School choice programs are expanding rapidly across the United States, and the price tag is growing just as fast. States from Alabama to Oklahoma are scrambling to fund surging demand, raising fresh questions about where that money comes from and who ultimately pays the price.
By the 2026-27 school year, at least 17 states are expected to have universal school choice programs, making roughly half of all U.S. students eligible to receive public money for private school tuition, according to FutureEd, a think tank at Georgetown University. Arizona led the charge in 2022, becoming the first state to open such funding to all students regardless of income. Before that shift, voucher and scholarship programs were largely restricted to low-income families or students with special needs.
The demand has outpaced what states anticipated. In Alabama, more than 36,000 students applied last spring for just 14,000 available spots. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey has proposed increasing the program’s funding from $180 million to $250 million for the 2027-28 school year, when income limits will be dropped entirely. In Tennessee, Republican Gov. Bill Lee has proposed doubling funding for a scholarship program that currently carries a waitlist of roughly 34,000 students. In Oklahoma, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt wants to eliminate the budget cap on a scholarship program that turned away 5,600 students in a recent year after running out of money.
“Last year, we gave families school choice with the Education Freedom Scholarship program, because parents know best,” Lee said during his State of the State address last month. “Growing the program would open the doors of opportunity for thousands more children statewide.”
Andrew Handel, director of education and workforce development at the American Legislative Exchange Council, a membership organization for conservative state lawmakers that has championed these programs, said the trend shows no sign of slowing. “So far what we’ve really seen is legislatures looking to expand the programs,” he said. Handel specifically praised education savings accounts, which allow families to spend public funds on a broader range of education-related expenses beyond just tuition. “The ESA is the gold standard. It’s the one that gives parents the most flexibility,” he said.
The federal government is also preparing to amplify the movement. A new policy set to roll out next year will allow taxpayers to claim a tax credit for up to $1,700 in donations to nonprofits that award private school scholarships to K-12 students. The move is expected to inject additional money into choice programs nationwide.
Supporters frame these programs as essential tools for families trapped in underperforming public schools. The waitlists and oversubscribed application pools do suggest genuine, widespread interest from families who want alternatives.
But critics have consistently raised concerns that deserve serious consideration. When students leave public schools, they take per-pupil funding with them. That reduces the resources available to the students who stay, often those with the greatest needs and the fewest alternatives. Public schools still carry fixed costs like building maintenance, transportation, and services for students with disabilities, regardless of how many students enroll. Losing funding without a proportional reduction in those costs creates a structural squeeze.
The expansion of universal programs, rather than targeted ones, sharpens that tension. When programs are limited to low-income students, there is at least an equity argument for redirecting public dollars. Universal programs direct public money toward families who already have private school options, raising harder questions about whether this is a genuine lifeline or a publicly subsidized upgrade for families who would have found alternatives regardless.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster and Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe have also joined the push for more state funding, signaling that the political momentum behind school choice will not slow heading into budget season.
What is missing from most of these expansion conversations is a clear accounting of what the shift costs public school systems in aggregate, and a plan for students who remain in those systems as budgets tighten. The families on those waitlists deserve real options. So do the millions of students who will never apply, and whose schools stand to absorb whatever the expansion leaves behind.
