Partisanship, community, and public schools: The rural dilemma of school vouchers
by Rolando Ortega (class of 2026)
In July 2024, Alec MacGillis of The Atlantic published an article documenting the roadblocks voucher programs — also referred to as “school choice” programs — have faced in several Republican-leaning states, largely due to the surprising opposition of rural Republican legislators. Typically, these programs provide funds for families to send their children to private or charter schools outside of their local school district. MacGillis illustrates that some rural legislators are willing to go against their political party, fearing that voucher programs could harm the public schools their communities depend on.
In many rural communities, public schools serve as a place for neighbors to gather and engage in social activities, helping individuals to become integrated into the broader community. Television shows like Friday Night Lights represent how this narrative has pervaded culture. They are also critical hubs for employment opportunities, help buoy local economies, and provide vital assistance to their students. More importantly, fewer private or charter schools are available for rural students than in urban and suburban communities, making rural areas more reliant on their public schools.
Yet, rural areas continue to be the foundation of electoral success for Republicans despite school choice being a major plank of the party’s education agenda. According to preliminary exit polls, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump won about 64% of rural voters in the 2024 election. However, part of the incoming president’s education agenda is providing universal school choice programs for parents across the country, similar to programs established in several states, most notably by Governor Ron DeSantis in Florida. At the state level, many Republican members of the Texas legislature who opposed Governor Greg Abbott’s push to create a universal school choice program were defeated. Opponents of school voucher programs, on the other hand, contend that they are ultimately paid for by cutting funds for public education.
There appears to be a tension between the significance of public schools in rural communities and those same communities’ support for Republican politicians who champion policies that could harm public schools. In the 2024 Tufts Public Opinion Lab survey, I asked individuals about the importance of public schools in their communities and their support for voucher programs. To see whether concern about public school funding is behind school choice skepticism in rural areas, half of the respondents were told that public school funding would be cut to pay for these voucher programs, while the other half were not given this information.
Overall, there was little difference between communities in support of voucher programs when respondents were not told about cuts to public school funding: the percentage of those against this policy was about 34% for urban, suburban, and rural Americans. However, there were differences among respondents who were told that public school funding would be cut to pay for school choice programs. The percentage of respondents opposing the policy increased in all three community types when they were informed about public school funding cuts. This difference was largest and statistically significant with rural respondents. A majority, 52%, of rural respondents who were told that school choice programs would come at the cost of public school funding voiced opposition to the policy. While respondents from urban and suburban areas also expressed greater opposition to these programs when told about potential cuts to public school funding, this movement was less pronounced compared to rural respondents.
Being told about the consequences of school choice policies clearly influenced respondents’ attitudes toward them, and this being even more apparent with rural respondents illustrates an understanding that those consequences could uniquely affect their communities. Rural respondents know that cutting public funding to support school vouchers may be particularly damaging to their communities, and so they react negatively to this policy due to their communities’ greater dependence on public school funding.
Looking at partisanship, there were noticeable differences in support for school choice programs among Democrats and Republicans across the different community types. 40% of Democrats who lived in urban areas and were not told about cuts to public school funding voiced opposition to school choice programs, compared to 21% of rural Democrats.
However, the reverse was true for Democrats who were told that public school funding would be cut to pay for school choice programs: 58% of rural Democrats in this group said they opposed this policy, compared to 42% and 47% for urban and suburban Democrats, respectively. Democrats who were told about public school funding being cut expressed more opposition to school choice programs across the board, but the greatest increase was with rural Democrats.
The trends observed among all respondents appeared to be exacerbated among Democrats. For rural Democrats, their party’s opposition to school choice programs is reinforced by their awareness of their communities’ dependence on public schools. This seems to lead rural Democrats to be the most opposed to school choice programs once they know about how they may affect public schools. On the other hand, urban and suburban Democrats, who have more access to private and charter schools, are less affected by information about the potential negative consequences of these programs.
Among Republicans, 26% of respondents from urban areas who were not told about the potential consequences of school voucher programs opposed those programs, lower than suburban and rural communities at 34% and 35%, respectively. However, among those told that public school funding would be cut, the portion of those from urban areas who opposed school choice programs rose to 52%, higher than the 33% of suburban Republicans and 49% of rural Republicans who were given the same information.
Noticeably, even when told that funding for their public schools could be cut, suburban and rural Republicans did not become as opposed to school choice programs as their Democratic counterparts. In fact, suburban Republicans saw very little difference between the two groups. Understanding the effects of school choice programs clearly influenced how Republicans viewed such policies, though perhaps not as much as their Democratic counterparts. This suggests that even with knowledge of the potential negative consequences of such policies, partisanship still has a powerful influence on how people view these policies.
With the incoming administration and changes in power at the state and federal levels, the future of school voucher programs and public schools will continue to be debated. However, these results illustrate that though partisanship still plays a role in informing policy stances, context and consequences are also important factors. Understanding how access to information about the effects of policies and the unique experience of voters can help determine the future of school choice programs and policies that may affect particular communities more broadly. Additionally, it may show that personal experience and the interest of one’s own community still may transcend increased partisanship.
