On May 3, Texas Governor Abbott signed the state’s first school choice bill, which he has hailed as a “historic victory.” Moving forward, half of American students will live in states with school choice. Although Abbott touts the program as the largest in the nation, critics say that “it has a long way to go before it can claim to be the biggest in the country by most meaningful metrics.”
Senate Bill 2 creates a non-universal Education Savings Account (ESA) to be administered by the Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts. The bill provides up to $1 billion of state funds in 2027 for eligible students to receive nearly $10,000 for private schools, $2,000 for homeschooling, and $30,000 for those with special needs. Students will be chosen through a lottery.
School choice supporters praised the bill, which the Texas House passed 85 to 63, mostly along party lines. Matthew Ladner, who has worked for school choice in Arizona and other states, proudly noted the vote:
The Texas House passage of ESA legislation was a monumental achievement, and should be a pivot point for the choice movement overall/1 pic.twitter.com/ruse956pUV
— Matthew Ladner (@matthewladner) April 17, 2025
Heritage Foundation’s Jason Bedrick wrote, “In a historic victory for educational freedom, the Texas House of Representatives finally passed a universal school choice bill—marking not just a win for families in the Lone Star State, but a watershed moment for the entire school choice movement.”
Yet there can be trouble ahead. The program is fraught with structural issues and, without major reforms, could fail to deliver on promises made. Worse, the ESA program could create a public backlash that will negatively impact school choice efforts for years.
Although SB 2 allocates $1 billion to the program, that will provide only enough funding for around 100,000 students out of the state’s 6.3 million school-aged children. In a Texas Two Step, SB 2 was paired with House Bill 2, which allocated nearly $8 billion in new funding for Texas government schools, even though the billions already spent have failed to move the needle in terms of education quality.
“The price (for non-universal choice) shouldn’t have been a massive increase in funding for the education bureaucracy,” wrote U.S. Rep Chip Roy (R-Tx). “But here we are. With just $1B in funding [for school choice], 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.”
HB 2 forces Texans to fund two separate systems of education. It reinforces public education with its myriad problems instead of penalizing it. Rather than losing funding when students withdraw, public schools will retain their full funding. There will be no incentive for public schools to improve since there will be no competition.
This runs counter to the free-market system that private schools and homeschools inspire. There should be one pool of taxpayer funds that will follow the child if the parent chooses to leave the government system. By having two systems, Texans will be forced to pay higher taxes in the future, especially if the ESA program is expanded.
In a newsletter, Governor Abbott wrote, “Soon, Texas will be #1 in the country for education, and parents across the state will have the power to choose the best school for their children – regardless of income, background, or zip code.”
Considering the claim that the new $8 billion school funding is to appease the public education crowd, it remains to be seen how Texas can support two full-blown education systems. As the ESA is expanded, will more still be allocated toward empty seats in government schools?
Economist Vance Ginn proposes an alternative economic solution that will save Texans billions of dollars and allow parents freedom over educating their children. He recommends “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.”
Another structural problem with Texas’s ESA is a permanent cap of 20 percent for the number of participants by families earning more than 500 percent of the federal poverty level—$160,750 for a family of four. They can qualify only if their children have not previously attended a public school.
The ESA legislation, with its audits, documentation mandates, and provider regulations, maintains a bureaucratic approach rather than one of innovation to reform education. There are stringent requirements tied to the ESA funding, while the $8 billion public education bill has no accountability.
ESA participants must provide documentation to show improvement, while public schools have no such requirements. Educational service providers and educational product vendors must be pre-approved by the state comptroller. ESA participants must purchase their products through these state-approved vendors, so the bureaucracy determines winners and losers. If homeschool parents want to use other instructional materials, it is likely they will face uphill challenges in funding.
Even though the ESA program demands purchasing only from state-approved vendors, public schools have no such requirement. Texas law allows Texas public schools to purchase non-state-board-approved instructional products, using taxpayer dollars.
In Texas, private schools have no requirements for registration, licensing, approval, or accreditation. This will change under SB2, with the requirement that private schools must be accredited by an organization recognized by the Texas Education Agency or by the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission. The requirement for state accreditation will limit the participation of popular free market models such as micro-schools or homeschool co-ops.
For homeschool families, the requirement for tutors and teaching services to be accredited or have a license will limit their participation in the program as well.
Public education requirements for teacher certification and school accreditation have not improved academic achievement. Public school graduates’ reading levels, critical thinking ability, and general knowledge are far below those of a few decades ago. Most colleges now require remedial classes in basic subjects for freshmen. In comparison, students who are home-educated typically score 15 to 25 percentile points above public-school students on standardized academic achievement tests.
Many Texans have expressed a concern that this ESA program, with its unnecessary restrictions on private and home schools, is a Trojan horse for more state control. Time will tell if the Texas ESA will go down the path of the Arizona school choice program, which is already under fire over the increase of government control.
American Thinker
Jesus Christ is King
