 Originally published on Substack.
Texas families just made the case for school choice better than any politician, think tank, or activist ever could. The first year of Texas Education Freedom Accounts (think ESAs) drew 274,310 applications by the March 31 deadline. That is not a niche movement or a messaging win, that is a market signal. Families across Texas are telling lawmakers, loudly and clearly, that they want more control over their children’s education. That should be celebrated. Texas finally cracked the government-school monopoly. But let’s not pretend the work is finished. Demand Is Real This application surge proves what some of us have been saying for years: school choice is real, popular, and badly needed. It also proves something else. TEFA was never truly universal school choice. From the beginning, I have argued that the right standard is all students, all money, all options. Texas has 6.3 million school-age kids. A truly universal model would let funding follow every child to the best-fit education options, whether that is a district school, charter school, private school, microschool, tutoring, therapies, or homeschooling support. That is the real goal. TEFA does not get us there yet. The state appropriated $1 billion for the first year. Based on the official award structure, that likely funds only about 90,000 students, and possibly fewer depending on how many students receive larger disability awards. Private-school students can receive $10,474, homeschool students receive $2,000, and students with disabilities can receive up to $30,000. So yes, 274,310 applications is huge. But if the state can fund only around 90,000 spots, then the program reaches only about 1.4 percent of Texas’s 6.3 million school-age kids. That is not universal choice. That is rationed choice. The Tiers Tell the Story The new details make the point even more clearly. Applications are prioritized through a need- and income-based lottery. The first tier is low- and middle-income students with disabilities. The second tier is low-income families. The third tier is middle-income families. The fourth tier is families above 500 percent of the federal poverty line, and they are limited to just 20 percent of total program funding. According to the Comptroller’s reported breakdown, nearly three-fourths of applicants are from low- or middle-income families. Nearly 30,000 applicants qualify for the first priority tier, and another 79,000 qualify for the second. In other words, the full $1 billion will likely be exhausted just serving the first two tiers. That means the state created a program with overwhelming demand and then funded it so narrowly that most applicants will not receive an account in year one. Again, that does not weaken the case for school choice. It strengthens it. Hold Your Ground For months, too many people acted as if Texas had already reached the gold standard just because it finally passed something. It had not. I argued that partial reforms still leave millions of students behind and that universality, not symbolism, is the real test. That is exactly what we are seeing now. Families did not just “like” TEFA. They overwhelmed it. They did not treat it like a boutique side program. They treated it like what it should become: a real alternative to a government-school monopoly that has been overfunded and underperforming for too long. Texas lawmakers should stop reading this as proof they nailed it. They should read it as proof they underbuilt it. The Better Model And here is the bigger point. A truly universal TEFA could still be cheaper than what Texas already spends propping up the monopoly system. At a simple top-line comparison, a universal TEFA funded at $12,000 per student for all 6.3 million school-age children would cost $75.6 billion per year. Compare that with the $100 billion-plus Texas spends across public education annually for about 5.5 million government-school students, or roughly $19,000 per student on a broad all-in basis. That means Texas could move toward a truly universal model, fund every child, expand real competition, and still potentially save at least $25 billion per year compared with the current bloated monopoly system. And those savings should not disappear into more bureaucracy. They must be used to compress school district property tax rates to zero. That is a much better path than continuing to pour more money into a government-school monopoly while barely increasing school choice at the margins. Finish The Job The lesson from this first year is not complicated. Texas started school choice. Good. Now finish it. Move from capped choice to truly universal choice. Let funding follow the child, not the system. Stop treating educational freedom as a rationed carveout. Allow a real market where families choose, providers compete, and schools have to earn trust instead of relying on geography and politics. That is how you get innovation, accountability, and customization. And that is how you stop feeding a monopoly that has had decades and billions of dollars to prove itself. The demand is here. The families are ready. The waitlist proves it. Now lawmakers should catch up. Three Takeaways for Policymakers 1. Treat TEFA as proof of demand, not proof of completion. More than 274,000 applications show Texas families want far more educational freedom than lawmakers funded. 2. Move from capped choice to universal choice. A program that likely funds only about 90,000 students out of 6.3 million school-age kids is a foothold, not a finish line. 3. Use universal choice to improve education and lower taxes. A broader TEFA model could cost less than the current monopoly system and help create a path toward compressing school district property tax rates to zero. The real victory is still ahead: a truly universal education market in the largest red state in America.
0 Comments
 Originally published on Substack. According to the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, more than 42,000 students applied for Texas Education Freedom Accounts (TEFA) on the very first day (Feb 4), setting a new national record for day-one applications in a school choice program. By late the following morning, applications had already climbed past 46,000 students, and the Comptroller noted that the number will continue to grow as applications remain open through mid-March. That level of demand is real. It’s encouraging. And it confirms what parents across Texas have been saying for years: families want more control over how and where their children are educated. But lawmakers should not confuse a record-setting headline with a finished reform. Record Demand, Limited Reach Texas is enormous. With roughly 6.3 million school-age children, even 46,000 applications represent well under 1 percent of students statewide. On day one alone, the application rate was about 0.67 percent. Now compare that with Tennessee’s ESA rollout, where 33,000 students applied on day one in 2025. Tennessee has about 1.1 million school-age children, meaning its day-one application rate was 2.93 percent. Adjusted for school-age population, Tennessee’s demand for school choice was more than four times higher than Texas’, despite Texas grabbing national attention for total numbers.  The takeaway is straightforward: Texas did not “solve” school choice. It revealed just how constrained the current program is relative to demand.
What the Data Actually Show The Comptroller’s release includes important details that deserve careful attention. Of the students who applied on day one:
Nearly three in four applicants were placed into priority categories created by Senate Bill 2 in 2025, including students with disabilities and families with lower or middle incomes. This matters for two reasons. First, it directly undermines the claim that education savings accounts only benefit wealthy families. Parents from across the income spectrum are actively seeking alternatives because the current system is not working for their kids. Second, it highlights the central flaw of the Texas approach: access is rationed. Lawmakers are deciding which families get freedom now and which families are told to wait, even though demand is widespread and immediate. Two Funding Pots, One Structural Problem Texas now operates two parallel education funding systems. One is massive, automatic, and politically protected: the government-school system, funded largely through state appropriations and rising local property taxes. The other is small, capped, and limited: TEFA. As I explained in my earlier piece, “Two Pots, One Problem”, this structure is unsustainable. Sending limited dollars to ESAs while continuing to pump vastly more money into the same monopoly system parents are trying to leave guarantees weak competition and slow change. Today, government schools in Texas ($100 billion) receive roughly 100 times more taxpayer funding each year than the ESA program ($1 billion). A system with that kind of imbalance will not meaningfully respond to competition. It will absorb it. Why Partial Choice Will Eventually Backfire Education savings accounts are not meant to be pilot programs or symbolic gestures. Their purpose is to change incentives across the entire education system. Real competition:
A limited ESA program does none of that at scale. Worse, partial programs create long-term political risk. When tens of thousands of families apply and many are denied access, frustration grows. Over time, that frustration can be misdirected at school choice itself rather than at the artificial caps lawmakers imposed. That is how good reforms stall — or get blamed for failures they did not cause. The Bigger Opportunity for Texas Texas has an opportunity most states do not. By moving toward truly universal education savings accounts, lawmakers could:
None of this happens overnight. But none of it happens at all if Texas locks itself into a permanently limited program. Bottom Line for Lawmakers The TEFA rollout proves one thing beyond doubt: parents are ready. They applied in record numbers. They demonstrated demand across income levels. And they showed that the current program does not come close to meeting the need in a state as large and diverse as Texas. If Texas wants better outcomes, real accountability, and a system built around families instead of institutions, more must be done — especially in a high-growth state like Texas. The record is a starting point. Ending the monopoly must be the goal. Key takeaways for legislators and staff:
The question now is simple: will Texas stop halfway — or finish the job?  Originally published on Substack.
Texas finally crossed a long-awaited threshold in 2025 by passing its first Education Savings Account (ESA) law, set to launch in the 2026–27 school year. For families who have waited years for meaningful school choice, this matters. It opens doors that were previously locked shut by ZIP codes, bureaucracies, and one-size-fits-all systems. But honesty matters too: this law is not truly universal school choice. It is a beginning—not the destination. After spending more than $100 billion a year on a government-run K–12 system that delivers poor and uneven results, Texas has acknowledged what parents already know: families deserve options. Nationally, nearly $900 billion is spent annually on K–12 education, yet student outcomes continue to slide. The latest NAEP results show persistent declines in reading and math proficiency, even after record spending increases documented by EducationData.org. More money isn’t the answer. Structural change is! Let’s dig in during National School Choice Week. What Texas Passed—and What It Didn’t Under SB 2, Texas will create Education Freedom Accounts (often called TEFAs) that allow eligible families to use public education dollars for approved education expenses such as private school tuition, tutoring, online learning, and homeschool materials. That’s real progress. But the program is capped at $1 billion (1% of funding on government schools). This will fund at most 100,000 students—just 1.5% of Texas’ 6.3 million school-aged children—and includes income restrictions that exclude many middle-class families. Meanwhile, students who remain in government schools continue to receive more than $18,000 per year, while most ESA students receive about $10,000 or less. That’s not a level playing field. It’s a dual-funding system that protects the monopoly while rationing opportunity. States that have gone further—like Arizona, Florida, Arkansas, and West Virginia—have shown what’s possible. According to the 2025 EdChoice Friedman Index, only those four states offer truly universal ESAs, where every student is eligible and families have real flexibility. Those states are closer to the North Star. Texas is not—yet. How Families Can Apply (2026–27 School Year) Even with its limitations, families should prepare now. The application process will be administered through the state, with details centralized at EducationFreedom.Texas.gov. Here’s a simple checklist to help families get ready: 1. Confirm Eligibility Students must be Texas residents and meet priority eligibility categories outlined in statute (such as income thresholds or special education status). 2. Gather Key Documents Have digital copies of:
3. Understand Approved Uses Funds may be used for:
A clear family guide is available here. 4. Apply Online When the Window Opens Applications will be submitted through EducationFreedom.Texas.gov and time-stamped. 5. Prepare for a Lottery Because the program is capped, eligible applicants may be entered into a lottery if demand exceeds available slots. Local reporting, including this KSAT overview, will continue to provide updates. Why This Still Isn’t Enough Here’s the uncomfortable truth: limiting ESAs by income and enrollment undermines their effectiveness. When higher-income families are excluded, programs lose political durability, economic scale, and innovation pressure. The current system already subsidizes affluent families—by default—through fully funded government schools. ESAs simply allow that funding to follow the child instead, often at a lower cost to taxpayers. Research consistently shows that school choice works. A review of nearly 190 empirical studies summarized in EdChoice’s 123s of School Choice finds strong academic outcomes, higher parental satisfaction, and net taxpayer savings in 87% of fiscal studies. Competition improves outcomes not just for participants, but for students who remain in district schools. Texas could do even better. A single-pot funding model, where every child receives the same ESA—around $12,000 per student—could cover all 6.3 million Texas students, save taxpayers more than $20 billion annually, and begin lowering school district M&O property tax rates. That’s real reform. Closing Thoughts Texas took a step forward in 2025. Families should use this program. Policymakers should learn from it. And everyone should be honest about what comes next. Education freedom isn’t about tearing down schools—it’s about building a system that finally puts students first. The states leading on universal ESAs are showing the way. Texas can still join them, but only if lawmakers choose competition over protection and families over bureaucracy. If you found this helpful, subscribe, share it with other families, and leave a comment. More eyes mean more pressure—and more freedom for kids who need it most.  Originally published at The Houston Chronicle.
Republican primary voters overwhelmingly want less government, lower taxes and more freedom. Yet the Texas state government is no longer operating that way. Spending keeps rising, property taxes remain too high, and lawmakers increasingly substitute control for trust. There are no excuses left. Republicans have held a full trifecta in our state since 2003: Governor, Texas House and Texas Senate. When one party governs for more than two decades, it owns the outcomes. Yet the government keeps expanding, taxes remain burdensome, and Austin continues to crowd out families and markets. That is not drift. It is a choice. Yes, Texas’ economy has grown. But that’s not because the state government has shown discipline. Much of that growth is simply because people and businesses are fleeing higher-tax, higher-regulation states like California and New York. Texas has benefited from other states’ policy failures. That advantage is real, but it is not permanent. States that grow government faster than population plus inflation eventually lose their edge. Unfortunately, that’s happening right here in Texas. Over the last two budget cycles, Texas collected more than $50 billion in budget surpluses. That should have been a once-in-a-generation opportunity to permanently reduce the tax burden. School district maintenance and operations (M&O) property taxes — the largest share of most Texans’ property tax bills — could have been dramatically reduced and locked in. Instead, the state increased its budget by 42% in state funds over two budget cycles, double population growth plus inflation. Taxpayers were overcharged. The government grew. Relief fell short. That is not conservative governance. It is a failure of priorities. So what should Republican primary voters ask before choosing candidates for the Legislature, courts and statewide offices? Not who sounds toughest. Not who promises another carve-out. But who actually believes the government has grown too large — and knows how to shrink it. Here are five questions GOP voters should demand clear answers to. 1. Do you believe the Texas government is too big — and what would you cut? Talking about “efficiency” is easy. Naming programs to cut is hard. Any serious candidate should be able to identify agencies, subsidies or mandates that have grown too fast and should be reduced or eliminated. If the answer is “nothing,” that tells voters everything they need to know. 2. Why weren’t surpluses used to permanently lower school property taxes? With tens of billions in surplus revenue, Texas could have locked in far deeper reductions in school M&O property taxes. Voters should ask why that didn’t happen — and whether candidates support using future surpluses to permanently reduce taxes at the state and local levels rather than expand government. 3. Who decides — parents or politicians? This may be the most important question of all. Recent legislative actions — banning cell phones in schools, imposing age verification for social media (which has been blocked in the courts) and expanding state control over family decisions — send a clear signal: Lawmakers increasingly do not trust parents. Conservatives should be honest about that. Strong institutions begin with strong families, not top-down mandates. When the state replaces parental judgment with political judgment, it weakens the very institutions it claims to protect. Republican voters should demand candidates who trust parents more than bureaucrats. 4. Do you support truly universal school choice — or government-selected winners and losers? The school choice program passed last year was not universal. It only covers a limited number of families and only applies to certain schools. Real reform empowers every family, not just those approved by policymakers. Candidates should be forced to say plainly whether they support universal choice or managed choice. 5. How will you empower patients and prepare Texas for less federal money? Healthcare spending keeps growing while access and outcomes disappoint. More government control has not fixed that problem. Texas needs a shift toward empowering patients — more patient choice, fewer mandates and stronger doctor-patient relationships. Just as important, federal healthcare dollars are not guaranteed. Washington’s debt and deficits mean that states will likely face reduced federal support. Republican voters should ask candidates whether they are preparing Texas for that reality — or simply building a system that depends money that may not be there tomorrow. Texas remains strong because of its people, its culture and its institutions, not because of Austin’s budget growth. Stronger institutions come from less government, clearer accountability and trust in families, patients and communities. After more than two decades of one-party control, Republican voters should demand more than slogans. They should demand answers. And they should vote accordingly.  Originally published at Kansas Policy Institute.
The debate over school choice in Kansas often gets bogged down in politics and process. But the latest data make the stakes clear. The 2026 ABCs of School Choice from EdChoice is the most comprehensive inventory of private school choice programs in the country. After 25 years of tracking these policies, EdChoice doesn’t just catalog programs—it evaluates them against a clear standard of what works. By that standard, Kansas is not keeping pace. How EdChoice Measures Success EdChoice evaluates school choice programs using three pillars of universality:
States that meet a high bar across all three are classified as having universal or near-universal choice. These states see higher participation, stronger provider entry, and greater innovation. Kansas does not meet that bar. Where Kansas Ranks in Practice Kansas offers a tax-credit scholarship program that serves a limited subset of low-income students. According to the EdChoice report, programs like this—while helpful to some families—do not qualify as universal and rarely reach scale. Kansas falls into the category of states with restricted eligibility, limited funding, and narrow allowable uses. In practical terms:
By contrast, states such as Florida, Arizona, and Iowa meet EdChoice’s universality benchmarks. Florida alone now serves more than 500,000 students through education savings accounts (ESAs) that allow families to pay for tuition, tutoring, therapies, curriculum, and online learning. The difference isn’t political rhetoric. It’s program design. Why Partial Choice Falls Short The EdChoice data show a consistent pattern: states with narrow programs stay small. Participation remains low. New schools and service providers hesitate to enter the market. Families just above eligibility cutoffs are excluded. Kansas fits that pattern. This matters because Kansas already funds education on a universal basis. Every student gets taxpayer money to attend a government school. The question is whether those dollars are locked into systems or allowed to follow students. EdChoice’s research finds that universal ESAs unlock demand. When eligibility is broad and rules are neutral, families participate at much higher rates—often two to three times higher than in states with targeted programs. What Legislators Should Take From the Report For Kansas lawmakers, the ABCs of School Choice should be read as a warning. School choice is no longer experimental. Nearly half the states now offer programs approaching universality. Kansas is being outpaced not because it lacks resources, but because it has chosen caution over trust. As Kansas Policy Institute has noted, repeated legislative failures to expand choice have left Kansas families with fewer options than families in many peer states. The EdChoice data confirm that this gap will widen unless policy changes. Incremental tweaks—slightly broader eligibility here, a modest funding increase there—will not change Kansas’ standing. They keep the state in the same non-universal category year after year. The Case for Universal ESAs in Kansas A universal education savings account would align Kansas with the states leading on choice. It would:
The EdChoice report makes one thing unmistakable: universality is the dividing line between states that lead and states that lag. Kansas legislators face a clear choice. Continue defending a limited system that EdChoice data show will never scale—or adopt universal ESAs that trust parents and put students first. The data are already in. What Kansas does next will determine where it shows up in future editions of the ABCs of School Choice. |
Vance Ginn, Ph.D.
|
RSS Feed
Proudly powered by Weebly