His plan, detailed in the Wall Street Journal, would split the total into two equal $21,000 allocations: one designated for private school tuition and the other for an Education Savings Account (ESA). The ESA would cover expenses like tutoring, therapy, or extracurricular activities, giving families more direct control over educational resources. The goal is to determine whether market-based choices could enhance outcomes beyond traditional public school models, particularly for lower-income households.
The tuition portion would apply to students in grades 6, 8, and 10, using projected 2026–27 tuition rates from existing NYC private schools. For sixth graders, mid-tier private schools currently charge tuition at varying rates. By tenth grade, tuition often exceeds the $21,000 allocation, creating trade-offs for families seeking higher-cost options.
The second $21,000 allocation would fund an ESA, providing access to services typically reserved for wealthier families. These might include ADHD coaching, private tutoring, or specialized sports training. Unlike public school wraparound programs, which often depend on underfunded volunteers, an ESA would allow families to hire qualified professionals at market rates. This model draws inspiration from Florida’s ESA program, which has seen an average of 100 new private schools open annually since its expansion over the past five years.
Proponents argue that competition drives innovation, while critics note that public schools already receive between $44,000 and $58,000 per student when accounting for wraparound services. Despite these higher allocations, outcomes for disadvantaged students have remained stagnant. The proposal shifts the debate: if the current system fails to deliver results, why not let families direct funding toward their specific needs?
