There’s yet more evidence that dumping money into a broken education system isn’t the best way to improve student achievement.
School choice programs have been expanding rapidly around the country. Texas opened up applications for its new education savings account program this year. More than 160,000 students have already applied. That program is likely to keep growing in future years.
These accounts provide funding for parents to spend on approved education expenses. Those can include private school tuition, curriculum, tutoring and therapy for students with special needs. Unlike with a voucher or tax credit, families have an incentive to save money. Unused funds in a student’s account roll over to the next year.
Arizona has had universal ESAs since 2022 after first enacting them in 2011. In the 2022-23 school year, around 12,000 students participated in the program. In January, enrollment in the program topped 100,000 students. The state has around 1.2 million students, which means ESA usage is approaching 10 percent of all students.
Well-structured ESA programs are a good deal for taxpayers, too. There can be some initial net expenses as current private school students join the program. But ESA students generally receive less money than students attending traditional public schools. In Arizona, base funding for ESA students is 90 percent of the state’s per-pupil funding amount.
This leaves school choice opponents with one other standard argument. Sure, ESAs or tax credit scholarships may help students who use them, they say, but these defections hurt the students who remain in public schools. A study from Patrick Graff, senior fellow with the American Federation of Children, examined this issue. He looked at Florida’s tax credit scholarship program, which began in 2001.
“Scaling the tax credit scholarship program from 15,000 to over 100,000 students produced achievement gains for public school students that were — conservatively — over 11x larger than if that same funding had been used to increase state K-12 education budgets instead,” Mr. Graff wrote.
He continued, “Florida’s policy environment benefited both public and private school students, as the effects of competition created a return on investment an order of magnitude larger than simply spending more. Creating and growing private school choice in Florida significantly moved the needle, and did so at scale.”
Nevada has tried for decades to increase public school achievement by spending more — often through higher taxes. It hasn’t worked. During his first term, Gov. Joe Lombardo pushed to expand school choice in Nevada, only to be stifled by legislative Democrats.
That’s too bad. Florida shows that growing school choice is an effective way to help students in public schools. Nevada’s legislative Democrats should re-examine their reflexive opposition to these programs.
