This report is part of a series from the Center for American Progress examining private school choice programs and offering recommendations to enhance, not detract from, critical resources for public schools.
Introduction and summary
Across the country, states are increasingly implementing private school choice programs1—including private school vouchers, education savings accounts, and tax credit scholarships—despite these programs’ general lack of favorability among the public.2 Private school vouchers divert public money from public schools to pay tuition and cover educational expenses for students attending private schools, often religious ones.3 Thirty states plus the District of Columbia have at least one private school choice program.4 Of those states, 17 have at least one universally accessible program,5 meaning all students can access taxpayer funds to cover tuition and educational expenses regardless of their socioeconomic status or need. As more states take action to privatize K-12 education, it is essential to discuss the harmful effects these programs can have, particularly on students in rural communities.
Rural schools serve 9.8 million students, or nearly 1 in 5 public school students.6 Only 34 percent of rural families have access to a private school within 5 miles of their home, compared with 92 percent of urban families.7 Only 5 percent of rural students are enrolled in private schools, compared with 10 percent nationally.8 Private schools typically do not provide transportation to and from school,9 creating a barrier for those who would have to make long commutes, particularly children from low-income families who tend to rely more heavily on school buses.10 Even when rural students have access to a private school, the private school ultimately decides whether it will accept vouchers, the cost of tuition, how many students it will admit, and which students it will admit,11 further limiting the number of rural students who truly have private school access. Private school voucher programs do not provide “choice” for the vast majority of rural families; instead, they divert funding from their public schools, leaving rural public school students with fewer resources while funding the private education of others.
Understanding the unique challenges rural schools face
The loss of any funding can be particularly damaging to rural schools, which often face diseconomies of scale. Rural schools usually serve fewer students, increasing the cost of instruction per pupil.12 For example, whether a school is serving 10 or 20 students in one grade level, it still must pay at least one teacher’s salary. Other fixed costs include facilities, transportation, building maintenance, and administrative staff.13 If a school loses students—and therefore revenue, which is oftentimes tied to enrollment—it still must cover these fixed costs, leaving staff and educational programs such as extracurriculars, art and music classes, and after-school programs at risk of being cut.14 Given rural schools’ small operating margins, losing just a few students can dramatically affect school budgets.15
Given rural schools’ small operating margins, losing just a few students can dramatically affect school budgets.
In addition to these costs, rural schools often have a harder time raising local revenue since funding formulas typically pull most local school funding from property taxes.16 This funding method forces rural districts to rely more heavily on state and federal funding. When private school voucher programs lead to state funding cuts for public education,17 rural schools are more likely to feel the effects given their heavy reliance on state funds. Similarly, if federal funds are cut or diverted to private school voucher programs, rural schools will be among those hit the hardest.
How statewide private school voucher programs harm rural students
Rural schools across the country are feeling the adverse consequences of private school voucher programs and will only lose more resources if these programs continue to grow. The author interviewed rural school administrators and educators in West Virginia, Indiana, and Vermont to hear from those facing the reality of private school voucher programs and better understand their effects.
West Virginia
In West Virginia, the majority of public schools are rural,18 43 percent of public school students attend a rural school,19 and nearly 70 percent of private schools are in suburban and urban areas, with many counties having no private schools at all.20 In 2021, West Virginia passed a bill creating the Hope Scholarship program.21 The program established education savings accounts that provide roughly $4,900 per student with no income restrictions to be used for a wide range of private educational activities.22 In the 2025–26 school year, the voucher amount is expected to increase to more than $5,200 per student, and in the 2026–27 school year, the program is set to become universal, including eligibility for students who already attend private school or participate in homeschooling.23 Last school year, no students in McDowell County—a remote rural county24 with the highest poverty rate in the state—used a voucher, while students in more populous counties took advantage of the public funds;25 this contradicts the narrative that private school vouchers benefit students experiencing poverty.26
At the same time, dozens of public schools across the state plan to close their doors this year, many of which serve rural communities.27 Following the departure of a small percentage of students leaving to use the state voucher program, Clay County School District, characterized as a rural school district,28 reported losing $157,000 in state funding in 202429—roughly enough money to pay the average salary of three West Virginia educators.30Moreover, Clay County will close the district’s only middle school and consolidate its students into the county’s elementary and high school due to a lack of funding, declining enrollment, and the age of the building.31
Kanawha County, a district categorized as suburban but with multiple rural schools,32 has lost 1,200 students to the voucher program.33 This, combined with the county’s general population decline, is resulting in the closure of six schools and the elimination of 39 school positions. One of those schools is East Bank Middle School,34 characterized as a rural school,35 which will close and consolidate with a suburban middle school36 that is roughly 10 miles away. Similarly, Wetzel County School District is closing Hundred High School, a rural school,37 and consolidating it with a neighboring town’s high school that is roughly 20 miles away, raising concerns over the future of the rural community.38
These consolidations not only remove students from their communities, affecting their social and emotional well-being, but can also affect their health and academic achievement.39 Longer commutes to school have been attributed to less sleep and exercise, which can play a role in learning and a student’s overall well-being.40 Rural schools also often act as community hubs and serve as the largest employer in rural communities.41 Closing these schools affects not only the students but the entire community, as property values, civic participation, and community development subsequently decline.42
A middle school educator in rural West Virginia who preferred to remain anonymous made clear the effects of private school vouchers in the state. The educator noted that in rural communities such as McDowell County, families cannot afford to use the vouchers: “They don’t have the options and that $5,000 isn’t going to push them out of poverty. … It’s not benefiting who it’s supposedly meant to benefit.”43
The average tuition cost for private schools in West Virginia is more than $6,400,44 significantly higher than the current voucher amount,45 making private schools inaccessible for many. In rural districts where some students use private school vouchers, the decision affects more than just the family deciding to remove their student from public school. The educator said: “When 10 kids leave the school and take that money with them, there’s a shortfall that may then cost a salary of a teacher or cost the expense of a certain program. Now we’re denying 390 kids something that we could have done if those 10 kids had stayed or if that money had stayed in our school.” These associated consequences are especially hard for rural districts with limited funding. Instead of addressing the many systemic issues rural public schools face, the state voucher program exacerbates the problems and contributes to additional rural public school population loss.46
Instead of addressing the many systemic issues rural public schools face, the state voucher program exacerbates the problems and contributes to additional rural public school population loss.
When asked how these private school choice funds could benefit students if they were instead invested in West Virginia’s public education system, the educator stressed that many issues plaguing the public school system could be addressed. She said: “There would be funding available to fix some of those buildings that are facing closure or provide more programs. … For students, that might incentivize them to not only stay in school but maybe stay in the state post-graduation. … The more funding we can put toward public education and helping those students who are already in those buildings, I think the better off we all are.”47
Ultimately, putting a finer point on the issue, the educator said: “If your roof is leaking, you don’t get new carpet. You fix the roof.”48
Indiana
In Indiana, roughly 29 percent of public school students attend a rural school.49 Indiana operates four separate private school choice programs: education savings accounts, individual tax credit/deductions, tax credit scholarships, and a private school voucher program.50 Indiana’s voucher program, known as the Choice Scholarship Program, is the most-used option,51 with more than 75,000 students participating in 2024.52 In the 2023–24 school year, the average voucher value was $6,264, and virtually all—98 percent—of Indiana’s students were eligible for the program,53 which cost taxpayers more than $430 million.54 With such an expansive and costly array of private school choice programs that can serve nearly every student in Indiana, the state’s budget for education is feeling the crunch.55
In Indiana, the tuition support budget funds both public schools and private school vouchers.56 When adjusted for inflation, the most recent budget has a deficit of more than $500 million compared with the 2009-10 budget.57 Moreover, between fiscal years 2019 and 2023, state tuition support for public schools grew by only about 12 percent, while funding for choice scholarships grew by more than 93 percent.58 Despite a declining youth population across the state,59 Indiana is funding the education of more than 44,000 additional students—public and private—in the 2024–25 school year than it did in the 2009-10 school year.60Christopher Lagoni, executive director of the Indiana Small and Rural Schools Association and a former middle school educator, said that from 2011 to 2022, “Voucher numbers were increasing but really as they kept bringing more and more students on, we were in fact paying for the students who already were in private school.”61 Essentially, the state is picking up the bill for families who were already sending their children to private schools.
As more money goes to private school choice programs, fewer dollars remain to support public schools,62 with rural schools often feeling the budget pinch more than other public schools given their heavier reliance on state funding.63 Lagoni shared that in Indiana’s rural communities, most students do not have access to private schools, so they are not benefiting from these funding shifts.64 To make up for the difference in funding, districts have been forced to turn to referendums or levies to raise local revenue. But in rural communities, he said: “It is tough to pass a levy increase. If you’re a farmer a levy increase is not going to help you.” Lagoni noted that in suburban or urban areas, it is easier to justify levy increases since a high-quality school can often equate to better home values. He said, “If you’re a farmer though, your farmland does not go up in value because you have high-quality schools.”65
According to Lagoni, rural Indiana communities have the lowest referendum passage rate in the state.66 With few opportunities to increase local revenue, rural school districts such as South Adams Schools are left with declining general funds despite having at most only a handful of students leaving the district to use private school vouchers.67 Recent analysis found that if 2022–23 voucher funds were returned to the public education funding pool,68 South Adams Schools would have received nearly $600,000 in additional funding to support its operations.69
Vermont
While Vermont has a much smaller private school voucher program with only 4 percent of its students eligible, the way the state’s program is written into law creates unique challenges.70 Created in 1869, Vermont’s Town Tuitioning program provides vouchers for students who live in a town that does not operate a public school.71 In those cases, vouchers can be used to attend public or private schools in or outside of the state.72
Vermont is considered the most rural state in the United States,73with more than half of public school students attending a rural school.74 While about half of eligible students use Town Tuitioning vouchers to attend a neighboring public school,75some students are using the vouchers to attend private schools located out of the state and even out of the country.76 “There is a relatively prestigious independent school in Canada that some families have used their tuition dollars for,” said Chris Young, principal of a remote rural high school on the northern border of Vermont.77 Young continued, “Some towns are right on the border of New Hampshire and New York that belong to an interstate district and so they can access schools in New Hampshire or New York.”78 In fact, data from the 2020–21 school year show that roughly $1.5 million in state taxpayer money was spent paying for student tuition out of the state or the country.79 Of that money, $120,000 went to private schools in Quebec, Canada, including Stanstead College,80 a boarding school just 9 miles from the high school Young runs. The rest of the $1.5 million was sent to 11 other states, including California and Oregon, and roughly $54,000 went to a boarding school in Sweden.81 Young said: “We’re really trying to keep tuition dollars in Vermont, but right now that is not the system. … They would need to change laws in order for that to happen.”82
While the state’s voucher program remains small, Young believes a universal private school voucher program would adversely affect his rural community. Young said, “There’s no doubt in my mind that were there to be a [universal] voucher system, the students who have the means would exercise their ability to go elsewhere, and the students with less means, with less transportation, with less active parents, would still come to our school.” Recognizing the impact losing students can have on a rural school’s budget, Young shared, “As our enrollment goes down, then the funding is going to go down and we would have to start cutting programs. There’s no doubt that our school would suffer with a universal voucher system.” Young stated that he wants the country to once again recognize that public education is a public good that benefits everyone.83
Federal efforts to expand the use of private school vouchers
Despite public opposition to publicly funded private school voucher programs, the Trump administration and congressional Republicans have taken action to expand access to private school vouchers at the federal level.84 In his second week in office, Trump signed an executive order (EO), “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families,”85 directing the secretary of education to issue guidance on how states can use federal formula funds—such as Title I, which is appropriated by Congress to support public education for students experiencing poverty86—to fund school choice programs.87 Additionally, the EO tasked multiple agencies—including the departments of Education, Labor, Health and Human Services, and Defense—to identify ways to expand school choice through formula funds and discretionary programs.88 Following this order, the secretary of education issued a “dear colleague letter” encouraging states to use Title I funds to expand school choice programs.89 Ninety-five percent of school districts, including those in rural communities, are eligible for Title I funding.90 Efforts to divert funding from Title I to private school voucher programs would cause significant harm to rural schools as they would be left with fewer resources, and rural students would have nowhere else to turn.
In Congress, House and Senate Republicans have introduced the Educational Choice for Children Act,91 which would provide $10 billion annually in 100 percent tax credits for wealthy donors and corporations who contribute to private school voucher funds.92 The bill would divert taxpayer funds to private schools with no accountability measures,93 overstep state decisions to reject private school voucher programs, and allow affluent families to utilize public money to cover their tuition bills.94 On top of this, analyses estimate that the legislation could result in a total state revenue loss of $2.3 billion and a federal revenue loss of $134 billion over the next 10 years.95 House Republicans have also included a similar program in their recently proposed budget reconciliation bill.96 This diversion of funds and revenue loss could affect public education funding at all levels, ultimately pulling away resources from rural students.
See more
Rural communities nationwide are experiencing the negative effects of statewide private school voucher programs. In many states, voters have rejected efforts to create or expand these programs. Instead, they favor investing in public education to strengthen all students’ education.97 If private school voucher programs were implemented at the federal level or if states were further encouraged to create and expand existing programs, the adverse effects on public education would only worsen, particularly for the nation’s 9.8 million rural public school students.98
Recommendations
To improve the educational experience of rural students, state and federal policymakers must reject efforts to divert taxpayer dollars from public schools and privatize education. Following this path only further harms the quality of education rural students receive. When state budgets for public education are cut, the harms to rural students are magnified given their heavy reliance on state funding and public schools.99 Instead, policymakers should look to implement policies that invest in rural schools, including actions that:
- Improve the recruitment and retention of rural educators through enhanced access to professional development opportunities, increased compensation, and the expansion of grow-your-own programs.100
- Create partnerships across districts and with institutions of higher education to expand access to coursework and educational opportunities.
- Adjust state funding formulas to fund rural districts equitably, offset diseconomies of scale, and improve the quality of education.
- Increase funding through the Rural Education Achievement Program,101 the federal grant program that provides additional funding to rural districts, and change the program from an annual grant to a multiyear grant to alleviate the administrative burden on district staff.
- Reauthorize the Secure Rural Schools Act, which provides additional funding to rural counties whose tax base is affected by growing amounts of federal land that restrict the amount of local revenue that can be raised for schools, and establish permanent funding for the program to ensure financial stability for rural districts.102
- Expand access to reliable high-speed internet in rural communities to enhance the quality of education in rural schools and prepare students for the 21st century workforce.
Conclusion
As policymakers consider expanding private school choice programs, it is vital they keep in mind the particularly harmful effects these programs have on rural students and communities. These programs give choice to private schools, not rural families, and leave rural public schools with less, jeopardizing the quality of education for 9.8 million rural students across the country. Ignoring rural students’ needs while diverting public funds to private schools will not strengthen education in the United States. Instead, efforts focusing on adequately funding and supporting rural public schools will enhance opportunities for rural students and improve academic achievement.