The Federal Scholarship Tax Credit, the new federal school choice program, could bring a sea change to the flow of education dollars in Washington. Advocates are marketing the credit as a win for families, taxpayers and states, but many of the claims do not withstand scrutiny.
For the first time, the federal government is creating a nationwide private-school voucher program while limiting state oversight of how the funds are used. Well-intentioned advocates are currently searching for ways Washington public schools could benefit from this program. But before opting in, Washington leaders should investigate several claims driving support for the policy.
The law provides a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to individuals who donate to scholarship granting organizations, or SGOs, which then distribute funds to eligible families for private school tuition and related expenses. States must opt in to the program, leaving governors and their constituents to decide whether participating is in their best interest. Thirty states have already opted in, but many including Washington are still weighing their decision.
Because states must opt in, advocacy organizations have launched well-funded campaigns urging governors to participate. Much of these campaigns portray FSTC as a “cost-free” opportunity to help “families in need.” As researchers who study school finance and school choice, we see a glaring gap between those claims and what evidence from similar programs suggest is most likely to occur when the policy goes into effect, in January 2027. Much debate centers on three primary claims:
First, supporters argue FSTC could provide a new source of cash for public schools. However, the FSTC prohibits public schools from directly receiving any fees from SGOs. To get around this, advocates have suggested public schools charge families extra fees that would pay for a “bundled set of enhanced services” such as field trips and science labs.
But this is unlikely to work in several states including Washington, where state law prohibits schools from charging families any fees for basic services, such as transportation for field trips, special courses or programs, or school textbooks. Other states like California have even stricter policies that prevent schools from charging families for extracurricular activities such as athletics, band or theater. Public schools will struggle to access these funds, while private schools already have an SGO infrastructure and a fee-for-service model that this program favors.
States will also incur costs from operating the program and monitoring SGOs for financial fraud and abuse, and will face the risk of lawsuits from SGOs that object to their oversight. State leaders in Florida have already diverted $2 million to set up their FSTC administrative platform.
Second, advocates have argued that FSTC will help lower-income and rural households access private schools. In reality, most of the estimated $134 billion that FSTC will cost taxpayers nationwide is likely to go to wealthier households who already send their children to private schools. Research on similar taxpayer-funded school choice programs at the state level finds that over 90% of users already attend private schools. State-based tax credit programs sometimes benefit lower- and middle-income families but only because those programs have relatively low household income caps that are prohibited under FSTC. Children in rural areas and higher-poverty neighborhoods are less likely to live near a private school, and FSTC completely excludes early childhood education, where many lower-income families currently lack access.
More concerning, the federal program limits states’ authority to regulate SGOs (unlike earlier versions passed in the House). This means states can’t require that funds only go to public school students, states can’t add further household income restrictions, and states can’t restrict funding from private schools that deny admission based on physical or intellectual disabilities or discriminate against LGBTQ students during the admissions process.
Last, advocates describe the policy as “free money,” arguing that states will benefit financially as students move to private schools, leaving fewer students to serve in the public system. The truth is, the policy will result in new expenses for both school districts and the state, without significant cost savings. When public school students switch to private schools, districts retain most of their operating costs while losing revenue, creating new financial pressures and disruptions for schools. A decline in enrollment will force local school districts to cut programs, layoff teachers and potentially close schools, creating new short-term costs.
If there are eventual savings, they won’t be realized until later years and may come at the cost of families losing educational rights like special education protections that private schools do not provide. If students return to public schools, a common occurrence in state-run programs in Florida and Wisconsin, cost savings are even less likely to occur.
The federal program is not a cost-free opportunity for states nor is it a targeted program for families in need. But Gov. Bob Ferguson and the Washington public should carefully weigh the fiscal, legal and educational consequences of opting into a program that will primarily benefit wealthier families at the expense of the state’s constitutionally obligated public school system.
