Opposing School Vouchers in Tennessee: My Perspective

As a product of Catholic education from kindergarten through the 12th grade, I have experienced firsthand the profound impact of faith-based schooling. My professional journey began with six years as a Catholic school teacher, followed by four years teaching at a public middle school, and another four years as an assistant principal across three very diverse schools with Knox County Schools. During this time, I also earned a Ph.D. in Educational Leadership & Policy Studies from the University of Tennessee, a top tier research university. This diverse experience has provided me with a unique perspective on the educational landscape in Tennessee. As a practicing Catholic and an educator, I am deeply committed to the moral and academic development of all students. 

Introduction

The recent enactment of the Education Freedom Act of 2025 in Tennessee has reignited the debate over school vouchers. This legislation allocates $447 million to provide 20,000 scholarships, each worth approximately $7,296, enabling students to attend private schools statewide. While the intention is to offer families more educational choices, it is imperative to examine the broader implications of diverting public funds to private institutions.

Impact on Public Education

Public education was established in the United States to provide all children with free and equal access to learning opportunities, regardless of socioeconomic background. The system was designed not only to educate but also to create an informed citizenry capable of participating in democracy. Compulsory attendance laws were implemented to ensure that every child receives an education, recognizing that an educated population is essential for economic stability, civic engagement, and social progress. Public schools do not just serve individual students; they strengthen communities, prepare future workers, and cultivate the democratic ideals of equity and inclusion.

However, the diversion of funds through voucher programs undermines this foundation by:

• Eroding Financial Resources: Public schools rely on state funding to maintain facilities, hire qualified staff, and provide essential services. Redirecting funds to private schools reduces the financial capacity of public institutions to serve their students effectively. While voucher proponents argue that only a portion of education funding follows the student, the reality is that fixed costs—such as building maintenance, transportation, and support services—remain, even as revenue declines. This results in fewer resources for the majority of students who remain in public schools.

• Amplifying Inequality: Vouchers often fail to cover the full cost of private education, making private schooling inaccessible for many low-income families. While the $7,296 provided under Tennessee’s new program may appear substantial, the average tuition at many private schools far exceeds this amount. Families who cannot afford to pay the remaining tuition and associated costs (such as uniforms, transportation, and extracurricular fees) are effectively excluded, meaning that vouchers disproportionately benefit middle- and upper-income families rather than the disadvantaged students they claim to help. This will lead to increased socio-economic segregation, where public schools are left with fewer resources while private institutions cater to those who can afford any additional costs.

Moral and Ethical Considerations

To the religious leaders of Tennessee who fought for this school voucher program, please consider the moral and ethical considerations of this new system. Policies that weaken public education disproportionately harm the most vulnerable members of society, contradicting Christian values of social justice, equity, and care for the poor. While some religious education leaders (Bishops, Superintendents, Pastors, Principals, etc.) in our state support vouchers as a means to increase enrollment, accepting public funds without ensuring true accessibility for all students raises moral concerns.

• Financial Dependency and the Ethics of Access: Many private schools in Tennessee recognize that the vouchers do not cover the full cost of tuition, which means that lower-income families are still unable to attend. If the goal of school choice is to provide equal opportunity, then private schools, especially those that are religious private schools, must ask themselves: Is it morally justifiable to accept public money when it does not genuinely provide access to all students? By supporting a system that selectively benefits those who can afford additional tuition, these institutions risk aligning with policies that contradict their commitment to serving the marginalized.

• Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers: Public schools serve not only students but also provide stable, middle-class employment for thousands of educators, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, and support staff. When voucher programs reduce public school funding, they also threaten these jobs and livelihoods. Christian social teaching upholds the dignity of work and the rights of workers—values that are at odds with policies that destabilize public education funding and employment.

Conclusion

While school vouchers may appear to offer increased choice, they pose significant risks to both public and private education systems. The debate over vouchers is not simply about where children attend school but about the role of education in our society. Public education is a public good, a shared investment that benefits not just individual students but entire communities. Private schools have historically thrived without much government funding. By taking this public money, they risk shifting their mission and priorities toward financial survival rather than educational excellence.

Furthermore, public funds should serve the broadest possible public interest. The redirection of taxpayer money to private schools—many if not all of which can pick and choose their students—fundamentally undermines the principles of equity and access that public education was built upon. If the goal is to improve education for all Tennessee children, then funding should be directed toward strengthening the institutions that serve the majority of students, not subsidizing a parallel system that leaves many behind.

To quote Sam Seaborn, the White House Deputy Director of Communications from the television show ‘The West Wing’:

Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don’t need little changes, we need gigantic, monumental changes. Schools should be palaces. Competition for the best teachers should be fierce; they should be making six figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge to its citizens, just like national defense. 

Recommendations

• Invest in Public Schools Instead: If this additional $447 million is not coming from current or future Department of Education funding, then why not invest it into public education instead? This funding could be used for reducing class sizes, increasing teacher salaries, expanding early childhood education, or providing additional resources for students with disabilities.

• Foster Stronger Public-Private Collaboration: Rather than diverting funds to private institutions, Tennessee should focus on initiatives that encourage partnerships between public and private schools. Programs that facilitate shared resources, professional development, and best practices across school sectors can benefit all students without undermining public education.

• Address Educational Inequities Holistically: If the goal is truly to provide more choices for families, then policymakers should focus on addressing disparities within the public education system itself. Strengthening public magnet programs, improving neighborhood schools, and expanding open enrollment policies within the public sector would provide parents with more options without eroding public education funding.

By prioritizing these approaches, we can work toward an educational system that reflects our shared values and commitment to all students’ success, rather than deepening the divide between public and private institutions at the expense of the common good.