School vouchers need proof, not just popularity

Tennessee conservatives have long championed core principles: empowering families, responsibly spending taxpayer dollars, and demanding results from government programs. These principles should guide our discussions in the voucher debate as lawmakers consider doubling the Education Freedom Scholarships. They will likely succeed in expanding vouchers with little debate. That is unfortunate for taxpayers. Let's be clear: Providing parents with more educational options is a worthy goal. Parents — not bureaucracies — should have a say in their child's future. However, supporting vouchers doesn't mean ignoring accountability. In fact, if this program is to expand, policymakers must demand one essential requirement: proof that it works. Currently, the main reason for expansion is demand. We read that tens of thousands of families are applying, far surpassing the number of available scholarships. While this is important, it doesn't reveal where these applicants come from. The inclusion of affluent families, for example, in taxpayer-funded private school vouchers is a point of discussion. Advocates believe that involving families of all income levels will strengthen support, as wealthy families have more political influence. The consensus is that most students applying are already enrolled in private schools. Universal school vouchers are indeed popular among those already attending private schools, as they subsidize tuition. Still, demand alone isn't evidence of success. It shows families are looking for alternatives, but it doesn't prove those options are better. Conservatives, of all people, understand this distinction. We don't assess a policy based on enrollment numbers; we evaluate it by results. If taxpayers fund a program, we should ask questions: Are students learning more? Are outcomes improving? Are we getting a return on investment? So far, the answers remain unclear. Another argument we hear is that "parents know best." Undoubtedly, they do — about their children, their values, and their priorities. However, for choice to function effectively in a true free-market sense, it requires transparent information. This remains an unmet and elusive goal within the current program. Markets only thrive when consumers have access to clear, comparable data. Without it, decisions are influenced by perception, marketing or convenience — not by quality. Education should be no different. If we are serious about treating school vouchers as a market-based reform, we need the same basic safeguards: transparency, accountability and measurable outcomes. Otherwise, we are not creating a marketplace; we are merely writing blank checks — a taxpayer subsidy, if you will. This subsidy goes to kids who are already likely to be enrolled in a private school. There is a lack of private school seats in most communities. There's also the assertion that a 99% renewal rate proves success. While that sounds impressive, it does not equate to academic achievement. Families may be satisfied for various reasons — school culture, safety or alignment with their beliefs. These factors matter, but satisfaction alone is insufficient as a benchmark for a publicly funded program. If so, the same criteria should apply to public schools. Conservatives have always prioritized results over rhetoric. In education, results mean student learning and long-term opportunities. None of this constitutes an argument against school choice. It's an argument for implementing it responsibly. If Tennessee doubles the Education Freedom Scholarships, we should do so conservatively: • Require clear, transparent reporting on student outcomes. • Ensure participating schools meet consistent accountability standards. • Measure long-term success — not just short-term demand. • Protect taxpayers by linking future expansion to proven results. This stance is not anti-choice; it is pro-accountability. Tennessee has made historic investments in public education. Expanding school choice options can be part of that broader strategy — but only if those options deliver real value. State lawmakers should not settle for a system where popularity supplants performance or where good intentions replace hard evidence. Regarding accountability, most policymakers and taxpayers need to understand that the state assessment (TCAP) and norm-referenced exams serve different purposes and are not directly comparable. TCAP assesses mastery of Tennessee's state standards, while norm-referenced tests compare students against a national sample, emphasizing relative performance. We can support parents while safeguarding taxpayers. In fact, we should insist on it. However, we must demand intellectual honesty and consistency from those who view vouchers primarily as a means to an end. Before expanding this program, let's ensure it delivers on its promise: not just providing taxpayer-funded subsidies to families already enrolled in private schools, but also improving outcomes for all Tennessee students. In the end, education should be about more than access to a voucher; it should be about student success and results. JC Bowman is the executive director of Professional Educators of Tennessee, a nonpartisan teacher association located in Nashville.