Every parent wants the best school for their child. But what happens when "school choice" becomes the law of the land?

Over the past four years, 19 states have made virtually every family eligible for taxpayer money to pay for private school or homeschooling. It's one of the fastest policy shifts in American education history. And we're only beginning to understand what it means for kids—especially those who've been left behind by traditional schools.

The Explosion of Choice

In 1993, Minnesota opened the first charter school. It was an experiment: What if public money could fund schools that operated outside the traditional district system?

Three decades later, that experiment has gone mainstream. Around 7,000 charter schools now serve more than 5% of American students. But charter schools are just one flavor of choice. The real acceleration is happening with private school vouchers and education savings accounts (ESAs).

The numbers tell the story. In 2018-19, fewer than 500,000 students used private school choice programs. By this school year, that number hit 1.5 million across 30 states. In Arizona and Florida, over 10% of all K-12 students now use these programs.

Texas just launched a $1 billion-a-year program offering up to $10,500 per student—or $30,000 for students with disabilities. That's real money that families can use for private school tuition, tutoring, or homeschool materials.

For context, 49.3 million students still attend traditional public schools. But the trend line is clear. School choice is growing fast.

Do These Programs Actually Work?

Here's where things get complicated.

Early research on voucher programs wasn't encouraging. Patrick Wolf, a University of Arkansas professor who's studied school choice for decades, summarizes the findings as "neutral to negative" effects on state test scores. Some programs showed students learning less, not more.

But recent data from some universal programs looks different. In Iowa, students receiving ESAs in 2023-24 outperformed public school students on state math and English exams. In Arkansas, ESA students scored in the 57th percentile for math and 59th percentile for English on national tests—above average.

Charter schools tell a more consistent story, particularly in cities. A major 2015 study from CREDO looked at students in 41 urban areas. On average, students in urban charter schools gained an extra 28 days of learning in English and 40 days in math each year compared to similar students in traditional public schools.

The gains were even larger for students who stayed in charters for at least four years: 72 extra days in English and 108 in math total.

The Equity Question

The most striking findings involve students who've historically struggled most in traditional schools.

Black students in poverty attending urban charters gained 44 extra days of learning in English and 59 in math each year. Latino students in poverty gained 25 days in English and 48 in math. English-language learners saw enormous gains: 79 days in English and 72 in math.

To put this in perspective, the achievement gap between White students and Black or Latino students is roughly two grade levels nationally. A 2011 study of Promise Academy charter schools in Harlem found effects "enough to close the Black-White achievement gap in mathematics" in middle school.

Urban charter schools aren't fully closing these gaps. But they're putting a sizable dent in them.

Studies from Milwaukee and Los Angeles using careful matching techniques found similar patterns. Students in charter schools made more progress than nearly identical peers in traditional public schools.

The Accountability Problem

But here's the catch with the newest wave of school choice programs: We might not be able to tell if they're working.

Of eight states that first launched universal private school choice programs, only two—Indiana and Iowa—require participating students to take the same state tests as public school students.

Four other states have testing requirements but let schools choose from a menu of approved national tests. That sounds reasonable until you realize what it means for research.

"As soon as the schools are choosing their own test, then you lose comparability and you can't really study the effects anymore," says Douglas Harris, an economics professor at Tulane University.

Without common tests, we can't know if students are learning more or less than they would have in public schools. We're flying blind while spending billions of taxpayer dollars.

Who's Really Benefiting?

Another concern: In the first year of some universal programs, most students receiving state funds had previously attended private school.

That means taxpayers are often subsidizing families who were already paying for private school, not expanding access to students who couldn't otherwise afford it. It's wealth transfer, not opportunity expansion.

Private schools also differ from public schools in a fundamental way: They can turn students away. Public schools must accept everyone. This creates selection bias. Are private schools getting better results because they're better at teaching, or because they're picking easier-to-teach students?

The research can't always answer this question cleanly.

Effects on Public Schools

What about the students who stay in traditional public schools? Do they suffer when funding and families leave?

The evidence here is mixed but surprisingly positive. A research review found nine studies showing positive spillover effects when charter schools compete with traditional districts, three showing negative effects, two showing mixed results, and ten showing no effects.

Studies in Milwaukee, New York City, Florida, North Carolina, and Texas found that charter competition pushed traditional public schools to improve. The threat of losing students made districts try harder.

But this isn't universal. Some districts, particularly those already struggling, may face a downward spiral when they lose both students and funding.

Long-Term Outcomes

Test scores aren't everything. What happens to choice students after they graduate?

One study followed students in Ohio's EdChoice program from 2008 to 2014, when it was limited to low-income students. These students were more likely to attend and graduate from college than similar public school peers.

That's encouraging. But it's also just one study of one program in one state during a specific time period.

Where We Stand

"We are at the front end of this," Patrick Wolf says. Scholars are "scrambling to put together reliable evaluations" of what's happening with universal programs.

The honest answer is that we're running a massive experiment on American education without knowing how it will turn out.

Some evidence suggests school choice can help disadvantaged students, particularly in urban charter schools with strong accountability. Other evidence shows voucher programs producing disappointing results. And the newest universal programs? We simply don't know yet—and in many states, we've made it nearly impossible to find out.

The stakes are high. Education is the most powerful tool we have for creating opportunity and reducing inequality. Getting school choice right could help millions of kids. Getting it wrong could deepen the divides we're trying to close.

The question isn't whether parents should have choices. Most people agree they should. The question is how we design those choices to ensure every child benefits—not just those whose parents can navigate complex systems or whose behavior makes them attractive to selective schools.

As these programs expand, we need to insist on real accountability. That means common testing. It means tracking long-term outcomes. It means asking hard questions about who's benefiting and who's being left behind.

Otherwise, "school choice" might become just another way of saying "your child's education depends on where you live and how much money you have." That's not choice. That's just the status quo with a different label.