Education funding should follow students, not protect government-run monopolies.
The Problem
Texas has expanded school choice through Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), but the reform has been layered onto an already expanding public education funding system. In recent sessions, lawmakers have simultaneously increased public school appropriations while creating a capped ESA structure that does not fundamentally alter funding incentives.
When choice expands, but monopoly funding expands faster, the structural impact is diluted. Partial programs with enrollment caps, administrative gatekeeping, and funding formulas that protect incumbent systems do not meaningfully disrupt existing incentive structures.
Education funding in Texas has historically flowed to institutions first and students second. As long as that remains true, competition will be limited, and reform will be incremental rather than structural.
Why It Matters
School choice is not merely about providing options. It is about realigning incentives so that funding follows students and institutions compete for enrollment.
If monopoly systems continue to receive guaranteed funding growth regardless of enrollment changes, competitive pressure weakens. When lawmakers increase public school spending while introducing ESAs, the reform risks functioning as a supplemental program rather than a structural shift.
True accountability in education requires that funding be responsive to parental decisions, not insulated from them. Reform must change the rules of the system, not operate alongside it.
What Reform Requires
- Universal eligibility for school choice programs without arbitrary caps
- Funding structures that allow dollars to follow students directly
- Avoiding the simultaneous expansion of monopoly funding that neutralizes competition
- Minimizing administrative bureaucracy in ESA implementation
- Ensuring fiscal neutrality so that reform does not expand baseline spending
School choice must change incentives, not preserve them.
