Gary Humble
Gary Humble is the Founder and Chairman of the Board of Tennessee Stands, an organization working to secure liberty and hold elected officials accountable to the Constitution through legislation, litigation, and education. Follow Gary @garyhumble and visit www.tennesseestands.org.
When promises disappear, the voucher mirage will cost us all.
As Tennessee looks ahead to the 114th General Assembly, speculation is swirling that Governor Bill Lee might call a special session to address school choice, his hallmark initiative. While no special session has been officially announced, it’s clear that school choice will take center stage in the Governor’s legislative agenda for the upcoming session. This possibility comes on the heels of Tennessee’s pilot voucher program, which was intended to provide measurable outcomes but has instead revealed lackluster results, raising questions about the wisdom of expanding a program that isn’t delivering on its promises.
Setting His Own Agenda
Our state constitution certainly gives the governor the authority to call for a special session and set the agenda for the legislature. But, I would submit that such an action, in this case, undermines both the spirit and the letter of the Tennessee Constitution. Article III, Section 9 of the state’s constitution explicitly grants the governor the power to convene a special session “on extraordinary occasions.” This language is not arbitrary. It establishes a high bar—one that implies urgency or emergency, not a preference for advancing pet projects.
To be clear, school choice, no matter how passionately debated, is not an emergency. Calling a special session to discuss such legislation is an abuse of executive authority and circumvents the ordinary deliberative process of governance. Tennessee’s General Assembly operates within a framework of regular sessions precisely so that legislative matters can be addressed transparently, with full public engagement. A special session on school choice would bypass this system, condensing a complex issue into a rushed, likely one-week deliberation. And perhaps, that is precisely the point – less chatter and more ramming unwanted legislation down our throats.
Many state constitutions give their governor this authority to call for a special session. State courts have consistently declined to weigh in by interpreting phrases like “extraordinary occasions,” declaring that this executive power should not be interfered with by the judiciary. Imagine that, a court determining to stay in its own lane. This has left us with governors interpreting this power very broadly. And Bill Lee is no stranger to attempting to use this constitutional power to his own advantage.
Regulations and the Voucher Debate
Adding fuel to this fire is the rhetoric from Corey DeAngelis, the self-proclaimed “school choice evangelist.” (recently disgraced for reported participating in gay porn videos) DeAngelis’s recent dismissals of legitimate concerns about the regulatory strings attached to voucher programs are a masterclass in intellectual dishonesty. He’s accused opponents of fearmongering, claiming that worries about increased regulations on private schools are baseless. Yet, a 2018 article he authored for the Cato Institute tells a very different story.
In that article, DeAngelis openly acknowledged that high-quality private schools often avoid participating in voucher programs because of the “burdensome government regulations” attached to them. He noted that these schools fear losing autonomy and the ability to operate independently. Furthermore, he pointed out that it’s typically lower-quality private schools—those desperate for funding—that opt into these programs. In his own words, “voucher program regulations likely reduce the average quality of private schools that are available to students using vouchers.” This is a far cry from the rosy picture he paints today.
The inconsistency is glaring. On one hand, DeAngelis admits that regulations deter quality private schools from participating in voucher programs. On the other, he now brushes off these concerns as irrelevant. This doublespeak undermines his credibility and raises serious questions about the long-term impact of school choice policies. If government regulations are already a barrier, what happens when these programs expand, and the state demands even greater oversight in the name of “accountability?”
With Shekels Come Shackles
History provides ample evidence of what happens when private institutions accept public money. The principle is simple. He who pays the piper calls the tune. Once a school accepts voucher funding, it opens the door to government mandates. Today’s promise of freedom can quickly become tomorrow’s chains.
Consider the cautionary tales from other nations and other states. In Sweden, a universal school choice program initially promised greater parental control and competition. Two decades later, private schools were effectively nationalized, forced to comply with a government curriculum that eradicated genuine choice. Similar patterns have emerged in Australia, Canada, and South Africa. In each case, government funding brought increased regulations, stripping private schools of their distinctiveness.
Even here in America, we see warning signs. Florida’s recent voucher expansion bill included requirements for students to take government-mandated tests and meet with “choice navigators” to assess their educational needs. Although grassroots pressure removed some of the worst provisions, the underlying threat remains. Government funding inevitably invites government control.
In Tennessee, we cannot afford to repeat these mistakes. Private schools and homeschools thrive precisely because they operate independently of the bureaucratic morass that plagues public education. Introducing public funding—even under the guise of choice—threatens to erode this independence.
The Pilot Program
Tennessee’s current voucher program, implemented as a pilot in Davidson, Hamilton, and Shelby counties, was designed to allow us to weigh its results before committing to a broader rollout. This approach was supposed to ensure that taxpayer dollars were spent wisely and that the program could demonstrate clear benefits for participating students. However, the most recent test scores from 2024 reveal a troubling reality. ESA students are not outperforming their peers in public schools. In fact, the results suggest that the program is failing to deliver on its promises of improved educational outcomes.
Only 18.7% of students receiving voucher dollars in Shelby County are meeting or exceeding expectations in math proficiency, 1.3 points behind public school students.
Despite these underwhelming results, Tennessee taxpayers are footing the bill for a program that does not appear to work. This raises a critical question. If the pilot isn’t producing measurable success, why would we double down on expanding it? Continuing to pour money into a failing initiative isn’t just fiscally irresponsible—it’s a betrayal of the trust Tennesseans place in their elected officials to prioritize effective solutions. The pilot program was meant to be a test, not a guarantee of perpetual funding. Now is the time to reevaluate, address the root issues in public education, and consider whether vouchers are truly the solution—or just an expensive experiment at the taxpayers’ expense.
The Financial and Moral Costs
Beyond the regulatory concerns, the proposed school choice measures carry significant financial implications. Estimates suggest that Tennessee’s Education Savings Account (ESA) program will add $140 million to the state budget in its first year, moving only 2% of public school students into private schools. This is not fiscally conservative policy; it’s an entitlement program masquerading as reform.
Moreover, this program perpetuates the dependency on government that conservatives have long opposed. True choice exists today. Parents can choose public schools, private schools, or homeschooling. What’s at issue is not choice but funding. By framing this as a matter of “parental rights,” school choice advocates obscure the reality that this is about subsidizing private decisions with public dollars. Parental rights are best preserved by keeping the government out of education, not inviting it in.
Tennessee’s public education system has its challenges, but the solution is not to inject government dollars into the private sphere. Let’s not sacrifice our principles on the altar of catchy slogans and Bill Lee’s slick ad campaign (paid for in large part with your tax dollars). School choice, as currently proposed, is a Trojan horse.
Like this article?
Gary Humble
Gary Humble