New federal school voucher program poses a quandary for states: Opt in or opt out?

posted in: All news | 0

By Robbie Sequeira, Stateline.org

When President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he gave state leaders — not federal regulators — the power to decide whether and how to participate in the first-ever national tax credit scholarship program.

That decision now looms largest in blue states, where Democratic governors and lawmakers must weigh whether to reject the law outright on ideological grounds — or try to reshape it into something that reflects their own values.

“This isn’t the federal voucher program we were worried about five years ago,” said Jon Valant, a senior fellow in governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution who testified before Congress on earlier versions of the bill. “It still has serious problems — but states now have tools to mold it into something they might actually support.”

The final law gives states wide discretion, he said. They can opt out entirely. They can opt in passively, leaving the program to operate as written. Or, as Valant suggests, they can try to redraw its footprint — focusing less on private school tuition and more on public school supports like tutoring, transportation and enrichment services in underserved districts.

“My hope is that blue states take a hard look and ask: Can this be used to address our own needs?”

For progressives and education advocates who are wary of school vouchers, the decision is fraught. Opting in could draw criticism for approving what many see as a vehicle for privatization of K-12 education. But opting out could mean turning down federal dollars — education money that states with budding or robust private school voucher infrastructures, such as Arizona and Florida, will gladly take.

“There’s money on the table, and it can be used for more than just private school tuition,” Valant said. “If blue states want to keep that money from reinforcing inequality, they’ll have to get creative, and act fast.”

Since 2020, private school choice programs — once limited to low-income or special needs students — have rapidly expanded.

In 2023, $6.3 billion was spent nationwide on private school choice programs — less than 1% of total public K-12 operational spending, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice measures. From 2023-24 to 2024-25, participation in universal private school choice programs surged nearly 40%, growing from roughly 584,000 to 805,000 students in just one school year.

By 2026-27, about half of all U.S. students will be eligible, according to estimates by FutureEd, an independent think tank at Georgetown University.

These trends, combined with new federal tax credit, could fundamentally reshape the education funding landscape across state governments, experts say.

“States will need to decide whether to encourage the redirection of funding to support private and religious schools — either by expanding existing voucher programs or, if they don’t have one, by introducing such a program for the first time,” said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, The School Superintendents Association. The group opposes the national voucher plan.

State regulations

As of this May, 21 states operated tax credit scholarship programs with varying degrees of funding and oversight. According to the EdChoice Friedman Index, the states of Florida, Arkansas, Arizona and Alabama rank highest in private school access, with 100% of students eligible for school choice programs.

Some states, like Florida and Arizona, already have extensive tax credit scholarship systems. Others, including Texas, are building new infrastructure such as statewide voucher programs and education savings accounts, known as ESAs.

States with no current programs face decisions about participation, regulation and equity, but without clear federal guardrails, education advocates told Stateline.

Related Articles


College applications rise outside US as Trump cracks down on international students


Student loan caps might worsen the national doctor shortage, critics say


Decision to unfreeze migrant education money comes too late for some kids


For ‘mama bear’ parents, access to their college kids’ medical and student records can be a waiver away


Trump administration freezes $339M in UCLA grants and accuses the school of rights violations

The federal policy builds on existing state-level tax credit scholarship programs — such as Alabama’s — but significantly expands eligibility, removes scholarship caps and broadens allowable uses to include not just tuition, but also tutoring, therapy, transportation and academic support services. Beginning in 2027, scholarships will be excluded from federal taxable income.

Valant, of Brookings, told Stateline that some of his initial concerns were addressed in the version of the bill signed into law.

“There was a very realistic scenario in the earlier version of the bill where a small number of very wealthy people could essentially make money off this,” Valant said. “That was mostly addressed.”

The enacted version eliminates stock donations and caps individual tax credits at $1,700. And with states that opt in having the power to shape their own program, Valant said that gives them the chance to establish their own guardrails, such as income eligibility caps or nondiscrimination policies for participating schools.

The scholarship-granting organizations, known as SGOs, would then be subject to new state regulations about where the money can go.

“States could say SGOs can’t give money to schools that discriminate based on sexual orientation. … There’s quite a lot of room here for state regulation,” he said.

Looking ahead, Valant said he’ll be watching how states interpret their regulatory powers — and how effective scholarship-granting organizations are at fundraising under the new rules, which prohibit large stock gifts and rely instead on millions of smaller donations.

“Now it’s a strange pitch: ‘Can you front me $300 to give to the SGO? I swear the IRS will give it back,’” he said. “It’s going to take time to figure out how to sell this to families.”

Concerns over transparency and equity remain. The program allows donors, scholarship-granting organizations and families to direct funds with little public accountability, critics say. And in states without robust oversight, Valant warns that funds could be misused — or channeled to institutions that exclude students based, for example, on identity or beliefs about sexual orientation.

He also emphasized that early participation is likely to skew toward families already in private schools, particularly in wealthier ZIP codes — mirroring patterns seen in programs in Arizona, Florida and Georgia.

“One big risk is that the funds will disproportionately flow to wealthier families — just like we’ve seen in many ESA programs,” Valant said.

What do these programs look like across the country?

FutureEd studied eight states— Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and West Virginia — where 569,000 students participated in school choice programs at a cost to taxpayers of $4 billion in 2023-24.

The FutureEd analysis found significant differences among the states in design, funding and oversight.

Arizona’s ESA program was the first of its kind in 2011, and also the first to shift toward universal eligibility in 2022.

Florida operated the largest and most expensive program, with broad eligibility, no caps or accreditation requirements, and a major influx of higher-income families, though it mandated some university-led performance reviews. Iowa fully funded ESAs and, like other states, saw mostly existing private school families benefit.

Arkansas had a cautious rollout due to legal delays and geographic clustering of participants, while West Virginia allowed spending across state lines with no performance reporting.

Newcomer North Carolina began with income-based prioritization but quickly expanded under political pressure or demand, while Alabama and Louisiana will launch ESA programs in 2025-26 using general state revenues.

Utah enacted a universal voucher program in 2023, providing up to $8,000 per student for private school or homeschool expenses. A state teachers union sued, arguing that participating schools were not “free and open to all children” and that the program diverted public school funds. A state court this April ruled the program was unconstitutional.

As the new federal law opens the door for tax-credit-funded tuition support, Texas is building its first universal school voucher program, aided through ESAs to begin in the 2026-27 school year. The program is funded with $1 billion over two years, with $10,000-$11,000 per student — up to $30,000 for students with disabilities and $2,000 for homeschoolers.

The Texas comptroller will oversee the program, and private schools must be open for at least two years to be eligible for funds.

Voucher programs can drain state budgets, and budget wonks predict the cost for Texas could rise to around $4.8 billion by 2030, The Texas Tribune reported.

A spokesperson for the Texas comptroller’s office said that details are still being finalized; the state has issued a request for proposals due Aug. 4 to select eligible educational assistance organizations that would help funnel scholarship dollars to schools.

Other states may be more cautious. The Missouri National Education Association filed a lawsuit this summer to block $51 million in state appropriations to private school scholarships through the MOScholars program. The suit argues that using general revenue rather than private donations violates the state constitution and undermines public education funding.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

©2025 States Newsroom. Visit at stateline.org. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

U.S. jobs data can be seen as 99.9% correct

posted in: All news | 0

Is there something really wrong with the nation’s employment counts?

Questions about the quality of the jobs data came into the spotlight this month when President Donald Trump fired the boss of the Bureau of Labor Statistics after its latest report showed, among numerous disappointing results, a sharp revision to June’s initial jobs tally. Trump insists, without proof, that the bureau produces numbers biased against him.

One flash point in the statistical dust-up was a 133,000 revision downward to what was previously reported about June’s count of seasonally adjusted, nonfarm employment. So, gains were cut to 14,000 from 147,000.

In an instant-analysis era, thin job creation transformed the economic storyline.

The original data suggested the new administration’s unorthodox business agenda was boosting employment. The revisions raised fears that Trump’s new policies are cooling hiring.

And the president’s wild claims of massive inaccuracies aren’t just political theater. Seeding doubts about government data reliability can hurt business and consumer confidence and damage the overall economy.

Minuscule slice

I’m a numbers person, and I know this job market math can be really geeky.

With that warning stated, here’s what my trusty spreadsheet found looking at the BLS’s own tracking of revisions. The historically non-partisan statistical bureau is quite open about its methodology, as the BLS details its revisions back to 1979.

We’ll focus on June 2025. Its revisions wiped out 90% of the previously reported gain. Only 13 months since 1979 had larger downward first revisions.

And look back over the last 47 years. The typical month’s first revision, up or down, reflected an average swing of 41,000 job changes. That’s roughly one-third of the average 125,000 jobs added per month since 1979.

So, June was definitely an eye-catcher.

Related Articles


Trump will highlight Apple’s plans to invest $100 billion more in US, raising total to $600 billion


Trump to put additional 25% import taxes on India, bringing combined tariffs to 50%


Wall Street holds steady following mixed profit reports from McDonald’s, Disney and Shopify


New study sheds light on ChatGPT’s alarming interactions with teens


If you’re a fan of sports betting or casino gambling, you won’t be a fan of the new tax law

Yet try another lens to view these changes. Think about revisions as a slice of all U.S. workers who have an employer and are not farmers. By the way, the self-employed are in this tally.

June’s 133,000 downward revision is not even 0.1% of the month’s 160 million total U.S. jobs. And that share is on par with average results back to 1979.

Revisions are statistical refinements equaling a minuscule slice of the overall job market. These adjustments only seem large when looking at the one-month swing in employment.

So, you could argue the first draft numbers are 99.9% correct.

It’s one of many reasons economists of all political stripes have said in recent days that the U.S. is the gold standard of jobs data. They’ve all decried the BLS chief’s firing.

Additionally, let’s admit we all have a problem with economic data. Worrying about a single month’s gyrations of any business variable doesn’t give anyone a solid idea of what’s going on – good, bad, or indifferent.

Quick work

Revisions are not admissions of error. They’re part of the job tracking process.

Think about it. Ever wonder how the national employment count is released days after the end of a month?

These numbers are based on a survey of roughly 600,000 U.S. worksites. One wrinkle: not all bosses respond quickly. Lower and slower response rates are an issue across all polling, regardless of who conducts it or the topic being surveyed.

Please understand that the first-Friday-of-the-month jobs report we all chat about reflects only what the BLS gathers in roughly the first 12 days of the previous month. Typically, the initial study covers roughly three-quarters of the employers in the survey.

So the BLS’s first estimate of June employment – released July 3 – was simply quick math.

On Aug. 1, BLS gave us a second peek at June, with more survey results coming in. That means it was a better snapshot of the employment picture. And the trend wasn’t pretty.

By the way, there will be at least two more revisions to June’s numbers.

The first will be in the following monthly jobs report, scheduled for Sept. 5. Since 1979, the second revisions generate an average of 31,000 changes, up or down. And it’s down 36% of the time.

Trump’s BLS critique was also fueled by May’s second revision issues at the same time as June’s first one. It saw a 125,000 downgrade of the job count, the fifth largest since 1979.

June’s next revision is scheduled for February 2026, when the BLS conducts its annual “benchmarking,” which involves retooling the employers’ survey with the help of a study of plus unemployment insurance records covering 95% of all jobs.

Want to see what those other unemployment-insurance-based stats say about the second quarter’s job market, which includes May and June’s debate-provoking data? That report comes out in December.

Basically, tracking the job market – at least how the federal government has done it for decades – involves making swift estimates followed by improving the data as new information flows in.

Where’s the beef?

Does Trump have a legitimate gripe that job counters aren’t fair to him?

Look at all 53 months he’s been in office, through his two terms.

There have been 26 downward first-month revisions in job tallies. That’s 49% of the time. Those revisions have changed the job counts – up or down – on average by 40,200 jobs. The net result of the revisions has been to add an average of 100 jobs to the total employment.

Compare that track record to the 557 months of first-month revisions since 1979: 267 downward revisions or 48%. Average swing was 41,000 with an average net addition of 1,800.

It’s hard to see much bias.

Jonathan Lansner is the business columnist for the Southern California News Group. He can be reached at jlansner@scng.com

Stillwater’s Luca Jarvis commits to Gophers hockey program

posted in: All news | 0

Bob Motzko and Co. continue to stockpile Minnesotans for the future of the Gophers hockey program. On Wednesday, it was Lakeland native Luca Jarvis committing to the U.

“I am beyond blessed and honored to announce my commitment to play Division 1 hockey and further my education at the University of Minnesota,” Jarvis posted on his Instagram page. “I am extremely grateful for my family, friends, teammates, coaches, advisors, and everyone who has helped me to this point. #gogophs”

Jarvis tallied 24 goals and 24 assists for Stillwater as a sophomore while helping the Ponies reach the Class 2A state title game.

Jarvis is expected to play for the Youngstown Phantoms in the USHL team in the upcoming campaign. He posted a pair of assists in five games for Youngstown after the last year’s high school season. The earliest Jarvis figures to skate for the Gophers is in the 2026-27 season.

His announcement comes amid a wave of Minnesotan commitments to the Gophers. Wyatt and Brooks Cullen of Moorhead both committed to the Gophers this week, joining Lakeville North forward Gunnar Conboy and netminder Carter Casey, who goaltended for Grand Rapids last season.

Related Articles


‘A family decision’: Cullen brothers commit to Gophers hockey


Pittsburgh pipeline brings talented L.J. Mooney to Gophers hockey


Myers: Big money signings the latest twist in college hockey’s new world


Motzko fills out Team USA’s World Juniors coaching staff


Gophers men’s hockey releases stacked nonconference schedule

Trump will highlight Apple’s plans to invest $100 billion more in US, raising total to $600 billion

posted in: All news | 0

By JOSH BOAK, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday is expected to celebrate at the White House a commitment by Apple to increase its U.S. investments by an additional $100 billion over the next four years.

“Today’s announcement with Apple is another win for our manufacturing industry that will simultaneously help reshore the production of critical components to protect America’s economic and national security,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers said.

Related Articles


Trump to put additional 25% import taxes on India, bringing combined tariffs to 50%


College applications rise outside US as Trump cracks down on international students


Protections of the Voting Rights Act are under threat as the law marks its 60th anniversary


Trump envoy Witkoff meets Putin ahead of Russia-Ukraine peace deadline, the Kremlin says


Toppled Confederate statue in DC to be replaced in line with Trump’s executive order

Apple had previously said it intended to invest $500 billion domestically, a figure it will now increase to $600 billion. Trump in recent months has criticized the tech company and its CEO, Tim Cook, for efforts to shift iPhone production to India to avoid the tariffs his Republican administration had planned for China.

While in Qatar earlier this year, Trump said there was “a little problem” with Apple and recalled a conversation with Cook in which he said he told the CEO, “I don’t want you building in India.”

India has incurred Trump’s wrath, as the president signed an order Wednesday to put an additional 25% tariff on the world’s most populous country for its use of Russian oil. The new import taxes to be imposed in 21 days could put the combined tariffs on Indian goods at 50%.

As part of the Apple announcement, the investments will be about bringing more of its supply chain and advanced manufacturing to the U.S.

Apple Inc., which is based in Cupertino, California, didn’t immediately comment Wednesday.

Bloomberg News first reported the announcement of Apple’s additional investment commitment.