Federal education funds meant for low-income students are increasingly being rerouted to private school vouchers and ideological programs, sparking national concerns over equity and intent.
At a Glance
- School vouchers in Ohio now cost nearly $1 billion and benefit higher-income families
- Federal education funds are being redirected to DEI programs and social-emotional learning
- National funding progressivity remains low, with only a 2.5% gap between poor and non-poor students
- Twenty-eight states distribute education funds progressively but disparities persist
- Critics say the voucher movement now benefits families who could already afford private school
The Evolution of School Vouchers
Originally framed as a civil rights issue aimed at helping disadvantaged children attend private religious schools, school voucher programs have expanded dramatically since their 1990s inception in Ohio. Now, voucher programs in Ohio cover more than 150,000 students and cost taxpayers nearly $1 billion. Initially defended as narrow tools for educational opportunity, these initiatives have widened their eligibility to include many middle- and upper-income families.
As Ohio Lt. Governor Jon Husted recently stated, “When we do that, great things happen — like advancing school choice so that every child in Ohio has a chance to go to the school of their choice.” Critics argue this evolution has shifted the intent of vouchers from remedying educational inequality to subsidizing private options for those who don’t need financial help.
Competing Priorities in Education Funding
According to the Education Law Center’s 2024 report, the years following COVID-19 saw many states redirect education priorities. Rather than increasing support for struggling public schools, some legislatures passed tax cuts and expanded universal voucher programs that disproportionately favor private institutions.
“We find that public school needs are going unmet due to short-sighted economic and education policies that depress state revenue and divert scarce resources away from public schools,” said Dr. Danielle Farrie. These policies have led to a growing funding gap between states and exacerbated already unequal student outcomes.
In real terms, education revenue is not keeping pace with inflation, leaving schools under-resourced just as they work to remediate pandemic-era learning losses. As progressive causes like DEI and social-emotional learning receive increased attention and funding, traditional academic outcomes may be taking a back seat.
The Reality of Progressive Funding
Despite years of reform, K-12 education funding remains minimally progressive. On average, students in poverty receive just 2.5% more funding than non-poor peers—a gap far too small to meet the disproportionate challenges faced by underserved communities.
Some progress has been made: twenty-eight states have at least moderately progressive funding models, and state contributions to poor districts are about 10% higher. However, this is offset by local funding disparities, where wealthier areas generate more revenue through property taxes, leaving poorer districts at a systemic disadvantage.
“We are heartened by the steady increase in progressively funded states,” Dr. Farrie added, though she cautioned that much work remains. On a national level, current mechanisms still fail to deliver the equity envisioned by federal education law.
A Question of Priorities
The shift in how education dollars are used reflects a broader national debate. While federal funds were once clearly earmarked to help close achievement gaps for low-income students, the proliferation of vouchers, tax credits, and non-academic programming has diluted their impact.
Robert Kim of the Education Law Center summarized the stakes: “We emerged from the devastating pandemic with a new appreciation of the critical role that public schools play in our communities… not just academic, but also social and physical health.”
In response, the Department of Education is increasing its scrutiny of federal fund usage, signaling potential policy reforms aimed at realigning resources with their original intent: lifting academic outcomes in America’s most disadvantaged communities. The next phase of debate will test whether public policy can reclaim that focus—or whether private interests will continue to reshape public education from the inside out.
