must safeguard public education dollars and reaffirm the importance of investing in public goods.

Series: CEO Perspectives