Texas Steps Forward on School Choice—But Still Falls Short of Leading

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.