Advocates for increased privatization of public schools have long contended that private schools could provide equal or better outcomes at lesser costs. To bolster that argument, this EdChoice report asserts that voucher and voucher-like (tax credit scholarship and education savings account) programs have saved state and local treasuries some $12.4 to $28.3 billion dollars as student “switchers” use those programs to leave public schools and enter private schools. However, the report’s findings do not provide a sound base for policy decisions. Included in this review are suggestions for more detailed accounting procedures and more nuanced methodologies for calculating reliable variable student costs.

This report asserts that tax credit scholarship programs, that distribute scholarships to students via Scholarship Tuition Organizations (STOs), have saved state treasuries between $1.7 and $3.4 billion dollars since 1998. The report argues that these programs are able to realize fiscal savings as a result of students leaving public schools and entering private schools (defined as “switchers”). The report claims that the percentage of students leaving public schools, coupled with the offset of variable per-student costs that districts no longer need to expend, have resulted in the sizable financial savings for state governments. This review questions the method used to estimate the percentage of switcher students across these various programs, and examines how the report determines variable cost fluctuations for each student that leaves public schooling. Since no STO programs require officials to track data on which students transfer out of public schooling into private, these lax accountability standards have led the report author to estimate fiscal savings using conjecture. Instead of following students, they interpreted broad population changes to STOs. Consequently, the results of this report do not provide an acceptable causal conclusion for policymakers. Suggestions for more extensive accounting procedures along with more nuanced methodologies for calculating true variable student costs are discussed.

The Fordham Institute’s Teachers in the Age of Digital Instruction is an advocacy document outlining a vision for how technology might transform the teaching profession. The report’s rationale is based on claims that the current education system lacks the capacity to support the revolutionary changes needed to unleash the technological innovations of online instruction that will yield increased effectiveness and efficiency. The report explains that effective teachers are central to the demands of online instruction and will be even more necessary in the digital age than in the current system. It asserts that the elements that constitute effective teaching can be broken down into discrete skills and then packaged and distributed to a wider group of learners via digital media. Harnessing the talents of effective teachers will be critical in both meeting the needs of students and in making teaching a “true profession” (p. 2) through increased specialization and tiered salary structures. While the report addresses an important topic, it provides little or no empirical research evidence to support the claim that digital age technologies will improve the education system. Without sufficient or adequate use of evidence to support its claims, the report amounts to only a vision of what changes might be necessary as the digital revolution comes of age in public education.

The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has published multiple reports advocating for states to adopt policies that award tax credits to donors who fund private school vouchers. The three most recent reports focus on Indiana, Georgia, and Montana. For each state, the reports conclude that the policies would reduce government expenditures and make the educational finance system more efficient. This review looks at the Indiana, Georgia, and Montana reports and finds those conclusions highly suspect, pointing out that the reports present unsubstantiated claims and fail to adequately consider short- and long-term costs of such tax-credit schemes.

Suggested Citation: Huerta, L. (2009). Review of three tuition-tax-credit voucher reports from the Friedman Foundation. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/reviewtuition-tax-credits