Texas Passes Historic (Non-Universal) School Choice—Much More to Do

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:

1. All Students: Every child is eligible, with funded access for all who apply.
2. All Options: Parents can use ESA funds flexibly—for private school tuition, homeschooling, tutoring, therapies, online courses, and more.
3. All Dollars: ESA awards must equal the average state and local funding per public school student.

Texas meets none of these benchmarks. Despite what some are calling “universal,” this program falls far short of the gold standard.

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:

• Universal eligibility with no income or enrollment caps.
• One funding pool—not a separate ESA fund and a protected government school budget.
• Market access for innovative schools, micro-schools, homeschool co-ops, and learning pods immediately.
• Funding based on demand, not predetermined caps or bureaucratic waitlists.

This program can still be salvaged in the current legislative session during conference committee to work out differences between the chambers or reformed in the next session. But the clock is ticking.

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.