In rural Northampton, North Carolina, a private Christian school called Northeast Academy is 99 percent White in a county that’s 40 percent White. It receives about half of its tuition from taxpayers, through the state’s private school voucher program. Northeast is one of a number of private schools known as “segregation academies,” because they were founded during desegregation so that White parents could avoid having their children educated in an integrated setting.
Segregation academies ought to be a thing of the past, but they could experience a resurgence—paid for with taxpayer dollars—under the new federal private school voucher scheme enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA). Bringing back segregation academies using taxpayer dollars is part of the Trump administration’s radical two-pronged approach to undermine public education. The first tactic in the Trump administration’s plan to undercut public school systems is to dramatically reduce the federal role in education by dismantling federal programs, reducing oversight, attempting to cut federal funding for K–12 schools, and working to close the U.S. Department of Education. The second tactic is actively working toward privatization through an unprecedented federal private school voucher program.
How the Voucher Plan Would Work . . .
In July 2025, OBBA established a new federal tax credit—known as the Education Freedom Tax Credit—that, in effect, serves as a private school voucher program. The program allows individuals, beginning January 1, 2027, to contribute up to $1,700 per year toward private entities known as scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) and receive a dollar-for-dollar return of their money in the form of a federal tax credit. SGOs then would then be able to decide how to distribute the funds as scholarships to applicant students for them to spend on education. There is no cap on the size of such scholarships, and no limit on the number of individuals that can claim the tax credit. While recipient students may be able to use scholarship funds to pay for some things like tutoring or activity fees at public schools, because public schools are essentially free, it is anticipated that the vast majority of these funds will go toward private school enrollment.
There are very few requirements of SGOs in the statute, and it appears that any organization in a participating state that meets the criteria will be allowed to participate. SGOs must give scholarships to ten or more students who do not all attend the same school, must spend at least 90 percent of the income on scholarships, must give priority to students who received scholarships the previous year and to siblings, cannot earmark funds for a particular student, and must ensure that students come from families earning no more than 300 percent of the area median gross income. Essentially everything else will likely be up to the SGO, as the program’s regulations are not expected to add additional guardrails. It appears an SGO could, for example, be set up to fund scholarships to Christian schools only. Because private schools are not subject to all of the same civil rights laws as public schools, SGOs could also likely discriminate against students based on disability or sexual orientation.
While starting the process with individual donations gives the program the veneer of a charity operation, this is a ruse. All this does is mask who is truly bearing the cost of the program. In actuality, the donors to SGOs bear no cost, as they are later fully reimbursed by the federal government through the dollar-for-dollar tax credit. The federal government—using taxpayer dollars sent to the supposed donors—bears the entire cost of the program. Estimates of the cost to taxpayers range from around $4 billion to over $50 billion annually.
Moreover, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s language regarding the tax credit program is very misleading. Their fact sheet states: “A recent report estimates that the Education Freedom Tax Credit will generate an additional $24 billion in education funding annually.” That makes it sound like this is a revenue-creating program rather than one that bears a huge federal cost.
States and the District of Columbia have to decide annually whether or not to opt out of or into the voucher program. As of July 6, 2026, twenty-nine states had indicated that they plan to opt in for the first year of the program. However, federal regulations guiding the program are not expected until September. Further complicating matters, at least eighteen states will have new governors and the District of Columbia will have a new mayor when the program launches in 2027 because of term limits, and that number could be as high as thirty-six after this fall’s elections.
. . . To Increase Segregation and Undermine Public Education
One of the dangers of private school voucher programs—alongside their well-demonstrated negative effects on students’ academic outcomes, civil rights violations, and destabilization of public school funding—is that they can exacerbate racial and socioeconomic segregation.
Diverse learning environments that bring students of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds together are one of the most powerful educational tools we have. Integrated schools help encourage critical thinking, boost academic achievement, and build the skills for working across lines of difference that are essential for our democracy. The growth of private school voucher programs threatens to roll back progress on integration, limit educational opportunity, and further fracture the educational landscape by race and class.
As state leaders and advocates weigh whether or not to opt into the federal voucher program, they should consider the evidence on how the program could deepen inequality and further racial and socioeconomic divides. New analysis in this piece shows that in some metro areas in states that are still deciding whether to opt out of or into the federal voucher program, private schools already drive more than 40 percent of the racial segregation in schools.
The Segregationist History of Private School Vouchers
Private school enrollment nationwide is disproportionately White and wealthy. As of 2021, 9 percent of American schoolchildren attended private schools. Sixty-five percent of private school students are White, compared to 45 percent of public school students. Private school students are about twice as likely as public school students to come from higher-income households, and private school attendance is concentrated among the highest earners.
Private school voucher programs were started by segregationists across the South in the 1950s and 1960s as part of efforts by Southern leaders engaged in “massive resistance” to avoid integrating their schools in the wake of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Many communities opened all-White private schools, which became known as segregation academies. Local governments slashed public school funding and instead created public subsidies for these private schools—including voucher programs to reimburse tuition as well as tax credits.
The courts eventually struck down many of those voucher programs tied to segregation academies, but current voucher programs still show troubling patterns of segregation. Roughly 300 private schools that were founded as segregation academies still receive money from publicly funded voucher programs. Most voucher money goes to students who are already attending private schools, and data has shown that private schools tend to raise their tuition after the introduction of voucher programs. For example, when Iowa started a new voucher program in 2023–24, two-thirds of vouchers went to students who were already attending private schools. By 2026, tuition at some of the state’s largest private high schools had grown by as much as 50 percent. It is important to note that vouchers typically do not cover the full cost of tuition, making private schools still out of reach for most low-income families, and so the voucher programs tend to function mostly as cost-reducing schemes for wealthier families sending their children to private schools. In Arizona, for example, half of all voucher recipients come from the wealthiest quartile of zip codes.
There are some private school voucher programs that target low- to middle-income students and enroll mostly students of color, such as the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the oldest operating school voucher program in the United States. However, research shows that even students in these programs, which arguably have the highest potential for integration, by and large did not give students greater access to integrated schools.
Furthermore, some voucher programs that started out serving mostly students of color have now seen an increase in White students in recent years. When North Carolina’s private school voucher program launched in 2014, for example, a majority of students receiving vouchers were Black, and just 27 percent were White; however, as the program expanded incrementally from one serving only low-income students to one with no income limits, the percentage of vouchers going to White students grew to 73 percent, in a state where only 51 percent of school-aged children are White. A 2024 investigation by ProPublica into North Carolina’s private school voucher program found thirty-nine schools that fit the profile of segregation academies that were receiving public money through voucher programs.
The new federal private school voucher program specifies that participation is open to families earning up to 300 percent of area median gross income, which means it would be open to roughly 90 percent of students nationwide. With near universal eligibility, the federal program could easily be susceptible to similar patterns of segregation, disproportionately benefiting White students and furthering segregation between public and private schools.
Data on Private School Segregation
We do not know what the impacts will be of this first-ever nationwide federal private school voucher program, and we may never know, because the law lacks basic reporting and academic accountability. For example, we may never have required reporting concerning demographics—how many students will participate, what their backgrounds will be, and what types of private schools they will be attending. We do know, however, that Americans are skeptical of plans to take money away from public schools and give it to private schools. A May 2026 Century Foundation poll of 2,002 registered voters, conducted by Morning Consult, found that a majority of Americans (62 percent), including a majority of Republicans (53 percent), see “privatization—taking money away from public schools and giving it to private schools”— as a problem in K–12 education today.
We can also predict the effects of this program by measuring how private schools already shape segregation in each state. Before opting into a program that will send public money to private schools in their states, leaders should look closely at the existing patterns of segregation in their private school landscape.
The Century Foundation published a first-of-its-kind analysis in 2022 in partnership with the Segregation Explorer providing measures of school segregation for all 403 metro areas across the country, broken down by contributing factors. The total segregation among all schools in a metro area can be conceptualized as the sum of multiple types of segregation: segregation between public and private schools, segregation among private schools, segregation between public school districts; and segregation between public schools within a district. This analysis used data from the 2017–18 school year (the most recent available at the time). Because federal data sets do not include socioeconomic data for private schools, the analyses including private schools looked at racial segregation only.
Nationwide, the biggest drivers of school segregation are segregation between public school districts and among public schools within districts. However, private schools contribute as well, accounting for an average of 12 percent of school segregation between White and non-White students across all metro areas–combining both the segregation occurring among private schools, and the segregation between private schools and public schools. Importantly, in certain metro areas, the share is much larger.
Table 1 shows the top examples of school segregation that is driven by private schools across metro areas in each state. In forty states plus the District of Columbia, there is at least one metro area where private schools drive more than 10 percent of the segregation, and in thirty-two states there is at least one example of private schools accounting for more than 20 percent of segregation. Private school segregation is negligible in just a small group of states, which tend to have predominantly White student populations (such as Maine, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming).
After Table 1 are additional examples of how private schools are already significant contributors toward racial segregation in a number of states where participation in the federal tax credit school voucher program is not yet settled. These examples and the data in Table 1 should deter leaders from opting into a program that would send public money to private schools with a record of contributing to high levels of segregation.
What Is at Stake
In June, the U.S. Department of the Treasury previewed regulations for the federal voucher program, which are expected to be released by the end of September. Based on that preview, and the text of the law itself, it does not appear that states will be able to restrict the funds by sector, put up guardrails to protect against civil rights violations, or address the potential impact on already high levels of segregation. While there is conversation on the left about how the tax credits could be used to support public schools, such as through funding afterschool or tutoring programs, it is very clear that the policy is primarily a private school voucher program. If a state opts in, they will be opening the door to all private schools to participate. The history of private school voucher programs and current patterns in private school segregation show just how risky that move would be. Given existing patterns of segregation, governors should opt out of the federal voucher scheme, recommit to the promise of Brown, and invest in educational opportunities that are available to all students.
| Table 1. Metro Areas with the Highest Share of Private School-Driven School Segregation in Each State |
| State |
Metro Area |
School Segregation Measure |
Portion of Segregation Caused by Private Schools |
| Alabama |
Auburn–Opelika, AL |
White–Non-White |
22% |
| Alabama |
Montgomery, AL |
White–Non-White |
19% |
| Alabama |
Huntsville, AL |
White–Non-White |
17% |
| Alabama |
Birmingham-Hoover, AL* |
White–Non-White |
6% |
| Alaska |
Fairbanks, AK |
White–Non-White |
9% |
| Alaska |
Anchorage, AK |
White–American Indian |
4% |
| Arizona |
Yuma, AZ |
White–Non-White |
30% |
| Arizona |
Prescott Valley–Prescott, AZ |
White–Non-White |
27% |
| Arizona |
Tucson, AZ |
White–Non-White |
9% |
| Arizona |
Phoenix–Mesa–Chandler, AZ* |
White–Non-White |
5% |
| Arkansas |
Fayetteville–Springdale–Rogers, AR |
White–Asian |
12% |
| Arkansas |
Little Rock–North Little Rock-Conway, AR |
White–Non-White |
10% |
| Arkansas |
Hot Springs, AR |
White–Hispanic |
4% |
| California |
Napa, CA |
White–Hispanic |
62% |
| California |
San Francisco–San Mateo–Redwood City, CA |
White–Non-White |
47% |
| California |
San Jose–Sunnyvale–Santa Clara, CA |
White–Non-White |
36% |
| California |
Los Angeles–Long Beach–Glendale, CA* |
White–Non-White |
31% |
| Colorado |
Fort Collins, CO |
White–Non-White |
8% |
| Colorado |
Grand Junction, CO |
White–Non-White |
7% |
| Colorado |
Boulder, CO |
White–Non-White |
7% |
| Colorado |
Denver–Aurora–Lakewood, CO* |
White–Non-White |
6% |
| Connecticut |
Bridgeport–Stamford–Norwalk, CT |
White–Asian |
27% |
| Connecticut |
New Haven–Milford, CT |
White–Asian |
25% |
| Connecticut |
Hartford–East Hartford–Middletown, CT |
White–Asian |
6% |
| Delaware |
Wilmington, DE–MD–NJ |
White–Asian |
27% |
| Delaware |
Dover, DE |
White–Non-White |
20% |
| District of Columbia |
Washington–Arlington–Alexandria, DC–VA–MD–WV |
White–Non-White |
12% |
| Florida |
Miami–Miami Beach–Kendall, FL |
White–Hispanic |
63% |
| Florida |
West Palm Beach–Boca Raton–Boynton Beach, FL |
White–Asian |
49% |
| Florida |
Fort Lauderdale–Pompano Beach–Sunrise, FL |
White–Non-White |
49% |
| Florida |
Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater, FL* |
White–Asian |
20% |
| Georgia |
Savannah, GA |
White–Hispanic |
48% |
| Georgia |
Macon–Bibb County, GA |
White–Black |
19% |
| Georgia |
Hinesville, GA |
White–Hispanic |
15% |
| Georgia |
Atlanta–Sandy Springs–Alpharetta, GA* |
White–Non-White |
14% |
| Hawaii |
Urban Honolulu, HI |
White–Non-White |
27% |
| Idaho |
Coeur d’Alene, ID |
White–Non-White |
29% |
| Idaho |
Boise City, ID |
White–Non-White |
15% |
| Idaho |
Idaho Falls, ID |
White–Non-White |
15% |
| Illinois |
Champaign–Urbana, IL |
White–Hispanic |
27% |
| Illinois |
Chicago–Naperville–Evanston, IL |
White–Asian |
18% |
| Illinois |
Rockford, IL |
White–Hispanic |
12% |
| Indiana |
Terre Haute, IN |
White–Non-White |
21% |
| Indiana |
Columbus, IN |
White–Hispanic |
20% |
| Indiana |
South Bend–Mishawaka, IN–MI |
White–Hispanic |
20% |
| Indiana |
Indianapolis–Carmel–Anderson, IN* |
White–Asian |
12% |
| Iowa |
Ames, IA |
White–Non-White |
23% |
| Iowa |
Dubuque, IA |
White–Non-White |
13% |
| Iowa |
Des Moines–West Des Moines, IA |
White–Asian |
9% |
| Kansas |
Wichita, KS |
White–Hispanic |
8% |
| Kansas |
Lawrence, KS |
White–Non-White |
8% |
| Kansas |
Topeka, KS |
White–Hispanic |
7% |
| Kentucky |
Louisville/Jefferson County, KY–IN |
White–Hispanic |
18% |
| Kentucky |
Lexington–Fayette, KY |
White–Non-White |
12% |
| Kentucky |
Owensboro, KY |
White–Non-White |
8% |
| Louisiana |
Hammond, LA |
White–Non-White |
34% |
| Louisiana |
New Orleans–Metairie, LA |
White–Asian |
32% |
| Louisiana |
Houma–Thibodaux, LA |
White–Non-White |
28% |
| Maine |
Lewiston–Auburn, ME |
White–Non-White |
3% |
| Maine |
Portland–South Portland, ME |
White–Non-White |
2% |
| Maryland |
Salisbury, MD–DE |
White–Non-White |
23% |
| Maryland |
Frederick–Gaithersburg–Rockville, MD |
White–Non-White |
19% |
| Maryland |
Baltimore–Columbia–Towson, MD |
White–Non-White |
15% |
| Massachusetts |
Pittsfield, MA |
White–Non-White |
19% |
| Massachusetts |
Cambridge–Newton–Framingham, MA |
White–Asian |
17% |
| Massachusetts |
Worcester, MA–CT |
White–Asian |
13% |
| Michigan |
Grand Rapids–Kentwood, MI |
White–Asian |
18% |
| Michigan |
Niles, MI |
White–Non-White |
13% |
| Michigan |
Warren–Troy–Farmington Hills, MI |
White–Asian |
8% |
| Minnesota |
Mankato, MN |
White–Non-White |
14% |
| Minnesota |
Minneapolis–St. Paul–Bloomington, MN–WI |
White–Hispanic |
11% |
| Minnesota |
St. Cloud, MN |
White–Non-White |
6% |
| Mississippi |
Jackson, MS |
White–Non-White |
23% |
| Mississippi |
Hattiesburg, MS |
White–Non-White |
10% |
| Mississippi |
Gulfport–Biloxi, MS |
White–Non-White |
6% |
| Missouri |
Columbia, MO |
White–Non-White |
38% |
| Missouri |
St. Louis, MO–IL |
White–Hispanic |
28% |
| Missouri |
Springfield, MO |
White–Non-White |
22% |
| Montana |
Missoula, MT |
White–Non-White |
23% |
| Montana |
Great Falls, MT |
White–Non-White |
12% |
| Montana |
Billings, MT |
White–Non-White |
6% |
| Nebraska |
Lincoln, NE |
White–Hispanic |
15% |
| Nebraska |
Omaha–Council Bluffs, NE–IA |
White–Non-White |
8% |
| Nebraska |
Grand Island, NE |
White–Hispanic |
3% |
| Nevada |
Carson City, NV |
White–Non-White |
26% |
| Nevada |
Las Vegas–Henderson–Paradise, NV |
White–Non-White |
14% |
| Nevada |
Reno, NV |
White–Hispanic |
9% |
| New Hampshire |
Rockingham County–Strafford County, NH |
White–Non-White |
44% |
| New Hampshire |
Manchester–Nashua, NH |
White–Hispanic |
4% |
| New Jersey |
New Brunswick–Lakewood, NJ |
White–Non-White |
21% |
| New Jersey |
Trenton–Princeton, NJ |
White–Non-White |
19% |
| New Jersey |
Atlantic City–Hammonton, NJ |
White–Non-White |
14% |
| New Mexico |
Santa Fe, NM |
White–Hispanic |
40% |
| New Mexico |
Albuquerque, NM |
White–Hispanic |
21% |
| New Mexico |
Farmington, NM |
White–Hispanic |
14% |
| New York |
New York–Jersey City–White Plains, NY–NJ |
White–Non-White |
41% |
| New York |
Poughkeepsie–Newburgh–Middletown, NY |
White–Non-White |
29% |
| New York |
Buffalo–Cheektowaga, NY |
White–Asian |
15% |
| North Carolina |
Rocky Mount, NC |
White–Non-White |
32% |
| North Carolina |
Greenville, NC |
White–Non-White |
26% |
| North Carolina |
New Bern, NC |
White–Non-White |
25% |
| North Carolina |
Charlotte–Concord–Gastonia, NC–SC* |
White–Asian |
8% |
| North Dakota |
Bismarck, ND |
White–Non-White |
55% |
| North Dakota |
Fargo, ND–MN |
White–Non-White |
8% |
| North Dakota |
Grand Forks, ND–MN |
White–Non-White |
6% |
| Ohio |
Toledo, OH |
White–Hispanic |
23% |
| Ohio |
Cleveland–Elyria, OH |
White–Asian |
17% |
| Ohio |
Cincinnati, OH–KY–IN |
White–Non-White |
10% |
| Oklahoma |
Oklahoma City, OK |
White–Asian |
33% |
| Oklahoma |
Tulsa, OK |
White–Non-White |
15% |
| Oklahoma |
Enid, OK |
White–Hispanic |
5% |
| Oregon |
Medford, OR |
White–Hispanic |
17% |
| Oregon |
Corvallis, OR |
White–Hispanic |
15% |
| Oregon |
Grants Pass, OR |
White–Non-White |
14% |
| Oregon |
Portland–Vancouver–Hillsboro, OR–WA* |
White–Black |
13% |
| Pennsylvania |
Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton, PA–NJ |
White–Asian |
59% |
| Pennsylvania |
Pittsburgh, PA |
White–Asian |
41% |
| Pennsylvania |
Gettysburg, PA |
White–Hispanic |
33% |
| Rhode Island |
Providence–Warwick, RI–MA |
White–Asian |
9% |
| South Carolina |
Sumter, SC |
White–Non-White |
61% |
| South Carolina |
Hilton Head Island–Bluffton, SC |
White–Non-White |
38% |
| South Carolina |
Florence, SC |
White–Non-White |
34% |
| South Carolina |
Greenville–Anderson, SC* |
White–Non-White |
9% |
| South Dakota |
Rapid City, SD |
White–Non-White |
6% |
| South Dakota |
Sioux Falls, SD |
White–Non-White |
2% |
| Tennessee |
Memphis, TN–MS–AR |
White–Asian |
52% |
| Tennessee |
Jackson, TN |
White–Non-White |
13% |
| Tennessee |
Nashville–Davidson–Murfreesboro–Franklin, TN |
White–Non-White |
8% |
| Texas |
Victoria, TX |
White–Hispanic |
45% |
| Texas |
Midland, TX |
White–Hispanic |
43% |
| Texas |
El Paso, TX |
White–Non-White |
25% |
| Texas |
Houston–The Woodlands–Sugar Land, TX* |
White–Non-White |
13% |
| Utah |
Salt Lake City, UT |
White–Black |
5% |
| Utah |
Provo–Orem, UT |
White–Non-White |
2% |
| Utah |
Ogden–Clearfield, UT |
White–Non-White |
2% |
| Vermont |
Burlington–South Burlington, VT |
White–Non-White |
1% |
| Virginia |
Virginia Beach–Norfolk–Newport News, VA–NC |
White–Asian |
14% |
| Virginia |
Charlottesville, VA |
White–Hispanic |
10% |
| Virginia |
Richmond, VA |
White–Non-White |
9% |
| Washington |
Bellingham, WA |
White–Non-White |
41% |
| Washington |
Walla Walla, WA |
White–Non-White |
30% |
| Washington |
Spokane–Spokane Valley, WA |
White–Non-White |
21% |
| Washington |
Seattle–Bellevue–Kent, WA* |
White–Non-White |
13% |
| West Virginia |
Beckley, WV |
White–Non-White |
3% |
| West Virginia |
Morgantown, WV |
White–Non-White |
2% |
| West Virginia |
Charleston, WV |
White–Non-White |
2% |
| Wisconsin |
Fond du Lac, WI |
White–Non-White |
35% |
| Wisconsin |
Milwaukee–Waukesha, WI |
White–Hispanic |
23% |
| Wisconsin |
La Crosse–Onalaska, WI–MN |
White–Non-White |
15% |
| Wyoming |
Casper, WY |
White–Non-White |
4% |
| Wyoming |
Cheyenne, WY |
White–Hispanic |
3% |
|
Data source: “School Segregation in Cities Across America Mapped,” The Century Foundation, 2022, “https://tcf.org/content/data/school-segregation-in-cities-across-america-mapped/.
Note: This table includes the top three metro areas in each state with the highest share of school segregation driven by private schools (combining segregation among private schools with segregation between public and private schools), looking across five different measures of racial segregation (White versus Black, White versus Hispanic, White versus Asian, White versus American Indian, and White versus Non-White), and limiting to examples where each of the racial groups being compared includes at least 5,000 students or at least 10 percent of the metro’s total enrollment. In cases where the state’s largest Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) did not make the top three examples for the state, it has been added as a fourth example indicated by an asterisk (*). Some states had fewer than three metro areas with sufficient student population sizes to meet the criteria for inclusion.
|
New York and New Jersey
Governor of New York Kathy Hochul (D) has not made a final decision on whether the state will opt in, indicating that her office is awaiting more details from the Trump administration, to “thoroughly review the details of the policy for poison pills that could harm New York’s education system.” The threat of exacerbating the state’s already high levels of school segregation makes the program itself a large poison pill. New Jersey’s governor, Mikie Sherrill (D), has not yet commented. Both would do well to consider the state of private school segregation in the New York City–Jersey City–White Plains metro area: this metro area has the eleventh-highest rates of segregation between White students and non-White students nationwide, and 41 percent of this segregation is due to private schools. If either state opts in, public dollars would begin flowing into one of the country’s most segregated private school markets.
California
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has not announced yet whether or not California will participate. The Los Angeles metro area is the eighth-most segregated metro area for Hispanic versus White students, and 30 percent of the segregation between White and Hispanic students is due to private schools. Likewise, the Napa metro area falls in the top quartile of metros for Hispanic–White school segregation, and private schools are the largest driver of that segregation, accounting for 62 percent.
Pennsylvania
Governor Josh Shapiro (D) has not made an announcement. Metro Philadelphia has the ninth-highest level of Black–White segregation in the country, and 22 percent of that segregation is caused by private schools. And in the Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton metro and Metro Pittsburgh, more than 40 percent of the segregation between White and Asian students is caused by private schools.
New Mexico
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) has not yet announced whether the state will participate. Santa Fe metro area has relatively high levels of segregation between White and Hispanic students, falling in the top third of all metro areas. Private schools account for 40 percent of this segregation. And in Metro Albuquerque, 21 percent of White-Hispanic segregation is due to private schools.
Hawaii
Governor Josh Green (D) initially indicated that Hawaii would decline to participate but has since indicated that the state is still deciding. The Urban Honolulu metro area has some of the highest levels of segregation between White and Asian students, ranking 21 out of 403 nationally; 21 percent of this segregation is caused by private schools.
Delaware
Governor Matt Meyer (D) has not made an announcement about whether or not Delaware will participate. The Wilmington metro area (which also includes parts of Maryland and New Jersey) has above-average segregation between White and non-White students, and 19 percent of that segregation is driven by private schools.
Maryland
Governor Wes Moore (D) has not made an announcement about participation. The Baltimore–Columbia–Towson metro area has the thirty-fourth-highest level of Black-White segregation in the country, and 11 percent of this segregation is due to private schools. Moreover, in the Salisbury metro area (which also extends into Delaware) as well as the Frederick–Gaithersburg–Rockville metro, private schools drive roughly one-fifth of the segregation between White and non-White students.
Tags: school segregation, private school vouchers, OBBA
A New Federal Voucher Program Poised to Ramp Up School Segregation
In rural Northampton, North Carolina, a private Christian school called Northeast Academy is 99 percent White in a county that’s 40 percent White. It receives about half of its tuition from taxpayers, through the state’s private school voucher program. Northeast is one of a number of private schools known as “segregation academies,” because they were founded during desegregation so that White parents could avoid having their children educated in an integrated setting.
Segregation academies ought to be a thing of the past, but they could experience a resurgence—paid for with taxpayer dollars—under the new federal private school voucher scheme enacted as part of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA). Bringing back segregation academies using taxpayer dollars is part of the Trump administration’s radical two-pronged approach to undermine public education. The first tactic in the Trump administration’s plan to undercut public school systems is to dramatically reduce the federal role in education by dismantling federal programs, reducing oversight, attempting to cut federal funding for K–12 schools, and working to close the U.S. Department of Education. The second tactic is actively working toward privatization through an unprecedented federal private school voucher program.
How the Voucher Plan Would Work . . .
In July 2025, OBBA established a new federal tax credit—known as the Education Freedom Tax Credit—that, in effect, serves as a private school voucher program. The program allows individuals, beginning January 1, 2027, to contribute up to $1,700 per year toward private entities known as scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) and receive a dollar-for-dollar return of their money in the form of a federal tax credit. SGOs then would then be able to decide how to distribute the funds as scholarships to applicant students for them to spend on education. There is no cap on the size of such scholarships, and no limit on the number of individuals that can claim the tax credit. While recipient students may be able to use scholarship funds to pay for some things like tutoring or activity fees at public schools, because public schools are essentially free, it is anticipated that the vast majority of these funds will go toward private school enrollment.
There are very few requirements of SGOs in the statute, and it appears that any organization in a participating state that meets the criteria will be allowed to participate. SGOs must give scholarships to ten or more students who do not all attend the same school, must spend at least 90 percent of the income on scholarships, must give priority to students who received scholarships the previous year and to siblings, cannot earmark funds for a particular student, and must ensure that students come from families earning no more than 300 percent of the area median gross income. Essentially everything else will likely be up to the SGO, as the program’s regulations are not expected to add additional guardrails. It appears an SGO could, for example, be set up to fund scholarships to Christian schools only. Because private schools are not subject to all of the same civil rights laws as public schools, SGOs could also likely discriminate against students based on disability or sexual orientation.
While starting the process with individual donations gives the program the veneer of a charity operation, this is a ruse. All this does is mask who is truly bearing the cost of the program. In actuality, the donors to SGOs bear no cost, as they are later fully reimbursed by the federal government through the dollar-for-dollar tax credit. The federal government—using taxpayer dollars sent to the supposed donors—bears the entire cost of the program. Estimates of the cost to taxpayers range from around $4 billion to over $50 billion annually.
Moreover, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s language regarding the tax credit program is very misleading. Their fact sheet states: “A recent report estimates that the Education Freedom Tax Credit will generate an additional $24 billion in education funding annually.” That makes it sound like this is a revenue-creating program rather than one that bears a huge federal cost.
States and the District of Columbia have to decide annually whether or not to opt out of or into the voucher program. As of July 6, 2026, twenty-nine states had indicated that they plan to opt in for the first year of the program. However, federal regulations guiding the program are not expected until September. Further complicating matters, at least eighteen states will have new governors and the District of Columbia will have a new mayor when the program launches in 2027 because of term limits, and that number could be as high as thirty-six after this fall’s elections.
. . . To Increase Segregation and Undermine Public Education
One of the dangers of private school voucher programs—alongside their well-demonstrated negative effects on students’ academic outcomes, civil rights violations, and destabilization of public school funding—is that they can exacerbate racial and socioeconomic segregation.
Diverse learning environments that bring students of different racial and socioeconomic backgrounds together are one of the most powerful educational tools we have. Integrated schools help encourage critical thinking, boost academic achievement, and build the skills for working across lines of difference that are essential for our democracy. The growth of private school voucher programs threatens to roll back progress on integration, limit educational opportunity, and further fracture the educational landscape by race and class.
As state leaders and advocates weigh whether or not to opt into the federal voucher program, they should consider the evidence on how the program could deepen inequality and further racial and socioeconomic divides. New analysis in this piece shows that in some metro areas in states that are still deciding whether to opt out of or into the federal voucher program, private schools already drive more than 40 percent of the racial segregation in schools.
The Segregationist History of Private School Vouchers
Private school enrollment nationwide is disproportionately White and wealthy. As of 2021, 9 percent of American schoolchildren attended private schools. Sixty-five percent of private school students are White, compared to 45 percent of public school students. Private school students are about twice as likely as public school students to come from higher-income households, and private school attendance is concentrated among the highest earners.
Private school voucher programs were started by segregationists across the South in the 1950s and 1960s as part of efforts by Southern leaders engaged in “massive resistance” to avoid integrating their schools in the wake of the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling. Many communities opened all-White private schools, which became known as segregation academies. Local governments slashed public school funding and instead created public subsidies for these private schools—including voucher programs to reimburse tuition as well as tax credits.
The courts eventually struck down many of those voucher programs tied to segregation academies, but current voucher programs still show troubling patterns of segregation. Roughly 300 private schools that were founded as segregation academies still receive money from publicly funded voucher programs. Most voucher money goes to students who are already attending private schools, and data has shown that private schools tend to raise their tuition after the introduction of voucher programs. For example, when Iowa started a new voucher program in 2023–24, two-thirds of vouchers went to students who were already attending private schools. By 2026, tuition at some of the state’s largest private high schools had grown by as much as 50 percent. It is important to note that vouchers typically do not cover the full cost of tuition, making private schools still out of reach for most low-income families, and so the voucher programs tend to function mostly as cost-reducing schemes for wealthier families sending their children to private schools. In Arizona, for example, half of all voucher recipients come from the wealthiest quartile of zip codes.
There are some private school voucher programs that target low- to middle-income students and enroll mostly students of color, such as the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, the oldest operating school voucher program in the United States. However, research shows that even students in these programs, which arguably have the highest potential for integration, by and large did not give students greater access to integrated schools.
Furthermore, some voucher programs that started out serving mostly students of color have now seen an increase in White students in recent years. When North Carolina’s private school voucher program launched in 2014, for example, a majority of students receiving vouchers were Black, and just 27 percent were White; however, as the program expanded incrementally from one serving only low-income students to one with no income limits, the percentage of vouchers going to White students grew to 73 percent, in a state where only 51 percent of school-aged children are White. A 2024 investigation by ProPublica into North Carolina’s private school voucher program found thirty-nine schools that fit the profile of segregation academies that were receiving public money through voucher programs.
The new federal private school voucher program specifies that participation is open to families earning up to 300 percent of area median gross income, which means it would be open to roughly 90 percent of students nationwide. With near universal eligibility, the federal program could easily be susceptible to similar patterns of segregation, disproportionately benefiting White students and furthering segregation between public and private schools.
Data on Private School Segregation
We do not know what the impacts will be of this first-ever nationwide federal private school voucher program, and we may never know, because the law lacks basic reporting and academic accountability. For example, we may never have required reporting concerning demographics—how many students will participate, what their backgrounds will be, and what types of private schools they will be attending. We do know, however, that Americans are skeptical of plans to take money away from public schools and give it to private schools. A May 2026 Century Foundation poll of 2,002 registered voters, conducted by Morning Consult, found that a majority of Americans (62 percent), including a majority of Republicans (53 percent), see “privatization—taking money away from public schools and giving it to private schools”— as a problem in K–12 education today.1
We can also predict the effects of this program by measuring how private schools already shape segregation in each state. Before opting into a program that will send public money to private schools in their states, leaders should look closely at the existing patterns of segregation in their private school landscape.
The Century Foundation published a first-of-its-kind analysis in 2022 in partnership with the Segregation Explorer providing measures of school segregation for all 403 metro areas across the country, broken down by contributing factors. The total segregation among all schools in a metro area can be conceptualized as the sum of multiple types of segregation: segregation between public and private schools, segregation among private schools, segregation between public school districts; and segregation between public schools within a district. This analysis used data from the 2017–18 school year (the most recent available at the time). Because federal data sets do not include socioeconomic data for private schools, the analyses including private schools looked at racial segregation only.
Nationwide, the biggest drivers of school segregation are segregation between public school districts and among public schools within districts. However, private schools contribute as well, accounting for an average of 12 percent of school segregation between White and non-White students across all metro areas–combining both the segregation occurring among private schools, and the segregation between private schools and public schools. Importantly, in certain metro areas, the share is much larger.
Table 1 shows the top examples of school segregation that is driven by private schools across metro areas in each state. In forty states plus the District of Columbia, there is at least one metro area where private schools drive more than 10 percent of the segregation, and in thirty-two states there is at least one example of private schools accounting for more than 20 percent of segregation. Private school segregation is negligible in just a small group of states, which tend to have predominantly White student populations (such as Maine, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming).
After Table 1 are additional examples of how private schools are already significant contributors toward racial segregation in a number of states where participation in the federal tax credit school voucher program is not yet settled. These examples and the data in Table 1 should deter leaders from opting into a program that would send public money to private schools with a record of contributing to high levels of segregation.
What Is at Stake
In June, the U.S. Department of the Treasury previewed regulations for the federal voucher program, which are expected to be released by the end of September. Based on that preview, and the text of the law itself, it does not appear that states will be able to restrict the funds by sector, put up guardrails to protect against civil rights violations, or address the potential impact on already high levels of segregation. While there is conversation on the left about how the tax credits could be used to support public schools, such as through funding afterschool or tutoring programs, it is very clear that the policy is primarily a private school voucher program. If a state opts in, they will be opening the door to all private schools to participate. The history of private school voucher programs and current patterns in private school segregation show just how risky that move would be. Given existing patterns of segregation, governors should opt out of the federal voucher scheme, recommit to the promise of Brown, and invest in educational opportunities that are available to all students.
Data source: “School Segregation in Cities Across America Mapped,” The Century Foundation, 2022, “https://tcf.org/content/data/school-segregation-in-cities-across-america-mapped/.
Note: This table includes the top three metro areas in each state with the highest share of school segregation driven by private schools (combining segregation among private schools with segregation between public and private schools), looking across five different measures of racial segregation (White versus Black, White versus Hispanic, White versus Asian, White versus American Indian, and White versus Non-White), and limiting to examples where each of the racial groups being compared includes at least 5,000 students or at least 10 percent of the metro’s total enrollment. In cases where the state’s largest Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) did not make the top three examples for the state, it has been added as a fourth example indicated by an asterisk (*). Some states had fewer than three metro areas with sufficient student population sizes to meet the criteria for inclusion.
New York and New Jersey
Governor of New York Kathy Hochul (D) has not made a final decision on whether the state will opt in, indicating that her office is awaiting more details from the Trump administration, to “thoroughly review the details of the policy for poison pills that could harm New York’s education system.” The threat of exacerbating the state’s already high levels of school segregation makes the program itself a large poison pill. New Jersey’s governor, Mikie Sherrill (D), has not yet commented. Both would do well to consider the state of private school segregation in the New York City–Jersey City–White Plains metro area: this metro area has the eleventh-highest rates of segregation between White students and non-White students nationwide, and 41 percent of this segregation is due to private schools. If either state opts in, public dollars would begin flowing into one of the country’s most segregated private school markets.
California
Governor Gavin Newsom (D) has not announced yet whether or not California will participate. The Los Angeles metro area is the eighth-most segregated metro area for Hispanic versus White students, and 30 percent of the segregation between White and Hispanic students is due to private schools. Likewise, the Napa metro area falls in the top quartile of metros for Hispanic–White school segregation, and private schools are the largest driver of that segregation, accounting for 62 percent.
Pennsylvania
Governor Josh Shapiro (D) has not made an announcement. Metro Philadelphia has the ninth-highest level of Black–White segregation in the country, and 22 percent of that segregation is caused by private schools. And in the Allentown–Bethlehem–Easton metro and Metro Pittsburgh, more than 40 percent of the segregation between White and Asian students is caused by private schools.
New Mexico
Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham (D) has not yet announced whether the state will participate. Santa Fe metro area has relatively high levels of segregation between White and Hispanic students, falling in the top third of all metro areas. Private schools account for 40 percent of this segregation. And in Metro Albuquerque, 21 percent of White-Hispanic segregation is due to private schools.
Hawaii
Governor Josh Green (D) initially indicated that Hawaii would decline to participate but has since indicated that the state is still deciding. The Urban Honolulu metro area has some of the highest levels of segregation between White and Asian students, ranking 21 out of 403 nationally; 21 percent of this segregation is caused by private schools.
Delaware
Governor Matt Meyer (D) has not made an announcement about whether or not Delaware will participate. The Wilmington metro area (which also includes parts of Maryland and New Jersey) has above-average segregation between White and non-White students, and 19 percent of that segregation is driven by private schools.
Maryland
Governor Wes Moore (D) has not made an announcement about participation. The Baltimore–Columbia–Towson metro area has the thirty-fourth-highest level of Black-White segregation in the country, and 11 percent of this segregation is due to private schools. Moreover, in the Salisbury metro area (which also extends into Delaware) as well as the Frederick–Gaithersburg–Rockville metro, private schools drive roughly one-fifth of the segregation between White and non-White students.
Notes
Tags: school segregation, private school vouchers, OBBA