Originally published to X. 

The Texas House sells HB 2 and HB 3 as a package deal for education reform, calling them the "Texas Two-Step." But this so-called two-step is a misstep.

The package prioritizes billions more taxpayer money for a broken public education monopoly while substantially limiting school choice and property tax relief efforts. In fact, there would be twice as much with at least $8 billion for public education than the school choice amount of $1 billion and new property tax relief (not already required by existing law)of $3 billion…combined.

Ultimately, this would make improving education or eliminating school district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes much harder, if not impossible. Therefore, HB 2 should die, and HB 3 needs improvements to ensure Texas delivers true education freedom.

But let’s consider these two bills' merits and how they fit in the broader policy picture.

HB 3 could be a big win for school choice. It would create the first education savings account (ESA) program in Texas history and one of the biggest in the country. It provides universal eligibility, meaning every student qualifies.

However, the first year's $1 billion funding would cover ESAs for fewer than 100,000 students, or just 1.5% of the state’s 6.3 million students statewide. In other words, 98.5% of students in Texas wouldn’t initially have access to an ESA. This is a conservative estimate, as the number of students covered could be substantially less due to an unknown number of students with special needs receiving up to $30,000 annually.

Families that apply but don’t receive initial funding would be placed on a tiered waitlist with an ordering based on students with special needs first, low-income families next, and then higher-income families as funding allows.

The bill includes an “escalator” for covering the students on the ESA waitlist over time but does not have an automatic appropriation. Therefore, future legislatures would need to allocate new funding to cover those on the waitlist, which could be a problem in reaching universal school choice soon, if at all, with this package deal.

With HB 2 dumping more than $8 billion into public education, it will be far more challenging, if not impossible, to garner enough support for additional ESA funding later. Instead of building on HB 3, the primarily taxpayer-funded education lobby will argue that Texas needs more taxpayer money for public education, making expansion politically challenging.

HB 2 worsens nearly all of Texas’ long-term education and tax priorities. It could provide across-the-board pay increases, whether some teachers or administrators deserve it or not, and some merit-based pay increases. Also, it could increase the basic allotment, which is the minimum funding for each student, with the actual spending per student nearly three times as high. These would be large ongoing expenditures paid by taxpayers.

Since 2011, Texas has already increased per-student funding by 48%, far outpacing inflation’s 35% rise. Yet student outcomes have declined sharply, with 8th-grade math proficiency dropping 40% over the same period.
The state has spent record amounts on public education, only to see the taxpayer-funded monopoly continue to fail students, frustrate parents, and burden taxpayers. Given this, one could argue that Texans are overfunding public education, as spending is record-high and outcomes are near-record lows. The state can’t keep repeating the same mistakes and expect a different result.

Some lawmakers believe they can buy-off the anti-school choice crowd by increasing public school funding alongside an ESA program. This is a fantasy. The teacher unions and public education lobby will never be satisfied, no matter how much money they receive. They perceive education freedom and choice as a threat to their taxpayer-funded monopoly.

Just look at what happened to Chairman Brad Buckley when he attended a recent Texas PTA event. Despite his efforts to substantially increase school funding with HB 2, he was heckled, yelled at, and berated simply for supporting school choice in HB 3. He stayed to listen to them, but when he understood they were unwilling to talk, he did the right thing and left.
This incident should send a clear message: no amount of funding will ever satisfy the anti-school choice crowd. They will always fight competition and demand more taxpayer money. This is what a monopoly mindset does.

HB 2 also directly undermines two of Texas’ biggest priorities.

First, it makes expanding universal school choice much harder. By tying HB 3 to massive increases in government school funding, school choice will always be fighting for budget scraps. Instead of establishing ESAs as the future of education funding, HB 2 traps Texas into the same broken system: government schools get billions of more taxpayer money while school choice programs have to beg for budget scraps each session.
Second, it severely hampers momentum toward eliminating school district M&O property taxes. These taxes are the largest burden on Texas families and small businesses, and the way to phase them out is through rate compression and spending restraint. But every new dollar spent on government schools makes reducing those property tax rates more difficult.

If Texas continues to spend billions on a bloated education bureaucracy, it will be nearly impossible to justify giving taxpayers relief through compression. That means higher property taxes for Texans and no path to eliminating school district M&O property taxes.

Instead of doubling down on a failing school finance model, Texas should modernize education funding entirely by transitioning to a universal ESA approach. This could save taxpayers $20 billion annually by moving to a $12,000 ESA per child, allowing parents to take control of their children’s education, and cutting school district M&O property taxes by two-thirds.
​
If Texas lawmakers truly want to deliver real education freedom and property tax relief, they must fund our children, not systems, and stop throwing more money at a failing public school monopoly. Texans deserve better than this broken "Texas Two-Step"—it’s time for a better step in the right direction.

​Originally posted on X.com. 

Texas taxpayers fund more than $50,000 per student in government schools, and it’s essential to understand this amount.
Taxpayers fund nearly $17,000 per student annually for maintenance, operations, and debt service. They also pay an additional $33,542 per student in outstanding debt over time. Local voters approved this debt, backed by the state’s Permanent School Fund, funded by taxpayers statewide.

So, while some anti-school choice advocates attempt to twist the numbers, the reality is apparent: taxpayers are pouring over $50,000 per student into the monopoly government school system, yet educational outcomes are declining. This system is failing students, parents, and teachers while taxpayers bear the escalating burden.

Over the past five years, school district debt has soared. Total ISD debt has increased from $133 billion in 2018 to $185 billion in 2023, an alarming rise of nearly 40%. This debt explosion reflects decades of unchecked spending on lavish facilities and nonessential projects while the core mission of educating students has been neglected.

Texas students are falling behind. While per-student spending increased by 42% over the past two decades, 8th-grade math proficiency dropped by 40%. Less than half of classroom expenditures reach teachers, who are overworked and underpaid. In a classroom of 20 students, approximately $340,000 is allocated annually, but teachers see only a fraction of that in their paychecks. Administrative costs and bureaucracy are eating up the bulk of these funds.

Parents are stuck in a system prioritizing the status quo over accountability, leaving them with no options when their children fail government schools. Teachers receive inadequate support, and students—especially those in underserved areas—are denied the opportunities they deserve. Meanwhile, taxpayers continue to fund a broken system that delivers less value for more money.

The solution is universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). Under this system, families could receive $12,000 per student for approved educational expenses. This amount would easily cover Texas's average private school tuition, which is $11,340 per year, and still leave room for transportation, tutoring, or extracurricular activities. ESAs would allow parents to tailor their child’s education to meet their unique needs, breaking free from the rigid government school model.

A universal ESA program would benefit families and save taxpayers billions. Current government school spending of $16,792 per student far exceeds the cost of private alternatives. By shifting to a universal ESA model, Texas could save nearly $20 billion annually, as fewer families would rely on the bloated government system. These savings could be used to reduce school district maintenance and operations property taxes, providing a quicker path to eliminating these burdensome taxes.

Critics of school choice claim ESAs will harm government schools, but evidence from over 30 states with school choice programs proves otherwise. Competition drives improvement. Government schools will be forced to cut administrative bloat, prioritize classrooms, and focus on student outcomes to retain students and funding.

Milton Friedman, one of the most influential economists of the 20th century, explained decades ago why school choice is necessary. He argued that introducing market forces into education would improve quality and reduce costs, as in every other sector. When schools must compete for students, they have no choice but to innovate and deliver results.

The recent elections demonstrated that Texans overwhelmingly support school choice. Lawmakers, especially those vying for leadership roles, should take note. Candidates who opposed meaningful reform suffered significant political consequences, reflecting voters' demand for change and failing to implement universal ESAs. This risks alienating those taxpayers and families demanding better outcomes for their children and a better return on their investment.

The $50,000 per student figure is not just a statistic—it’s a testament to how deeply flawed the current system is. Taxpayers are funding more while receiving less. Families are stuck with few choices, teachers are undervalued, and students are falling behind.

It’s time to fund students, not systems. Universal ESAs will empower families, save taxpayers billions of dollars, and restore accountability to Texas education. Texas has the opportunity to lead the nation with a school choice program that sets a global standard for empowering families, improving outcomes, and promoting fiscal responsibility.utcomes, and promoting fiscal responsibility.

Listen here to my interview on The Lars Larson Show. 

Originally posted on X. 

​Despite a 42% increase in per-student education funding since 2011 in Texas, 8th-grade math proficiency has dropped by 40%. 

As administrative costs and bureaucracy grow, less than half of education funding reaches teachers. This is not a teacher problem; it’s a system problem. The current government school monopoly prioritizes funding systems over outcomes, leaving too many students behind. 

The solution is clear: universal school choice through Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).

For decades, the status quo has relied on a rigid, state-determined school finance formula. Taxpayer dollars are funneled into district-zoned public schools, regardless of whether those schools meet students' needs. Families are left with no flexibility, trapped by zip codes, and forced into a one-size-fits-all system. 

While there are success stories, the overall picture is bleak, particularly for underserved communities. The incentives are broken, and the system has little reason to innovate or improve without competition or accountability. Texas families deserve better.

Some argue that vouchers are a sufficient solution. While they expand access to private schools by providing families with a set amount of funding for tuition, vouchers fall short in several ways. They often come with government-imposed regulations that stifle innovation in private schools, and they focus narrowly on tuition, excluding other educational expenses like tutoring, transportation, therapy, or homeschool resources.

This is where Education Savings Accounts stand apart. ESAs give parents control of the funding, which they can use for various approved educational expenses. Whether at a traditional "public" school, charter school, private school tuition, specialized therapy, transportation, tutoring, or homeschool materials, ESAs allow families to build a customized education for their child. 

Unlike vouchers, ESAs empower parents to design an education plan that fits their child’s specific needs, ensuring a student-centered approach.

Critics often claim ESAs will harm public schools, but this fear is unfounded. 

First, public schools will remain an option for families who prefer them. ESAs do not dismantle public education; they introduce competition and give families a choice. 

Second, ESAs save taxpayers money. A universal ESA program in Texas could save nearly $20 billion annually, per my recent article with @brianeharrison in the @dallasnews. 

These savings would provide a significant down payment to cut two-thirds of ISD maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes, putting Texas on a path toward eliminating them. 

That’s real relief for families while ensuring parents spend taxpayer dollars for improved student outcomes.

The monopoly school model incentivizes maintaining the system over serving students. By introducing competition through ESAs, public or private schools must innovate and deliver value to attract and retain students. 

This realignment of incentives encourages efficiency, improves outcomes, and shifts resources where they are needed most: in the classroom. Teachers, who are often underpaid and undervalued, will also benefit. By reducing administrative bloat and prioritizing funding for classrooms, ESAs can lead to higher teacher salaries and more support for their critical work.

Some opponents suggest that local control is the answer, arguing that the state should get out of the way and let districts innovate. 

While local control is a worthy principle, public schools are constrained by state and federal mandates, making it practically impossible under the current framework. ESAs, by contrast, empower families directly, providing ultimate local control, removing bureaucratic barriers, and giving them the freedom to choose what works best for their children.

The critics of universal school choice often resort to fearmongering, claiming that ESAs will devastate public schools or leave certain students behind. But the data and experience from other states with similar programs tell a different story. 
Over 30 states have some form of school choice, and more than 10 states have implemented universal or near-universal ESAs. Public schools can and do thrive in competitive environments. Families who are satisfied with their local public school can stay, while those who need other options finally have a chance to find the right fit. 

ESAs don’t take away choice—they expand it.

Texas has a chance to lead the nation in putting students first. By adopting universal school choice through Education Savings Accounts, we can empower families, improve outcomes, save taxpayers billions, and reduce the crushing burden of property taxes. 

The current system has had decades to prove itself, and the results are clear: it’s not working for too many students. It’s time to fund students, not systems. Let’s build an education model that values every child’s potential and delivers on the promise of opportunity for all Texans.

​Tune in to hear my entire testimony and Q&A session from the Texas House public education hearing on August 12th, 2024.

​Hear from me and Texas House Representative Brian Harrison on the importance of school choice during the Texas House Committee hearing on public education on August 12th, 2024.

​Don't miss Dr. Vance Ginn's testimony before the Texas House Committee on Public Ed on August 12, 2024. Taxpayers are already spending too much on a failing monopoly government school system, and universal school choice is needed now!