Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Targets School Choice Opponents in GOP Ranks
Americans want choice in education. Politicians need to catch up.

In political shorthand, school choice is treated as a conservative and Republican issue. But denying people the ability to make choices of any sort is a control issue. While the GOP generally favors freedom in the area of education, some of its elected officials still like to exercise power over families and children. That's why Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is following in the footsteps of other Republicans in targeting legislators from his own party who oppose letting parents guide their children's education.
"Gov. Greg Abbott is starting to make good on his threat to politically target fellow Republicans who oppose school vouchers, issuing his first endorsement of a primary challenger to a House member who has helped thwart his top legislative priority of the year," The Texas Tribune's Patrick Svitek reported last week.
You are reading Rent Free from Christian Britschgi and Reason. Get more of Christian's urban regulation, development, and zoning coverage.
A Party Divided Over School Choice
Abbott's move comes after 21 House Republicans joined Democrats to strip education savings accounts (ESAs) from an education funding bill, dooming the effort for the year. The failed bill would have made $10,500 available annually for each eligible student in ESAs, essentially allocating a portion of education funding to follow students instead of dedicating it to specific brick-and-mortar schools. GOP opponents of the bill are largely legislators from rural districts where members of the public-school establishment are important political players.
According to EdChoice, which advocates for education freedom, ESAs are restricted to specified uses and "parents may use the funds to pay for expenses including: school tuition, tutoring, online education programs, therapies for students with special needs, textbooks or other instructional materials, and sometimes, save for college." Thirteen states have adopted some form of ESA to expand families' abilities to guide where and how their children learn without having to pay for their preferences on top of taxes.
Abbott isn't the first Republican to have to battle members of his own party over school choice. The Kansas House narrowly passed an ESA measure in March with 22 GOP legislators voting against education freedom. The measure later died in the Senate.
"Democratic Gov. Laura Kelly strongly opposed using state tax dollars to help parents pay for private or home schooling, and GOP conservatives had trouble winning over rural Republicans who didn't think families living in areas with few private schools would receive much of a benefit," reported the AP.
Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds was able to sign education savings accounts into law this year only after an initial loss at the hands of lawmakers from her own party.
"The school choice movement is gaining momentum, but one obstacle continues to be Republicans in the suburbs and some rural areas who are allied with the teachers unions," The Wall Street Journal editorial board noted at the time. "They mistakenly figure their schools are fine and they've already exercised choice by where they live."
Reynolds overcame the opposition by removing it from power; she endorsed primary challenges to members of her own party who opposed school choice. With new legislators in office, the measure passed.
Overcoming Myths About Rural Education Freedom
Rural lawmakers in Texas and elsewhere sometimes argue that their thinly settled districts offer too few options to make choice practical. But research from Florida found that, as anybody who has taken an economics class should expect, supply expanded to meet demand when that state made education funding portable. In Florida, the number of private schools in rural areas almost doubled between 2001 and 2021.
"Like so many other myths about school choice—that it destroys traditional public schools, that it doesn't lead to better academic outcomes, that it lacks accountability—the myth about school choice not working in rural areas doesn't stand up to scrutiny," the report authors wrote.
Abbott now seems to be following Reynolds' footsteps in order to emulate her success in ousting school choice opponents from the legislature in order to pass measures giving all children the same options kids from wealthier families have in selecting education that works for them. Frankly, children in Texas need a lot more in the way of options.
Room for Improvement
"Texas ranks #30 for education choice," according to the Heritage Foundation's Education Freedom Report Card. "Texas does fairly well in empowering families to choose among charter schools but could do much more to expand private education choice. Texas respects the autonomy of homeschooling families. Texas could improve its ranking by enacting a K–12 education savings account (ESA) policy, making it easier for charter schools to open and operate, and giving families a choice of traditional public schools beyond their assigned school."
Iowa's adoption of ESAs bumped the state up five positions in the same report card, to number four. Kansas, where the ESA bill failed this year, languishes in 23rd place for education choice.
In addition to his support for a primary challenger, "Abbott has already endorsed for reelection all the House Republicans who voted against the amendment that removed the voucher program from the education legislation," adds Svitek for The Texas Tribune. It's a sign that the governor plans to reinforce his allies as much as undermine his opponents.
Politicians Need to Catch Up with the Public
Whatever the reason for the squabbling and power plays among elected officials, school choice is increasingly popular with Americans.
"The concept of school choice enjoys overwhelming support (71% vs. 13% opposed)," the American Federation for Children announced in July. "This is true across party lines, with 66% of Democrats, 80% of Republicans, and 69% of Independents saying they support such a policy."
The question defined school choice as giving "parents the right to use the tax dollars designated for their child's education to send their child to the public or private school which best serves their needs," encompassing ESAs as well as vouchers and other means of funding children instead of institutions. Support for choice was up seven points from April 2020, before families had fully experienced the failures of public schools in dealing with COVID-19. And people are voting with their feet.
In February, the Urban Institute reported that while public school enrollment is declining, private schools and homeschooling are on the rise. Publicly funded, privately run charter schools are also gaining popularity.
Americans have already decided they want choice in education. It's time for politicians of all parties to catch up.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Taxpayers should have the choice not to fund public schools.
I'm making $90 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning 16,000 US dollars a month by working on the connection, that was truly astounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this job now by just using this website... http://www.Payathome9.com
Taxpayers should have the choice not to fund public schools.
I'd love to see checkboxes on my W4 for gon't programs.
Check the boxes you want to fund with a % of your tax liability.
This would be a perfect indicator of what Americans actually want and what programs need to die.
1. Congress passes a budget allocating which establishes two things: total spending, and proportions per Congressionally-approved officer.
2. Along with your tax payments, you select which of those approved departments get your taxes, based on the last budget passed.
3. Underfunded departments stay underfunded and have to shrink.
4. Overfunded departments return the excess to voters.
Two main results:
A. It cuts spending hugely.
B. It encourages Congress to actually pass a budget.
Yes, some people would mark all their taxes to the military or national parks. But power to the people and all that.
It's important that the budget allocations have to be by Congressionally-approved officers so they don't just allocate all spending to one "government" department. At the very least split it by cabinet departments. But if they have to approve the FBI director, then the FBI is a budget department, and so on.
There was a science fiction story with that tax structure. Described it as a logical outgrowth of the IRS's presidential election campaign fund option. In addition to calculating your taxes each you, you then had to allocate a percentage of your taxes to the programs you supported. The author argued (I thought compellingly) that most programs would remained funded at at least basic levels because even if it's not your particular passion, it's someone's. Veterans tend to support defense, people with kids support schools, etc. At the population level, individual choices average out and Congress retained authority to distribute the fraction not set by individual choice.
The only gap I found in the author's logic was the likelihood that such a system would skew government agencies to self-promotion and advertising over substance and program delivery. But maybe there's a way to limit that effect.
I want to say it was a Heinlein story but I can't remember the name of the book. The tax structure was only a minor sidebar to the plot.
Might have been The Moon Is a Harsh Mistress where he spent a fair bit of plot discussing the new government. I remember especially he wanted to make it easier to repeal laws than enact them.
Yep, but at least this is a step in the right direction. The next step should be abolition of tax funded education.
Of the two things to eliminate, I would eliminate government control before I'd eliminate taxpayer funding. Funding at least has an equitable goal, compared to government control.
Being forced by government to pay for the education of others is government control.
You know I mean control of the curriculum. C'mon, man, if you're going to be falsely pedantic, at least throw in a pun!
Sometimes I avoid doing that to show I have some class.
Government taking my money to give it to other people so those other people can form a committee to decide how to spend it? Nope.
Taxpayers should not be bailing out California, but, as of today, Brandon is sending a 6 billion bailout, oops sorry, high speed rail infrastructure check. The money pit Fed tax funded train to nowhere.
Newsom is just trolling the net federal taxpayer now.
Taxpayers should have the choice not to fund public schools.
Only if they would forfeit the benefits of having public schools by doing so. Run a business and choose not to support public schools? Then you can only hire employees that attended private schools. Get sick? Doctors or nurses that attended public schools can't help you.
How's that any of the employers responsibility? You're not doing anything but deceptively shoveling employees own responsibility onto the employers as-if that was some natural right. YOU are responsible for YOUR education; not your employer.
If government is going to fund education, then no one that benefits should be able to simply opt out of paying the taxes that fund it. Was that hard to understand? Employers benefit from having an educated labor pool. And that includes anyone that owns or invests in those businesses.
YOU are responsible for YOUR education; not your employer.
Are 5 year-olds responsible for their own education? I'm also kind of wondering how a teenager that's looking to get hired for their first job was supposed to have paid for their own education. Oh, I see, then it becomes the parents' responsibility, not the employer. Okay, fine. Now that employers any anyone else that feels like it can just opt out of paying taxes that would fund public education, parents with low income will be stuck with whatever the government can manage from voluntary taxes. Guess it just sucks to be those kids.
Too often around here, you see people that just don't seem to understand why publicly funded education exists in the first place. They get so caught up in the government bad! taxes bad! venting that it shuts off every other part of their brain.
Yes, some very thoughtless opinions. Glad most of us don’t live in their world.
No I don't understand why ?legal? gov-'gun' THEFT exists in the first place. Because I'm not a F'En criminal.
You on the other hand, spout so much BS excuses like a child telling stories and endless excuses of why you just had to STEAL the toy from the toy store owner that your criminal (gov-'guns' makes sh*t) mentality shuts off every part of your brain.
'guns' don't teach kids... People do... The only think 'public' theft does is STEALS from those that *earn* for entitlement of those that want free-sh*t. There's no such thing as FORCED charity.
No I don’t understand why ?legal? gov-‘gun’ THEFT exists in the first place. Because I’m not a F’En criminal.
Since "taxes are theft" is the only thing running through your mind, you will never see anything else. Perhaps you can find a place in the world where there is an educated population without government funded education. Then you can show us all how it is done without "gov-'guns'" stealing people's money.
How it is done without “gov-‘guns’” stealing?
Ya know … the ethical way of *earning* or *doing* what is required to obtain what one desires/wants which eliminates crime (THEFT). Enter Individual Liberty and Justice for all.
How it’s done was demonstrated in the USA pre-1900. The first ‘public’ high school didn’t even exist until 1821 long after the 1st Industrial Revolution of 1760 to 1830. While the ‘public’ indoctrination-camps edition of today is Anti-Industrial Revolution.
Criminal minds don’t make sh*t.
Or there's the free-market of pre-school day care currently taking place in the mini-market of 1 to 5 year olds.
How it’s done was demonstrated in the USA pre-1900.
If you have to go back in time more than a century, then you are admitting that there is nowhere in the modern developed world that does without public funding of education. A time when few people needed education beyond 8th grade, since they would learn what they needed on the job, through apprenticeships, or on the family farm is not the modern world.
Perhaps you can find enough fellow anarcho-capitalists to establish a small country somewhere that can maintain a modern standard of living without any "gov-guns", but I doubt it.
The first ‘public’ high school didn’t even exist until 1821 long after the 1st Industrial Revolution of 1760 to 1830.
Hmm, that's some fuzzy math, seeing as how 1821 is not "long after" the time period of 1760 - 1830. Even in "failing public schools" kids rarely think that the year 1821 would come after 1830.
Or there’s the free-market of pre-school day care currently taking place in the mini-market of 1 to 5 year olds.
How does that work out for poor families? I guess that's what welfare is for, huh?
Welfare? Gov-'gun' FORCED Welfare?
No. It's called armed-theft and is a criminal act that violates people's Liberty and Justice. The only welfare that should exist is within prison walls to keep self-entitled criminals from destroying humanity.
So now where are the Democrat governors pursuing the same problem in their own party?
They are busy purging any Democrats who might support school choice
They still get the lions share of Teacher Union money. They don't want to cut off that pile of money just because their voters want educational choice. Same reason you have to fight tooth and nail for Constitutional Carry even if the state legislature and governor are Republicans. They get police union money and the leadership of that union doesn't want people able to defend themselves.
Same reason you have to fight tooth and nail for Constitutional Carry even if the state legislature and governor are Republicans. They get police union money and the leadership of that union doesn’t want people able to defend themselves.
The states also lose the permit machine fees and taxes when going Constitutional Carry. I heard an Idaho Democrat say exactly this when CC was being debated here. Whining about revenue loss that should never have existed in the first place.
We've got CC in my state and I know a few people who got permits anyway. The reason for this is that there are places where CC doesn't apply but permits do, like national parks.
If they’re Jewish, they are thinking about all the Hamas terrorists and Nazis inside the White House as interns and staffers.
Leftist reason is still carrying water for Democrats I see.
After all there was no mention of a whole bunch of unrelated things in the article. And if I've learned anything from the comments, not getting angry about those things that weren't mentioned is proof of complete loyalty to the evil other.
You have to be the most tiresome poster here.
I'll be sure to let you know the moment your opinion matters to me.
I dunno. Seems like a 10-way tie.
Get a life idiot.
In another thread I said that people who tattled on others for not wearing masks were assholes, and was accused of defending the left. People in the comments are retarded.
Right.
https://reason.com/2023/12/06/ivy-league-double-standards/?comments=true#comment-10344671
Well.. You are learning and nothing you said was incorrect. Time and time again reason lately has been utterly ignored the evil intention of the Democratic platform while nit-picking the Republicans or playing 'boaf sidez' dishonestly.
It wasn't that way before Trump got elected. The Left-Nazi's have done a good job of brain-washing the sheeple journalist urbanites.
“GOP opponents of the bill are largely legislators from rural districts where members of the public-school establishment are important political players.”
Not really. Rural districts in Texas tend to have small schools, often with everything from kindergarten to 12th grade all on the same campus, sometimes even in the same building. They play 2A and 1A sports and sometimes even 6-man football. In a high school with 100 students, they might graduate 25 students in a year.
These schools have residents with lower property valuations and, therefore, fewer resources for their schools, even though the flood of state and federal testing, accommodation, and other requirements do not change. They often pay state minimums for their teachers, placing them at a disadvantage relative to districts that can afford to pay more, either from taxes (in spite of Robin Hood) or federal subsidies. The economic demographics in these areas are often far below those of the Texas techno suburbs like Plano, Allen, McKinney, and Katy.
THUS, losing $10k a year is a big hit to their schools, and lots of people in those areas know it. If your high school has 100 students (1A class in Texas), even a precious few would really hit the budgets.
Idealistic Reason types just reply “Well those morons shouldn’t live in those places,” or “Make a bigger district, even if it means those kids have to be transported 50 miles to a school each way, ” or “The public school lobby has a lot of influence in those areas.” There’s more to it than that. Tuccille’s lazy naivete and lack of sophistication here is truly grating.
Tax sharing. Not to toot California's horn, but Reagan (I think) ushered in tax sharing between districts. So the rich districts still had plenty of money, but poor districts weren't impoverished.
Also, you absolutely CAN run a high school with less than 100 students. Plenty of private/parochial schools do it all the time.
No excuse to vote against parental choice.
See the another Latest article on the list: https://reason.com/2023/12/05/global-math-and-reading-assessment-indicates-widespread-post-pandemic-learning-loss/
Idiocracy here we come!
So why is DeSantos running for prez and not this guy?
"School Choice" is meaningless when the government forces private (and even some home) schools to teach to government-approved curriculum and/or hire government-approved (aka "licensed") educators. If there's no choice to be totally free of the government, then there's no meaningful choice at all.
I don't know of any states that force private schools to teach "government-approved curriculum," and I don't think many require them to hire "government-approved" teachers. Florida infamously has very little accountability to the private schools that can accept government funding from its voucher programs. That is going to lead to a wide range of quality in private schools with little public information for parents to base their choices upon.
Weak. I’d prefer competition to get students educated in at least the basics. Or be in an environment where education is valued. Or where the teachers can be held accountable. Surely you understand why parents seek alternatives.
"The question defined school choice as giving 'parents the right to use the tax dollars designated for their child's education to send their child to the public or private school which best serves their needs.'" I can't argue with that, as long as PARENTS have the right to choose their child's education and SCHOOLS DO NOT have the right to reject children categorically through exacting criteria.
I can’t argue with that, as long as PARENTS have the right to choose their child’s education and SCHOOLS DO NOT have the right to reject children categorically through exacting criteria.
But that cuts against why some parents want school choice. They want to be able to send their kids to schools that can reject disruptive students that might make it harder for their kids to learn or those that require more of a teacher's time. Or, in some cases, they want the school to make sure that only students, teachers, and parents with the “right” cultural values are around their kids. And that is their right, if those parents are willing to use their own money to get it.
My parents were public school teachers and were disappointed when we put our daughter in Catholic school rather than the failing local public schools. I explained that my daughter only goes through third grade once - if I do it right.
How did you know that the local public schools were failing? What, specifically, were they failing to do well? How did you know that the Catholic school would do those things better?
This is sarcasm right?
No, they are actual questions. If parents are to have choice among different schools, they will need to be able to tell which schools are better than others. Years of school choice articles around here and everyone seems to assume that parents will "just know" as if by the magic of the invisible hand of the free market. That, or they make a blanket assumption that all public schools are inferior to all private schools.
LOL
But denying people the ability to make choices of any sort is a control issue.
If my employer doesn't pay me enough to buy a Lexus, is it denying me the choice of what car to buy?
School vouchers in Florida are ~8k a year. That is half what the top private schools charge in tuition. Is the Florida government that loves school choice denying poor parents the choice to send kids to those schools in order to control them?
If government is paying for something, then there will always be limits to the choice an individual will have over that something. Of course, their choices will also be limited by their own resources if government doesn't pay anything, so eliminating government spending on that item entirely limits individual choice as well.
As-if 'guns' actually teach kids...
Your magical free-resource doesn't exist.
Gov-'guns' don't actually make sh*t.
And the only one's who believe that crap are criminals out to STEAL.
Ya gotta hand it to grand Goblin Greg; he does a better George Wallace impersonation than George Wallace ever managed to pull off...