Amid a wave of legislation creating or expanding private school choice programs across the country, EdChoice President and CEO Robert Enloe called 2023 “the year of universal choice.” Enlow was not wrong. Universal eligibility is a defining trend in recent private school choice reform. For decades, private school choice programs (such as vouchers) provided funding only to certain families, such as those with low household incomes or children with disabilities. But recently, Republican lawmakers created or expanded private school choice programs that make public funding available to nearly all students to attend private schools, regardless of their individual needs.
Many of today's programs take the form of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Through the ESA program, families receive a deposit of government funds into a restricted savings account that they can use to pay for private school tuition, fees, and other eligible expenses. ESA programs are similar in many ways to voucher programs, but they are relatively new and have not been widely evaluated. Supporters argue that ESAs allow parents to customize their children's education, creating opportunities for families who might not otherwise be able to afford private school or other education costs. ing. Critics argue that the ESA program lacks protections for students and taxpayers. They also argue that the ESA has little track record of success and siphons money that should be spent on public schools. Although ESA programs are still young and limited to certain states, they are beginning to account for a significant portion of school funding in some areas.
Here's a look at who receives public funding through Arizona's Empowerment Scholarship Account, the nation's oldest universal ESA program. We focus on whether the primary beneficiaries of these programs are families in need. This is an important question for determining whether universal ESA programs truly address inequalities in school access.
Evolution of the ESA in Arizona
Arizona has an education savings account program and, ultimately, universal Education Savings Account Program. In 2011, Arizona State launched the Empowerment Scholarship Account program. This enabled qualifying families to obtain funding equal to her 90% of her ESA's per-pupil funding. (Most scholarships now offer between $7,000 and $8,000 a year.) Initially, the program was limited to students with disabilities, but a 2013 legislative move expanded the number of recipients to $8,000. were limited to a small number. Over time, eligibility expanded slightly until 2022 when Arizona lawmakers opened the program to all students, including those already attending private schools. EdChoice touts its current program as “the first to offer parents complete universal funding eligibility with broad and flexible access.”
The point about flexibility for widespread use is important. The list of allowable expenses for Arizona's ESA program is extensive. This includes everything from tuition and fees to backpacks, printers, and bookshelves. Overall, approximately 63 percent of state funds are spent on tuition, textbooks, and fees for eligible schools, with “curriculum and supplementary materials” (12 percent) the next largest expense.
Researchers, state officials and advocacy groups have expressed concerns about expanding the program. Some point to wasteful spending on poorly regulated programs, while others highlight the exploding costs and potential impact on public schools. Early reports indicated that a disproportionate share of program beneficiaries appeared to be wealthy.
Learn more about who gets ESA funding in Arizona
We looked at publicly available data on Empowerment Scholarship Account recipients to get a clearer picture of who is receiving ESA funds. If, in fact, wealthy families secure the lion's share of ESA funding, this raises the obvious question of whether these programs are exacerbating, rather than alleviating, inequalities in school access. right.
First, we obtained the latest Executive and Legislative Quarterly Report on this program (2024 Q2 Report). This report lists the number of students enrolled in the program by recipient's home zip code. We converted these zip codes to zip code aggregation areas (ZCTAs). This allows us to use data from the U.S. Census Bureau to describe the communities in which ESA enrollees reside.1
The following analysis compares ESA participation rates by socioeconomic status (SES) in Arizona communities. We use three measures of SES: poverty rate, median household income, and educational attainment. This allows you to see, for example, whether rich and poor areas (ZCTA) tend to receive a disproportionate share of scholarships.
First, we consider ESA participation based on a measure of local poverty: the proportion of residents receiving public assistance income or SNAP/food stamps. This graph (and others that follow) divide Arizona's population into deciles, with each bar representing approximately 10% of the state's population under the age of 18. In Figure 1, each bar represents her number of ESA recipients per 1,000 people. Under 18. The left-most bar represents the region with the lowest poverty rate in the state (based on ZCTA). The bar on the far right represents the decile with the highest poverty rate.
There are clear trends regarding this metric. As the poverty rate increases from left to right, the proportion of children receiving ESA funds decreases. The highest ESA participation rate is 75 she ESA recipients per 1,000 children under 18, covering population deciles. lowest Poverty rate. The lowest ESA participation rate is 14 she-ESA recipients per 1,000 children, covering population deciles. the best Poverty rate. (Statewide, there is an average of 45 ESA recipients per 1,000 children.)
Next, we perform a parallel analysis based on median household income. This allows you to examine the areas with the highest incomes in a way that is obscured by graphs based on poverty rates.
Again, the results are clear. As seen in Figure 2, the lowest decile of median income has the lowest ESA participation rate (20 beneficiaries per 1,000 children), and the highest decile of median income has the lowest ESA participation rate. highest (74 participants per 1,000 children).
In other words, we see similar patterns in who obtains ESA funding, regardless of the measure of SES used (poverty rate, median income, education). More advantaged communities secure a highly disproportionate share of these scholarships.
Perhaps these results are driven by changes in ESA participation rates across different types of geographic areas? For example, rural areas with lower population densities and fewer private schools nearby may have lower ESA uptake. It may be low. The relatively low income and college enrollment rates in these regions may explain the pattern described above.
In fact, ESA participation rates are higher in suburban (52 per 1,000) and urban areas (45 per 1,000) than in small towns (35 per 1,000) and rural areas (35 per 1,000). I understand.2 However, that's not all.
Let's take a closer look at the Phoenix metropolitan area. By focusing on one urban/suburban area, we can see whether ESA participation disparities by household income persist even for families with similar schools near their homes.
Figure 4a maps ESA participation rates in the Phoenix region by ZCTA, with darker colors indicating higher participation rates. Figure 4b maps median household income by his ZCTA in the Phoenix area, with darker colors indicating higher median household income.
These maps are very similar to each other. Within this relatively small geographical area, it is the most affluent area where the majority of ESA recipients live.
Learn from Arizona as more states move to universal ESA
Some of the takeaways from this analysis are clear. In Arizona, which implemented the first and most high-profile “universal” ESA program, families in the wealthiest and most advantaged communities get her ESA funds at the highest interest rates. Families in the poorest communities are least likely to receive ESA funding. There is nothing in the analysis above to suggest in the slightest that the program addresses inequalities in access to schools based on students' socio-economic status.
What is less clear, and worthy of further study, is why these patterns exist. There are many reasons why families from lower SES areas do not participate in the program. Some families may be interested in obtaining ESA funding but may not know about the program (information barrier) or may not be able to travel to and from their desired school (transportation barrier). Some families may face financial barriers because tuition at many private schools exceeds the amount of the scholarship and ESA recipient families must cover the difference. Some families may not be interested. They may feel better served or more welcome at their local public school.
In any case, if states that have adopted (or are considering) universal ESA programs are seriously considering private school options to address inequalities in school access; You should seriously consider these programs. There are many reasons to be concerned about the data coming out of Arizona.