89th Texas Legislative Session: School Choice

School choice has become one of the most contentious issues within the Texas Republican Party. The debate has already shaped primary battles, and something is almost certain to pass this session. The question isn’t if school choice will become law, but rather how it will be structured—and whether the final product will be a true improvement or a policy that causes unintended harm.

Expanding school choice must come with careful consideration of its impact on students, particularly those in special education, as well as a framework for accountability for both existing school districts and the new recipients of taxpayer funds.

The ISDs Can’t Pass Off Responsibilities

Public school districts have legal obligations under federal and state law that school choice funding recipients will not automatically inherit. One of the biggest concerns is Child Find, the federal requirement under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) that mandates school districts identify, locate, and evaluate children who may need special education services.

This is one of the reasons (pretexts?) that the TEA used to justify the HISD takeover. Given TEA’s current ideological leanings, it could just as easily turn these same bureaucratic levers against school choice, using federal mandates as a pretext to hamstring implementation or undermine the program after passage. The same mechanisms used to justify state intervention in public schools can be weaponized to slow-roll funding approvals, delay regulatory compliance, or create administrative roadblocks for private institutions participating in school choice.

If a student leaves a public school for a private institution through school choice, who ensures the student gets evaluated and receives services? This can’t be an issue where public ISDs keep the burden, but private schools or other alternative institutions reap the benefits.

Moreover, these obligations require funding, and shifting students away from public schools while maintaining federal mandates creates a financial imbalance. If ISDs are required to perform evaluations and offer services, they must be provided adequate, protected funding to do so—otherwise, this becomes yet another unfunded mandate that weakens the public school system without a clear plan for students who need specialized interventions.

Preserving Special Education Funding: The ‘Money Follows the Child’ Fallacy

One of the biggest risks with school choice is the potential defunding of critical special education programs. Public school districts rely on state and federal funding to provide speech therapy, occupational therapy, behavioral supports, and other necessary services for students with disabilities.

A common school choice argument is that “money follows the child”—but this is not an adequate solution for special education. Special education programs rely on economies of scale—they require a specialized workforce, trained administrators, and support systems that cannot be efficiently duplicated at the same cost in smaller settings.  Also, resource intense children, like Kenshin, require both extra financial obligations and have parents who are more willing to take whatever steps are needed to ensure that services are provided adequately.

The crucible of their care has created seasoned, tenacious parents who will act as necessary to protect their children. The legislature does not understand the impact this small but determined segment of the population can have on legislation through legal means after the fact, and their willingness to do so regardless of consequences.

Legislators risk passing a policy that seems viable on paper but collapses under the weight of lawsuits and regulatory challenges from disability advocates. The courts have historically sided with these parents, meaning a poorly structured school choice bill could face legal setbacks before it even takes effect. If school choice funding mechanisms are not airtight, litigation could lead to prolonged uncertainty and uneven implementation across the state.

For example, a student receiving special education services at a large public school benefits from shared resources and staff that allow for comprehensive programming. If that same student leaves for a private institution with a school choice voucher, the funding that follows them may not be enough to replicate those services at the same level. This undermines the ability of both systems to provide high-quality education for students with disabilities.  The flip side is also present, a paraprofessional involved in the care of the more resource intensive special education students has a collateral beneficial effect on the entire classroom.  Remove the child and the paraprofessional follows with the collateral detriment to the classroom.

This is one of the key issues that turns philosophical support into practical opposition within the disability community. Many parents and advocates support the idea of school choice in theory, but oppose its real-world application when they see how it could weaken access to specialized programs and protections. Special education requires institutional knowledge, regulatory compliance, and long-term investment—something that cannot be piecemealed out through individual student funding decisions without creating major service gaps.

County Boards of Education: A Potential Solution

One proposal worth exploring is the creation of County Boards of Education to assist with special education funding and oversight, without granting them the authority to impose taxes.  Right now only Harris County has a Board of Education, and it’s popular for conservatives to take gratuitous pot shots at the BOE.

However, the Board provides valuable assistance to the districts in the county through funding and operates at a net profit.  Expanding the boards to every county is a possible solution to help special education issues if it can be done in a manner that is limited in scope and does not involve taxation authority.

These boards could serve as a resource to help manage:

• Special education funding distribution, ensuring that their permissive business activities profit is dedicated to supporting special education.
• Oversight for Child Find and other federal requirements, preventing gaps in services when students transfer between school types.
• Support services for families navigating the education system, especially for those with children in special education programs.

This type of structure would allow for better coordination between public and private education options while maintaining local control and avoiding the creation of new taxing authorities.

Ideological purity often leads to objections regarding the boards.  However, if they were established in a manner that did not allow for taxing power then the ideological objection is significantly lowered.

Accountability for Both Public and Private Schools

School choice cannot be a one-sided accountability measure where only public schools remain subject to performance metrics and financial oversight. If taxpayer dollars are flowing to private institutions, microschools, or homeschooling collectives, those recipients must also meet reasonable standards of accountability.

• Academic Performance – How will the state ensure that students receiving school choice funding are making adequate progress?
• Financial Transparency – Public schools must disclose spending; should private institutions receiving state funds have similar obligations?
• Protections Against Fraud – Without oversight, school choice programs could become a breeding ground for abuse, similar to pandemic relief fraud cases.

A successful school choice policy must include mechanisms for oversight without stifling innovation. The goal should be to expand options for students while ensuring taxpayer dollars are used effectively and do not create an education free-for-all with no real quality control.

This HISD Board of Managers is a good example of what happens without appropriate oversight.  Not only is there significant, deeply held, community opposition, but they are truly an unaccountable group.  Any school choice funding program must have protections to ensure that the school choice fund recipients do not effectively end up like the HISD Board of Managers.

Conclusion: The Path Forward

Something will pass this session. The key question is whether the final policy is structured responsibly.

Conservatives must ensure:
School choice expands without harming special education funding.
ISDs are not left with unfunded federal mandates while private schools take only easier-to-educate students.
Accountability applies across the board, not just to public schools.

Done correctly, school choice can be a transformative policy that empowers parents while maintaining critical educational safeguards. Done irresponsibly, it risks creating funding gaps and allowing taxpayer dollars to flow with no oversight.

The Legislature must strike the right balance. Will they?