As the 2025-2026 school year unfolds, heated debates over school voucher programs are erupting in statehouses and courtrooms across the United States. In Missouri and Tennessee, two states at the forefront of the school choice movement, recent legal and legislative battles are raising urgent questions about who truly benefits from these programs—and whether taxpayer dollars are being spent as lawmakers intended.
On August 21, 2025, attorneys representing the Missouri National Education Association (MNEA)—the state’s largest teachers’ union—stood before Cole County Circuit Court, urging Judge Brian Stumpe to freeze payments from the state’s MOScholars voucher program. Their request: halt the outflow of millions in public funds until the court rules on the legality of the program’s funding, a decision with the potential to affect more than 6,100 Missouri students who have already been promised scholarships for private education, according to Missouri Independent.
At the heart of the Missouri dispute is a $51 million appropriation from the state’s general revenue fund. The State Treasurer’s Office has already begun using these funds to award private-school scholarships through MOScholars, even as the program’s legal foundation is being challenged. MNEA attorney Loretta Haggard argued passionately that MOScholars lacks the authority to tap directly into general revenue, warning that taxpayers would be harmed by what she described as the illegal use of public funds. "You can’t just turn on a hose of $51 million in general revenue and force it through the tax credit framework," Haggard told the judge. "There are gaps in that framework."
The MOScholars program was created by a 2021 law, which envisioned it operating through educational nonprofits. Under the original design, these nonprofits would be funded by private donations, which taxpayers could claim back as a 100% tax credit. The law also established the Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts fund, intended for marketing and administrative expenses or costs incurred in administering the program—whichever was less. But last month, that account received a $48 million infusion, which is now being used to pay for student scholarships. Haggard insisted that this use of the fund is "inconsistent" with the 2021 law, and urged the court to act before the money is spent. "The money will be gone (if the court doesn’t pause payments)," she said. "Nobody seriously thinks that this court will be able to order the families or the schools to discard the money. That will be gone."
On the other side of the dispute, William Seidleck, principal deputy solicitor general, defended the state’s actions. He argued that while state law doesn’t explicitly allow for direct spending of general revenue on the program, it also doesn’t expressly forbid it. "Statutory silence," Seidleck said, "is not enough." He warned that any delay in funding would cause a "massive disruption to the MOScholars program," leaving thousands of students and families in limbo at the start of the school year.
Adding to the chorus of voices in the courtroom were attorneys from EdChoice Legal Advocates, representing three parents who say the influx of state funding is essential for their children’s education. According to EdChoice attorney Bryan Cleveland, the new funding not only expands access to scholarships for families on a growing waitlist, but also provides much-needed stability for those who have already been awarded aid. Cleveland emphasized that the scholarships help cover not just tuition but also additional educational support, such as reading tutors. "The plaintiffs have asserted taxpayer standing but they haven’t stated any personal harm," he argued. "In contrast, the families have demonstrated irreparable harm because they need the scholarships to pay not just for tuition but also to pay for reading tutors."
Seidleck also pointed out that the program gives priority to students with individualized education plans, serving those with learning and physical disabilities—a detail he suggested could even benefit public schools by reducing class sizes. MNEA President Rebeka McIntosh, observing the proceedings, was reportedly unconvinced by this argument, even chuckling at the suggestion that vouchers might help public schools.
Judge Stumpe, who asked few questions during the hearing, said he planned to rule on the injunction by the end of the day on August 22, 2025. The outcome could set a precedent for how states structure and fund school voucher programs—and for the ongoing tug-of-war between public education advocates and school choice supporters.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, similar questions about fairness and access are roiling the state’s new Education Freedom Scholarship Act. Passed in a special legislative session in January 2025 and rolled out for the current school year, the program uses public dollars to send students to private schools if their families choose. But as reported by WKRN, some lawmakers are worried the program is skewed in favor of students already enrolled in private schools, rather than the public school students it was purportedly designed to help.
During an August 20, 2025 rule review hearing, Senator Charlane Oliver (D-Nashville) highlighted a key concern: the admissions cycle for independent schools begins in the fall, with tuition assistance applications due by December 15—months before the voucher application period opens in June or July. "That is well before our fiscal year which is June/July when that rolls over, so it seems to me that, if I’m interpreting this correctly, that if a parent wants to apply for this scholarship program in future years, they’re going to miss out because those private schools have already made their academic decisions for the year, so any public schools parent that might want to enter that private school, it’s too late," she said. "It appears, once again, that this program is by design for parents who are already in private schools."
The Tennessee Department of Education promised lawmakers it would adjust the voucher application period next year to better align with private school admissions timelines. However, the program will still prioritize students who received vouchers the previous year, as required by law—potentially cementing an early advantage for those already in private education.
Some Democratic lawmakers also criticized the state for not tracking how many voucher recipients were already private school students in the program’s first year. The Department of Education responded that the law doesn’t require collecting this data—but said it will begin doing so in the future, since prior private school attendance will now affect priority for voucher awards. Representative John Ray Clemmons (D-Nashville) voiced frustration over the lack of transparency: "The governor made these representations all over the state that this was going to provide opportunity, this was going to provide choice to those who didn’t have it, yet we have no way, and these rules don’t even direct the department to collect the data telling us how many children were already in private school accepting these vouchers. I find that incredibly hard to accept given that it was a main concern and it was discussed numerous times in committee and on the floor in regards to legislative intent."
As both Missouri and Tennessee grapple with the implementation—and the implications—of school voucher programs, the central question remains: Are these initiatives truly opening doors for students who need them most, or are they reinforcing existing advantages? The coming months, and the courts, may provide the answer.
