 Originally posted on X. Big day in Texas: Governor Abbott finally signed the state’s first school choice law on Saturday. ESAs will begin in the 2026–27 school year. For years, I’ve fought for education freedom—not just as an economist, but as someone who lived it. I started in a small private school from kindergarten through second grade, where my mom worked just to afford tuition. I then attended government schools in South Houston and Weatherford for grades 3–6, before finishing grades 7–12 as a homeschooler. After a government-run junior college, I earned my bachelor’s and PhD at Texas Tech University, a government school. That diverse education experience opened doors for me, and that's why I believe every Texas family deserves the same freedom to choose what works best for their children. Watching the signing of SB 2 was personal, but it was also bittersweet. Yes, Texas finally passed school choice, but it’s not truly universal, not even close.  The ESA program is capped at 100,000 students—just 1.5% of Texas’ 6.3 million school-aged kids. Of those, only a strictly limited number of students from households earning above 500% of the federal poverty level—roughly $160,000 for a family of four—can even qualify.
That’s bad policy and worse economics. When higher-income families are blocked from participating, the program loses political support, economic scale, and its ability to build momentum. Every student, regardless of income, deserves the opportunity to learn better. Each taxpayer deserves the efficiency and innovation a competitive education system can deliver. Meanwhile, for every $1 spent on ESAs, up to $8 in new taxpayer money will go to the government-run school system. That’s hardly competition—it’s a rigged market. Texas spends more than $100 billion annually on the monopoly government school system. A small, capped ESA program won’t bring the accountability or market pressure needed to improve outcomes across the board. Even worse, students using ESAs receive $10,000 or less yearly, while the average government school student is subsidized at more than $18,000. If ESAs were available to every student in Texas, the cost could be closer to $12,000 per child, still significantly lower than the status quo. So when critics claim ESAs “subsidize the rich,” they’ve got it backwards. The current system gives a blanket $18,000 subsidy to high-income families who keep their kids in public schools. School choice simply levels the playing field—and at a discount. Texas lawmakers got part of the policy right this session. However, the dual-funding structure, ESA cap, and income restrictions show how far we must go. The correct answer is clear: end the two-pot system and adopt a single-pot funding model where every dollar follows every student, regardless of income or schooling type. That shift could save over $20 billion annually, reduce bureaucracy, and deliver the freedom and efficiency Texans deserve. School choice isn’t about rationing opportunity—it’s about restoring it. The best thing we can do now is expand this program to all families, fully fund it, and give every Texas child a chance at a better future.
0 Comments
 Originally published at X.com.
A victory worth celebrating, but serious flaws must be fixed to ensure all Texas families have access to a truly universal, funded, and transformational school choice program. After decades of advocating by me and many others, Texas has finally taken a bold step toward education freedom. With the passage of CSSB 2, sponsored by Public Education Committee Chairman Brad Buckley (R-TX), the Texas House and Senate have now approved the state’s first school choice program—Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), which will now go to a conference committee to work out the differences. For the first time in state history, parents will be allowed to direct public education funds toward private schools, tutors, homeschooling, and other learning opportunities. This is a long-fought milestone for countless families and advocates. But let’s be clear: this is only a beginning. Without major reforms, this ESA program could fall short of its promise—or worse, create a backlash that stalls school choice efforts for years. The bill allocates just $1 billion—enough to cover at most 100,000 of the state’s 6.3 million school-aged children. That’s less than 1.5% of Texas students. ESA amounts will be about $10,000 for most lucky to receive it, with up to $30,000 for those with special needs and $2,000 for homeschoolers. That may sound impressive—until you realize the package bill, House Bill 2, in the "Texas Two Step" sends nearly $8 billion more than the state's school finance formulas would provide to the government school monopoly without real accountability for improvement. As U.S. Representative Chip Roy (R-TX) warned, “With just $1B in funding, less than 1.5% of 6.3 million school-age kids will benefit. But the same ‘deal’ throws $8B more at a $100B-a-year bloated school system.” The ESA program also contains structural roadblocks. A permanent cap allows families earning more than 500% of the federal poverty level—$160,750 for a family of four—to make up no more than 20% of ESA recipients. Worse, these families can only qualify if their child previously attended a public school. That’s a slap in the face to families already sacrificing for private or home education. Taxpayers fund these families to go to government schools at a higher expense per student, so why wouldn't everyone interested be able to receive an ESA? Every student counts! These restrictions were initially set to expire, but were made permanent by the Buckley amendment. Language in initial CSSB 2, but sunset was removed by the Buckley amendment, making this provision effectively permanent. Texas Representative Brian Harrison (R-TX), the only Republican to vote against the Buckley amendment, put it: “We shouldn’t be creating a school choice program that excludes the very people already choosing better for their kids.” This is just one of the bad limitations in the Buckley amendment, including restricting new supply of education services to a school that's been accredited for two years before receiving students with ESA funding. This will restrict the supply and contribute to higher private school tuition as demand exceeds supply for years. This structure does not reflect true universal school choice. It reflects a lottery. A rationed, pre-qualified, bureaucratically managed rollout that favors certain families over others. And it misses the opportunity to fix how we fund education finally. Texans should not have to fund two separate education systems. There should be one pool of taxpayer money for education. If a parent chooses to exit the government system, the dollars should follow that child. That’s how competition works. That’s how incentives align. That’s how freedom flourishes. My vision is simple: a fully funded ESA for every Texas student—$12,000 per child—for all 6.3 million school-aged kids. That would replace our current $100 billion K–12 education bloated bureaucracy with a student-centered approach. It would save taxpayers an estimated $25 billion annually. And by shifting funding with students, we could eliminate roughly two-thirds of school district M&O property taxes, which make up the largest share of a typical homeowner’s tax bill. More than 30 states now offer some form of private school choice, including education savings accounts (ESAs), tax-credit scholarships, and voucher programs. But only four states—Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, and West Virginia—have achieved truly universal school choice according to the 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index. The EdChoice index sets reasonable criteria to be considered truly universal; a state must meet three criteria:
To make matters worse, Texas increased per-student spending by 48% since 2013 (well above the inflation increase of 35%), while 8th-grade math proficiency declined by 40%, and 4th-grade reading scores also declined. That’s not progress. That’s failure funded at record levels. Supporters of CSSB 2 should be proud of what’s been achieved—but also honest about its shortcomings. Governor Abbott deserves recognition for pushing this over the finish line. President Trump and advocates like The Honorable Don Huffines, Grover Norquist of Americans for Tax Reform, Greg Sindelar of the Texas Public Policy Foundation, Corey DeAngelis of the American Culture Project, Kevin Roberts and Jason Bedrick of the Heritage Foundation, Andrew McVeigh of Texans for Fiscal Responsibility, Genevieve Collins of Americans for Prosperity-Texas, Jorge Martinez of LIBRE-Texas, Nathaniel Cunneen of American Federation for Children, folks of Liberty for the Kids, and others helped build momentum. Parents and families made their voices heard. The vote for CSSB 2 in the House—85–63—was a breakthrough. But if we stop here, we risk letting this moment slip away. Texans will be angry if they find out they’re not eligible. Parents who believed in “universal school choice” will be disillusioned if their children are left out. Jeramy Kitchen at Texas Policy Research and others rightly warned that this version of CSSB 2 ties school choice to the same public school funding formula it’s meant to offer an alternative to. That’s not transformative. That’s accommodation. Real reform means:
Milton Friedman, the father of school choice, envisioned a school choice system that wasn't about appeasing the government school monopoly. It was about empowering people. He believed education funding should follow the student, not the system. Texas has now taken the first step toward that goal, but it must take many more. We can’t afford to get this wrong. If we do, we’ll lock in a small, complicated, government-managed program and squander a chance to lead the nation. Let’s do better. Let’s finish the job. Let’s fund students, not systems. And let’s make Texas the gold standard for education freedom—for every family, not just a fortunate few.  Originally published on X.
Today’s passage of Committee Substitute Senate Bill 2 (CSSB 2) by the Texas House Public Education Committee marks a significant, if overdue, step toward empowering families with education freedom. For the second time in two sessions, a version of education savings accounts (ESAs) has cleared a House committee—a notable accomplishment after years of resistance in the Texas House. The bill would create an ESA program starting in the 2026–27 school year, funded with $1 billion in the second year of the state’s biennial budget. This is progress, but the Legislature must do more if Texas truly wants to lead in school choice. For a family in rural Texas where the only local school is underperforming, or for a parent in a city struggling to find a safe, values-aligned environment for their child, school choice isn't theoretical—it’s personal. It’s the difference between settling for what’s available and choosing what’s best. Under CSSB 2, eligibility for ESAs is technically universal—every student in Texas is eligible to apply. But universal eligibility alone isn’t enough to create true school choice. It also takes universal funding and open usage, ensuring every family who wants something different for their child can access it. This version of CSSB 2 caps the ESA program at $1 billion, allowing an estimated 75,000 to 100,000 students to participate. That’s an important start, but it would serve just 1.5% of Texas’s 6.3 million school-age children. In contrast, Louisiana’s new LA GATOR program has already funded 3% of applicants in its first year—double the reach of Texas. For the thousands of Texas families who would benefit from more flexible, individualized education options, this limitation means another year stuck in a system that may not work for their children. These bright kids fall further behind while politicians and bureaucrats drag their feet. The $1 billion appropriation is a drop in the bucket compared to the nearly $100 billion Texas spends annually on public education. That system serves 5.5 million students and continues to produce stagnant outcomes. Yet, instead of shifting resources with students, CSSB 2 creates a separate program fund that lawmakers must allocate taxpayer money to every budget cycle. The Comptroller must estimate demand from current participants, waitlisted students, and eligible siblings. But the Legislature isn’t required to fund those estimates—leaving parents uncertain and ESAs vulnerable to politics. Imagine a working-class parent in Lubbock who learns their child is eligible for an ESA but doesn’t receive one because of a funding cap. Meanwhile, their local school loses a student but keeps every penny of its funding. That’s not choice—it’s a rigged system that prioritizes buildings over kids. And while lawmakers consider this capped ESA pilot, they’re simultaneously pushing forward CSHB 2, a government school spending bill that adds $8 billion more to a system that already receives $100 billion annually. If throwing money at the problem worked, we’d have solved education years ago. But for families waiting for change, this only feeds the beast while starving competition. What Texas families need isn’t more bureaucracy—they need options. Whether that’s private school, homeschool, micro-school, charter school, or a blend, every parent should be able to guide their child’s education. And that option should be backed by meaningful funding, not a lottery system that leaves most behind. Consider that if Texas provided $12,000 per student through a universal ESA, we could fund all 6.3 million students for $75 billion—$25 billion less than what’s currently spent. That would allow families to choose the best fit for their children while cutting school district M&O property taxes by two-thirds. Parents win, kids win, and taxpayers win. This is how a market-based education system should work. But under the current framework, the ESA program must try to compete with a $100 billion-and-growing public school bureaucracy. It’s an unfair fight, undermining the point of offering alternatives. Though CSSB 2 makes a down payment on education freedom, its structure limits its long-term impact. Without universal funding and reallocating dollars away from government schools when families opt out, this program will likely remain symbolic rather than systemic. Texas has more school-age children than the total population of all but 17 U.S. states. The choices we make here affect the national conversation. We can’t afford half-measures. The Legislature should improve CSSB 2 by funding ESAs through general revenue, allowing the money to follow the student, and rejecting CSHB 2 and any other bills that double down on a broken status quo. If lawmakers are serious about putting students first, and many are, they’ll move from pilot programs to universal choice. They’ll stop funding failure and start funding families. They’ll listen to parents—urban and rural, rich and poor—who simply want what’s best for their kids. Texans deserve better. Kids deserve better. Let’s stop managing the decline of public education and start empowering every family with the freedom to choose. Pass truly universal school choice—or go home.  Originally published to X. Parents across the country are demanding more choices in how their children are educated, and for good reason. Despite record spending of nearly $900 billion annually on K-12 education, or more than $17,000 per student, student outcomes continue to decline. The latest National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) scores show significant drops in math and reading proficiency, exposing the failure of the current system to deliver quality education. While more than 30 states have some form of school choice, The 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index notes that only four states—Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and West Virginia—offer truly universal Education Savings Accounts (ESAs).  Image Source: Ed Choice EdChoice defines universal ESAs as those in which all students are eligible and parents have full flexibility in spending their education dollars. This is the gold standard, and every state should strive to meet it. The fight for universal school choice is not new. Milton Friedman, one of the most influential champions of free markets and school choice, introduced the idea of school vouchers in 1955, arguing that education dollars should follow students rather than being tied to government-run schools. Milton and Rose Friedman laid the intellectual foundation for school choice policies, including ESAs. These policies expand on vouchers by allowing parents to use funds for private school tuition, homeschooling, tutoring, career training, and more. Today, Friedman’s insights are more relevant than ever as policymakers debate how to fix an education system that has failed millions of students. If more spending were the solution, U.S. education would thrive. Instead, government schools spend nearly a trillion dollars yearly while producing stagnant or declining results. The real problem is that administrative bloat has skyrocketed. Government schools have hired more non-teaching staff than ever, growing their bureaucracies instead of investing in classroom instruction. Rather than prioritizing student success, the current system funds institutions at the expense of families, trapping children in schools that fail to meet their needs. Universal ESAs are the best solution to this crisis. They allow parents to direct their child's education funding toward private school tuition, homeschooling materials, tutoring, career training, or other approved education services. This provides immediate relief for students stuck in failing schools and creates competition that incentivizes all types of schooling to improve. When schools must earn demand from parents and supply from teachers rather than rely on guaranteed government funding, they must innovate, prioritize student success, and operate efficiently. Opponents claim ESAs “take money away” from government schools. That’s a myth. Government schools are funded on a per-student basis. When students leave, schools are no longer responsible for educating them—but in many cases, they still retain a portion of the funding. No business expects full revenue after losing customers—why should government schools be different? The real reason critics oppose school choice isn’t about funding—it’s about protecting a failing monopoly from competition. The 2025 Friedman Index highlights the states leading the way and those still having work to do. The four states that have fully embraced universal ESAs ensure every student can access funding for education options that fit their needs. These states have prioritized students over systems and are seeing positive results. Meanwhile, states like Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, and South Carolina have taken steps toward broad eligibility but still impose restrictions that limit flexibility and funding.  Image Source: EdChoice
The largest red state, Texas, has no private school choice programs. With 6.3 million school-age children, including 5.5 million in government schools and nearly 1 million in private, home, micro, or other types of schooling, Texas has more students than the total populations of all but 17 states. Yet, despite its size, Texas lags in delivering true universal school choice. Texas lawmakers have introduced House Bill 3 (HB 3) and Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), claiming universal eligibility. However, neither bill provides universal funding or usage, meaning they fall short of true school choices like Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, and West Virginia. If Texas truly wants to lead, HB 3 is the stronger bill, but it should be improved to ensure full funding and total flexibility for families. Otherwise, millions of students will remain trapped in a failing system. Texas lawmakers are also pushing bad policies like HB 2, SB 26, and other bills that would funnel at least $8 billion more into government schools while allocating only $1 billion to ESAs. This would cover at most 1.5% of students, serving just 100,000 children—a small fraction considering Texas has more than 6 million students and a population of 30 million, the second-largest in the country. Texas doesn’t need more spending—if that were the answer, we’d already have the best education system in the world. What Texas needs is competition. Parents shouldn’t have to wait for slow legislative action while their children’s futures are at stake. If Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, and West Virginia can provide truly universal ESAs, there is no excuse for other states to lag behind. It’s time for a bold vision for education that prioritizes students over bureaucracy. The demand is clear, the data are conclusive, and the path forward is undeniable. Universal ESAs must be the standard in every state. Texas should be leading in fiscal conservatism. Unfortunately, this hasn't been the case in recent years. The result has been excessive taxes at the state and local levels. There are paths to reducing the budget, providing universal school choice, and putting property taxes on a path to elimination. These paths won't be easy or likely politically possible, but with bold leadership and grassroots help, Texas can lead again! I've tried to provide this in the presentation below with sources for all information. Check it out! |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly