What Really Limits School Choice

Turning policy into access takes more than eligibility

Even the best-funded school choice program can stumble if implementation gets in the way.

That’s the lesson from a new study out of Michigan—not about K-12 choice, but about a state college scholarship.

A team of researchers recently examined Michigan’s Tuition Incentive Program (TIP), a generous, need-based college scholarship for students who grew up in low-income households. Students automatically qualify by spending enough time enrolled in Medicaid as children. Yet despite clear eligibility rules and first-dollar benefits that cover tuition and fees, only about 14 percent of eligible students ever use the scholarship. Even among those who go on to attend a qualifying Michigan community college, where TIP can be used for tuition, just 3 in 10 receive the aid.

Despite clear eligibility rules and generous benefits, only a small fraction of eligible students used it. The reason? Bureaucratic friction, unclear rules, and poor communication. The same implementation challenges often crop up in school choice programs across the country.

Hidden Costs of Bureaucracy

The researchers found that take-up was low not because families didn’t value the benefit, but because of friction. Students often never learned they were eligible, notifications arrived at the wrong time, and school counselors—already stretched thin—didn’t have the bandwidth or the data access to help.

What the study uncovered was a familiar story of administrative burden: fragmented data systems, confusing processes, and missed communication. In other words, the policy design looked good on paper—but implementation kept the intended beneficiaries from participating.

A Parallel Story in K-12 School Choice

Those same lessons apply to education savings accounts (ESAs), vouchers, and tax-credit scholarship programs. Policymakers often focus on how many students could use these programs, but far fewer students actually enroll in reality.

Take-up rates in K-12 choice programs vary widely—from a fraction of a percent in new or targeted programs to 7 and 10 percent in Arizona and Florida’s ESA programs, respectively, where a lot of infrastructure is in place. This pattern mirrors the Michigan experience: it takes time, communication, and simplicity for families to engage with a new program.

Awareness Gaps Run Deep

Many eligible families simply don’t know that school choice programs exist in their state. EdChoice’s parent surveys across several states show strikingly low levels of awareness, even in long-standing programs.

For example, as shown in the table below, between one-third and nearly half of current school parents in states such as Arizona, Indiana, North Carolina, and Ohio reported being unaware of their state’s choice program, even though those programs had been operating for 7 to 25 years at the time.

(Our colleague John Kristof wrote a good piece on the issue of program awareness, here).

This lack of awareness limits participation just as much as paperwork or administrative burden. Expanding outreach, improving communication through schools and community networks, and providing clear, repeated information to parents are crucial steps for ensuring that eligible families actually benefit from programs designed for them.

Program Design Matters

Administrative hurdles can quietly limit who benefits from choice. Complicated application forms, documentation requirements, narrow enrollment windows, or poor outreach can all dampen participation—especially among families with less experience navigating state programs.

That’s why smart program design and administration matter as much as policy intent. States can learn from both what’s working and where others fall short.

• Support and promote outreach so families become aware of a program. In most states, nonprofits like parent advocacy groups, think tanks, private schools, and churches lead outreach, helping families use and understand programs. Some state legislatures also fund public awareness campaigns, though their effectiveness varies. Florida offers a best-practice example: even districts like Broward County Public Schools promote choice options directly on their websites.
• Automate communication and streamline eligibility verification. Paper-heavy verification and agency silos cost applicants. In New Hampshire, both the ESA and tax-credit scholarship programs are administered by the same third-party organization, Children’s Scholarship Fund New Hampshire, which oversees income verification and approvals quickly and accurately, ensuring a smooth process for families.
• Provide navigators or counselors. In Florida, parents can now use ESA funds to hire a “Choice Navigator,” a credentialed guide who helps them select curricula and programs. The state is also developing an online portal to recommend schools and resources.
• Clarify allowable expenses. In Alabama, parents faced confusion this year when the Department of Revenue initially denied purchases such as construction paper. After feedback from parents, the agency issued a notice that clarified and expanded the list, illustrating how vague rules can create needless frustration.
• Ensure timely payments. Even a well-designed program can struggle if payments stall. Florida’s recent payment delays left schools in limbo until fixes were made, showing how critical reliable financial systems and communication are.
• Avoid uncertainty in administration and funding. In Louisiana, uncertainty over vendor contracts and legislative approval delayed communication with parents and schools, causing anxiety about next year’s funding. Clear roles, stable contracts, and predictable funding are essential for confidence.
• Simplify renewals. West Virginia’s HOPE Scholarship Program allows year-round applications and smooth renewals. Returning families update only necessary details, reducing red tape and keeping participation steady.

Across states, there’s a common pattern. Even small administrative uncertainties—unclear rules, payment delays, vague expense lists—can discourage families and providers from participating. The takeaway is clear: a program’s success depends as much on implementation as on funding and eligibility.

When families have actionable information, clarity, and support, then take-up rises—and so does the impact of the program. The Michigan study reminds us that even well-designed, well-funded programs can fall short if implementation gets in the way. While expanding eligibility is a great start, turning eligibility into access is where the real work begins.

This was originally published to our Substack.