By JC Bowman – Contributing Education Editor – TriStar Daily
Almost every conservative supports some form of school choice. It is all about freedom, and competitiveness, and allowing parents to pick the best options for their children rather than following some government dictate. But our opinions differ greatly on school voucher programs—often called “scholarships,” especially universal vouchers. The main issues in the debate revolve around accountability, academic results, and the financial costs of these programs.
It is unclear how much pro-voucher interest groups have influenced our policymaking process. Think tanks, funders (many from out of state), and politicians are filling the gap with misleading data, weak arguments, and advocacy that masquerades as research. They will likely also argue that the public school establishment, school boards associations, superintendent organizations, teacher associations, and unions dilute the debate as well. All of this may be true. What is missing from the conversation are the fundamental questions: how do we best educate all children in our state? How do we allocate resources in the most effective way to accomplish our goals?
Many conservatives argue that schools accepting vouchers should be responsible for safeguarding taxpayer money and maintaining quality standards. This responsibility should include public reporting of student performance on state assessments. The process, thus far, has been glaringly short of transparency. With actual facts and honest statistics are being withheld from the public, it is always appropriate to ask what are they hiding and why?
Some support a “sliding scale” approach to academic accountability as the voucher process grows: the more a private school relies on public funding, the more it must meet the same requirements as public schools.
Currently, the rhetoric implies that opposing universal vouchers means opposing school choice itself. This portrayal is not only misleading but also inaccurate. It shifts focus away from the inconsistencies related to universal vouchers. You can be for any form of school choice you want, like some more than others, and oppose some of the options. Again, particularly when a lack of transparency seems intended to obscure an honest debate leading to justifiable policy decisions.
Supporting vouchers that expand options for disadvantaged families is entirely feasible; while opposing taxpayer-funded vouchers for affluent families whose children are already in private schools is also a valid concern. Advocating for vouchers can empower parents—especially low-income single mothers, children in underperforming public schools, those with special needs, or victims of bullying—to choose schools that offer safety, structure, high expectations, and character development in struggling communities.
However, giving vouchers to high-income parents who can easily pay for private education, and who in most cases already are, raises concerns about unnecessary subsidies for the wealthy. Using public funds for private schools requires transparency and accountability, as shown by models in other states.
Historically, we know that running a single education system in this state has been financially difficult. The question we need to ask is how we will fund two separate systems, which will place even more burden on taxpayers. And if we are going to pursue a two tier system of education does that pass legal muster under the requirements of the Tennessee constitution?
School vouchers allow families to use government funds for private school tuition, including religious schools. In Chattanooga, Republican Party chair Gail Greene raised concerns about funding for Islamic schools, igniting a debate among Republicans. The “Education Freedom Act” permits vouchers for various religious schools.
In late 2025, several prominent Florida Republican leaders criticized these vouchers for Islamic schools, with Attorney General James Uthmeier claiming they might promote Sharia law and violate state law. CFO Blaise Ingoglia mentioned an audit of Islamic schools, while Agriculture Commissioner Wilton Simpson argued that schools teaching Sharia should be excluded from the program. Critics accused them of hypocrisy and anti-Muslim bias.
Any attempt to address concerns about taxpayer dollars funding Muslim schools in Tennessee in the upcoming legislative session will require careful navigation of laws preventing discrimination based on religious preference. Can we legally ban taxpayer funds flowing into private Muslim schools while continuing to provide subsidies to Christian schools? The answer, whether it is a short process in the courts or a long one, is almost certainly “no”!
Expansions that remove income caps and offer vouchers to wealthy families risk being seen as unjustified giveaways. Supporting school choice does not mean endorsing subsidies for those who don’t need them. As a state, we must consider the average family income, and legislators should be cautious about providing subsidies to families that are clearly financially secure.
Any voucher program should be limited in scope; failing to do so risks undermining the school choice movement by alienating taxpayers and turning essential aid into perceived handouts. Universal approaches are often seen as fiscally irresponsible, potentially causing budget shortfalls without helping those who genuinely need options.
Strong oversight is essential in voucher programs to ensure that taxpayer funds are used for quality education. Basic safeguards should include anti-fraud measures, health and safety protocols, and providing parents with information such as progress reports and teacher credentials. Public transparency is also crucial and requires mandatory testing and reporting of results. There must also be consequences for poor performance, such as preventing low-performing schools from accepting new students, similar to models in some other states.
Relying solely on a “customer satisfaction” model is inadequate when public funds are involved. Ineffective private schools should face consequences similar to those faced by public or charter schools. To give families more choices, we must ensure they have access to essential information that the government should collect and provide for the public.
One can support school choice while opposing universal vouchers. All schools must implement strong accountability measures and quality controls to protect students and public interests. As the legislature considers expanding the voucher system from 20,000 students to 40,000 or more, all of these considerations, rather than heavy out of state funding from advocates pursuing a political agenda, should guide our leader leaders in making the right decisions.
JC Bowman is executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee and a contributing education editor for TriStar Daily. https://www.proedtn.org/
You must be logged in to post a comment.