Hurdles facing education choice programs across the nation

• States that have passed education choice programs face misrepresentations, real hiccups, and sometimes unfriendly legislative changes.
• Lawmakers should seek reliable information about a program’s successes and deficiencies and make legislative changes only to improve the program or address existing issues.

Though education choice programs have popped up across the country – becoming a tidal wave of “wins” for education choice – the work after passage is just as important.

We dive into how states should respond to two common hurdles facing existing programs: concerns about waste and harmful legislation.

Narratives around waste and fraud

One of the big challenges to existing education choice programs comes from actual or misrepresented instances of fraud or misuse of funds that color the narrative about a program.

Making big headlines this year was an Arizona reporter who aired a story alleging waste and fraud in the Arizona Empower Scholarship Account program, the nation’s longest-standing education savings account. The reporter claimed that 20% of the program spending was fraudulent or used for unallowable expenses, but that story has since been repeatedly criticized, corrected, and attacked for inaccuracy (essentially misrepresenting data from a risk-based audit rather than the actual findings of fraud).

In March of this year, the Arizona Department of Education released results from a study that found only 2% of spending in education choice programs was on unallowable expenses, and only 0.3% was attributable to actual fraud or egregious purchases. The department’s press release went so far as to include “ADE Corrects False Claim” in its title to push back against the news story. This comes after Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs repeatedly claimed that the program would bankrupt the state, though supporters argue it saves the state money.

While critics of Arizona’s expansive education savings account program often talk about the potential for fraud and draining the state, the reality so far hasn’t lived up to those fears. Still, it’s something states with similar programs will have to contend with going forward.

Florida, too, has had questions about its education choice programs. A few years ago, a reporter analyzed the “purchasing guide” for one of the state’s programs, noting things such as amusement park tickets, kayaks, and TVs, asking, “Is that okay?” Critics of the commentary noted that it relied on the false narrative of wasteful spending in Arizona’s program, even though a 2018 report and a 2020 audit have shown very little wasteful spending.

That said, last November, an audit of Florida’s education programs found serious issues with spending that could not be accounted for, along with recommendations for how to fix them. These issues deserve answers, but each program ought to be evaluated on its own merits rather than lumped into a general fear of misuse in education choice programs.

Utah’s Utah Fits All Scholarship program has yet to undergo a full audit (a limited review was completed in 2024), but that hasn’t stopped outside investigations into the topic. Last year, the Salt Lake Tribune, for example, published an analysis that it said took two months to complete, examining how Utah families were spending their scholarship funds. The article opens by listing extravagant travel and experiences funded by the scholarship before diving into a breakdown of how the funds are being used. It highlighted several issues and the changes legislators made to address them. It did a follow-up piece on the same topic later that same year, meaning there are already questions about how the funds are being used.

To be clear, questions, analyses, and audits are appropriate, legitimate, and ultimately good for public policy. With taxpayer money involved, we have a right to know how the funds are being used and to make evidence-based tweaks to honor those funds if issues are found.

At the same time, these efforts must be separated from misrepresentations, exaggerations, or predictive fearmongering that are clearly aimed at undermining the program’s success and continuation. Findings of real issues should lead to policy improvements so the program can work well for those it already serves.

To prevent harmful outcomes from misinformation, state policymakers should seek and welcome audits to clarify misinformed narratives. Leaders should continuously seek better technology that builds appropriate approvals and transparent spending into its process. And education choice advocates should equally share the program’s positive impacts on families so the full picture is clear.

As needed, state lawmakers should also make targeted legislative changes to the programs based on evidence but not get so far ahead of fearful predictions that they inadvertently harm the programs before changes are necessary.

Legislative amendments that harm education choice programs

Another challenge to existing education choice programs is follow-up legislative action that harms rather than helps the program.

It’s expected that after a major program is enacted, legislative refinements will follow. Experience has shown that many follow-up legislative efforts have been favorable to the programs and have been enacted specifically to expand or protect them. But some states have moved in the opposite direction, adding limitations, sometimes prematurely, or attempting to eliminate the programs altogether.

For example, last year, Utah changed the scholarship amounts so that families seeking private school scholarships had higher amounts than those seeking homeschool scholarships, with further gradations based on age. It also capped extracurricular spending for the first time. Both changes received pushback and criticism from supporters of the program, who argued they reduced flexibility and introduced unintended incentives for families and schools.

This year, Utah made tweaks considered more friendly to clarify sibling priority, ensure LEA (local education agency) extracurricular participation for scholarship recipients, and increase call center capacity, among other things. Still, this year, Utah lawmakers had robust discussions about other proposals that would have added new definitions or accreditation requirements. These failed proposals were seen as premature, which might cause more problems than they would solve, especially since the program still needs to be audited and determined constitutional in court. I have written since then that Utah should be very thoughtful about legislative changes to the program going forward.

EdChoice offered analysis of legislative changes to existing education programs during 2025, and found similar trends, summarizing it this way: “Some states saw significant improvements, such as increased eligibility and funding for education savings account (ESA) programs, while other states saw setbacks, like limits on what can be purchased with ESA funds and vague regulatory language.” It noted specific states that expanded or improved their programs, increasing caps, adding waitlist capacity, and allowing funds to be spent on new providers like online schools. It also noted states that added restrictions (including Utah), such as adding caps on extracurriculars, limiting purchases of technology hardware, and increasing regulatory burdens on the program manager.

According to additional legislative tracking analysis, some states have already begun seeking to increase oversight and accountability in 2026, with some measures that are complementary to education choice and others that aren’t.

Tennessee, Iowa, and Florida proposed new audit requirements that could make a lot of sense for transparency, especially where there are identifiable issues.
At the same time, there have been proposals from Tennessee, Iowa, and Arizona to require assessments for those using education choice programs, a move that has been controversial in many states and ultimately rejected in Utah. Opponents of assessments in these programs argue that academic accountability can be found with parents and that assessments are often among the features they seek to avoid when pursuing a scholarship opportunity.

Some states have proposals to cap income levels or lower the income threshold, meaning fewer families would be eligible for these scholarships. Other proposals sought to repeal the programs entirely in Iowa, Oklahoma, and Tennessee.

Altogether, additional legislation for existing programs has not always moved families closer to more education freedom.

Conclusion

In short, education choice programs will need ongoing support and improvement. False narratives should be corrected, but real issues should be resolved. When legislative changes that would further limit or regulate the program become necessary, they should be targeted and carefully thought through, fixing issues identified by legitimate sources rather than narrative. In these ways, states can help more families access an education that makes sense for their child.