In March, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice released a report indicating that 53% of 1,200 likely Tennessee voters "had never heard about the use of school vouchers"—taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to use government-allotted education dollars to send their children to a private school or another school of their choice. Of those who were "very familiar" or "somewhat familiar" with vouchers, 52% said they are in favor of the school choice method that is an option (in some form) in 13 states and the District of Columbia.

Though intended to gauge public opinion about a variety of school choice issues, the tepid levels of awareness and favor concerning vouchers that the report revealed prompt the question—what real chance is there for publicly funded vouchers in the near future in Tennessee?

The use of school vouchers is certainly a politically charged issue that warrants debate about the impact of such scholarships. Put simply, voucher supporters believe not only that parents should have more say in where their children attend school but also that sending children to private schools fosters competition that leads to the improvement of public schools. Meanwhile, opponents argue that vouchers compete for funds that could go toward improving public schools. Rather than debate the pros and cons, however, BusinessTN set out to determine if anyone in Tennessee is even considering them.

It's definitely something that has been on the mind of Rep. Brian Kelsey (R-Germantown) has been thinking about. Although his effort received little attention at the time, Kelsey introduced a bill in 2007 that would have created a scholarship program for low-income students. The bill, which was the first of its kind, would have given full scholarships—the amount of money state and local governments currently spend on each pupil—to those children who qualify for free and reduced lunch plans. Children of parents who earn one-and-a-half times the free and reduced lunch qualifying amount would receive a 75% scholarship, and children whose parents earn up to two and two-and-a-half times the qualifying amount would receive a 50% and 25% scholarship, respectively. Parents could then use the money to send their kids to a private school, charter school or another public school of their choice.

Though the bill never moved out of committee, Kelsey introduced the program on the House floor as an amendment to another bill. Thirty-three members of the House voted for the amendment, 62 representatives voted against it and four abstained. Pleased with the amount of interest it received, Kelsey says he plans to reintroduce the scholarship program next year if he's reelected (at press time, no one was running against him). And though he says presenting vouchers as an option for Tennesseans will require a long-term effort, he believes it's in the cards.

"We got charter schools reauthorized this year through 2015, and that's yet another step in the right direction," he says. "I think we're getting to the point now where people are seeing the success of charter schools, and it's important for the state to realize that if they can be successful, parental choice scholarships will be successful as well."

While Kelsey's plan would draw funding from state and local money already spent on each student, Drew Johnson, president of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research (TCPR), says he believes the state legislature is more likely to adopt a corporate tuition tax credit program. In some states, parents who pay for private school tuition are given a tax credit or tax deduction from state income taxes, but because Tennessee doesn't have an income tax, the state would have to apply another method. Florida, another state without an income tax, allows corporations to receive state tax credits for contributions to nonprofit scholarship funding organizations that award money to low-income families. This approach would likely receive less opposition in Tennessee than the per-pupil funding approach that Kelsey is proposing. (Kelsey, however, would support either approach.)

"Opponents of school choice, such as the teachers' unions, are more likely to accept a scholarship program if it's supported by a specifically allocated revenue stream," Johnson says. "When businesses can, through a corporate tax credit program, tell the government that they want their tax dollars spent on improving education through choice and competition, it's much harder for unions to argue against it."

While Johnson believes Tennessee could be home to a program of this nature in a decade or more, he says that the TCPR, which supports the notion that public money should follow the student wherever a parent deems the child should attend school, is currently focused on targeted voucher programs for foster care kids and children with autism and other special needs. In fact, a bill that would have given foster children scholarships to choose their schools, regardless of their home base, had some traction in the Senate last session.

"A scholarship program allowing foster kids to stay in the same school, even when they are placed outside of school or district boundaries, would allow them to keep the same teacher, principal and friends," Johnson says. "It gives foster children some much-needed stability in their lives, even though they may not know where they're going to live one day to the next."

The TCPR expects to see similar legislation on the table next year. Along the same lines, parents of autistic children would receive a voucher in the amount that their school district pays to educate a student with autism. They would then use the money to send their child to a public or private school that has a program for children with autism. Although no such bill has been introduced in the Tennessee legislature, Johnson believes Tennessee may see a program like this within the next five years.

"Autism vouchers make perfect sense because they improve service for the children and save school districts money," Johnson says. "Many school districts have to set up classrooms and hire teachers to teach a small handful of children with autism, a costly proposition for the districts. The vouchers would allow regional public or private autism-focused schools to develop, ending the expense to districts of providing classrooms to serve one or two kids, and offering children with autism more specialized service and a better education."

Because such a program would save the public school system money, Johnson believes it's likely to occur before a statewide scholarship program for at-risk or low-income students. After all, state savings aside, it's difficult to argue against programs that will assist children who don't have permanent homes or who have special needs. These programs are clearly more politically acceptable, and as a result, they may serve as the "camel's nose under the tent"—once a law allowing vouchers is on the books, it will be much easier to push through others.

Voucher programs may not have to rely solely on a camel's nose—they do have some supporters in high places. Sen. Lamar Alexander has long given credence to the idea that parents should have greater control over their children's education. In an e-mail to BusinessTN, Alexander writes, "I would support efforts in Tennessee to develop a voucher program, whether modeled after the successful example in Florida for students with special needs, or Milwaukee, Wis., for children in poorly performing schools or in Washington, D.C., where Congress has recently acted to extend their program for another year at the request of local leaders."

Ultimately, however, Alexander says state leaders, the Governor and members of the state legislature should set state policies. And though Tennessee may someday be home to a voucher program, as Alexander points out, vouchers are only "one small part of the solution to improving our nation's schools."