With wind at their back, school choice advocates should push for bold, broad plan | Opinion

It was fitting that Gov. Greg Abbott brought his campaign to expand parental rights in education to Fort Worth’s Nolan Catholic High School, since Abbott has no more eloquent an advocate for his plan to establish education savings accounts than Catholic Bishop Michael Olson.

“There are state interests in education,” Olson said during a recent interview, “but they don’t precede that of the parents.”

Indeed. But back to Abbott.

Speaking before a large crowd Wednesday, the governor described his commitment to ensuring that Texas parents are at the center of their children’s education. That includes, of course, their right to access student curriculums and know what books occupy school library shelves.

The primary purpose of the governor’s parental rights campaign, however, is to expand support for legislation to make savings accounts widely available to Texas families.

ESAs, an avenue whereby the tax dollars that families pay into public school systems may be applied to alternative education options, including private, religious and homeschooling, enjoy support from a majority of Texans (68 percent, according to at least one recent public opinion tracker).

Those numbers appear to be strengthening as a result of Abbott’s energetic effort. But the bills moving through the Texas House and Senate have encountered pockets of resistance, largely from rural Republicans who are heavily influenced by local public school officials, and urban Democrats.

It is mostly the latter who repeat, ad nauseam, the false trope that school choice is an underhanded way to use public funds to pay for private, namely religious, institutions.

That specific critique was lobbed at Olson during his recent testimony before the House Public Education Committee this month.

“You’re testifying for money to go to private schools, to your schools,” Democratic Rep. Gina Hinojosa of Austin insisted.

“No,” Olson replied. “What I’m testifying for is for parents to have the money that they’re paying into their taxes so that they have parental choice. I don’t want government money directly given to our schools.”

He went on to defend the rights of parents, particularly those facing poverty and other social problems. “I’m talking about access for these people,” he said. “I’m talking about the students in public schools and their parents.”

To be clear, Olson is correct that neither of the current legislative proposals would “give government money” directly to private schools.

The tax dollars would be made available through an appropriation that could be used only if a parent, dissatisfied with their public options, applied for a savings account.

The parent could direct the funds received to a private institution or apply that money to goods and services, like books or instructional supplies (for homeschool or otherwise), tutoring, transportation, or even special needs testing and therapy.

This would truly give parents freedom, control and the ability to customize educational choices specifically for the particular needs of their children.

And, to Olson’s point, the bills would also prioritize families with the greatest financial needs, enabling them first access to ESAs.

If there is any resonant criticism of the current legislation, it’s the provision that makes ESAs accessible only to those who are currently attending a public school.

With public school enrollment numbers declining in places such as Fort Worth ISD, it’s clear that many parents already have chosen alternative education options for their children.

For many of them, that choice has come at a cost. Some parents are scrounging together the funds to send a child to a private or religious school. Others are forgoing a second income to educate their children at home.

None of the families in my homeschool network, for example, many of whom are of modest means and educating several children, would benefit from the current legislative proposals because they long ago determined that their public school options (for a variety of reasons) were unsatisfactory.

Yet were they to qualify for an ESA for financial reasons, they would be unable to access any funding available to other families in similar circumstances who currently attend public institutions — a reality that seems to defy the spirit of parental freedom that undergirds the governor’s campaign.

These families should not be excluded from policies that would improve educational opportunities for their children.

As I’ve heard from many school choice advocates, even those who like me, find problems with the current proposals — we’ve got to start somewhere.

The political will may never be stronger than it is now.

So whether parental-choice legislation passes during the regular session or needs to go to special session in June, legislators — and the advocates who have their ears — should push for broad legislation that would serve every Texas parent and child.