برچسب: Texas

  • Texas: Governor Abbott Celebrates His Big Voucher Win and Lies About It

    Texas: Governor Abbott Celebrates His Big Voucher Win and Lies About It


    Governor Gregg Abbott signed his big voucher bill into law yesterday, repeating promises he has made that are most certainly false. He claimed that vouchers will put Texas on a path to being the number one school system in the nation. Several other states have large voucher programs–e.g., Florida, Arizona, and Ohio–and none of them is the number one rated school system in the nation.

    If anything, vouchers and charter schools break up the common school system that states pledge in their constitutions to support. Public schools are one system, regulated by the state, subject to elected local school boards. Charter schools are another, lightly regulated by the state, some for-profit, some as corporate chains, managed by private boards. Voucher schools are a third system, almost entirely deregulated, not required to accept all students, as public schools are. Voucher schools are not required to have certified teachers, as public schools are. Voucher schools are exempt from state testing. Most voucher schools are religious schools, managed by their religious leader. Private and religious schools choose their students.

    Vouchers have been a big issue since the early 1990s. The first voucher program was launched in Milwaukee in 1990. The second started in Cleveland in 1996, ostensibly to save poor kids from failing public schools. Neither Cleveland nor Milwaukee is a high-performing district.

    What we have learned in the past 30-35 years about vouchers is this:

    1. Most students who use vouchers were already enrolled in nonpublic schools.
    2. The students who transfer from public to private schools are likely to fall behind their peers in public schools. Many return to public schools.
    3. The public does not want their taxes to be spent on religious schools or on the children of affluent families. In nearly two dozen state referenda, voters defeated vouchers every time.
    4. The academic performance of students who leave public schools to attend nonpublic schools is either the same or much worse than students in public schools.
    5. Vouchers drain funding from public schools, where the vast majority of students are enrolled. This, the majority of students will have larger classes and fewer electives to subsidize vouchers.
    6. Vouchers are expensive. Arizona is projecting a cost of $1 billion annually. Florida currently is paying $4 billion annually.

    To learn more about the research, read Joshua Cowen’s book The Privateers: How Billionaires Created a Culture War and Sold School Vouchers (Harvard Educatuon Press).

    Governor Abbott surely knows these facts, but he determined that vouchers were his highest priority. Certainly they make him the champion of parents who send their children to private and religious school. All will be eligible for a subsidy from the state. And Abbott delivered for the billionaires who funded his voucher campaign.

    Edward McKinley of the Houston Chronicle wrote:

    Gov. Greg Abbott signed a $1 billion school voucher program into law Saturday, cementing the biggest legislative victory of his decade in office before a huge crowd including families, legislators and GOP donors.

    Abbott framed the ceremony as the climax of a multiyear effort by himself and advocates around the state, and touted the state’s new program as the largest to ever launch in the nation. 

    “Today is the culmination of a movement that has swept across our state and across our country,” he said, using the speech to call out parents in the crowd who had already pulled their students from “low-performing” public schools to put them into private ones. “It’s time we put our children on a pathway to have the number one-ranked education system in the United States of America.”

    He put pen to paper at a wooden desk in front of the Governor’s Mansion, as a gaggle of children stood around him wearing their private school colors and logos. Someone shouted, “Thank you, governor!” before the crowd of nearly 1,400 people erupted in applause. Abbott pumped his fist in the air. 

    The ceremony marked a major moment for the third-term Republican, who threw his full political weight and millions of campaign dollars into a push for private school vouchers, overcoming a legislative blockade that had lasted for decades. The bill he signed into law will give Texas students roughly $10,000 a year that they can put toward private school tuition, tutoring, textbooks and other expenses…

    Texas Education Agency Commissioner Mike Morath and Pennsylvania billionaire Jeff Yass mingled in the crowd. Yass contributed more than $12 million to Abbott’s campaign last cycle, as the governor sought to unseat anti-voucher Republicans in the 2024 primary election.

    Abbott was joined on stage by U.S. Sen. John Cornyn, Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick, House Speaker Dustin Burrows and the House and Senate authors of the bill. Also in attendance were private school leaders, including Joel Enge, director of Kingdom Life Academy. 

    After Abbott’s address, Enge told the crowd he founded his Christian school after working in public schools in a low-income area of Tyler and watching children fall behind. His speech had the feel of a sermon.

    “Children who have been beaten down by the struggles in the academic system that did not fit the system will now be empowered as they begin to find the right school setting that’s going to support them and to allow them to grow in confidence in who God created them to be,” he yelled, to raucous cheers. “Amen!…”

    Hours earlier, Democratic legislators, union leaders and public educators gathered in the parking lot of the AFL-CIO building across the street from the governor’s mansion, where they had a much different message. 

    Echoing lines used throughout committee hearings and legislative debates for the past few years, they warned that vouchers would hurt already struggling neighborhood public schools by stripping away their funding. About two dozen people swayed under the direct sun, waving signs that said “public dollars belong in public schools” and “students over billionaires.” 

    “Today, big money won and the students of Texas lost,” said state Rep. James Talarico, an Austin Democrat. “Remember this day next time a school closes in your neighborhood. Remember this day next time a beloved teacher quits because they can’t support their family on their salary.”

    Several speakers pointed out that while Republicans fast-tracked the voucher bill, they have yet to agree on a package to increase funding to public schools and raise teacher pay.

    State Rep. Gina Hinojosa, an Austin Democrat, said she hoped this defeat could sow the seeds of future victories. Abbott and most legislators are up for reelection next year.

    “He may have won this battle, but the war is not over,” she said. “There will be a vote on vouchers and he can’t stop it, and it will be in November 2026.”

    What’s in the bill

    The new law stands to remake education in Texas, granting parents access to more than $10,000 in state funds to pay for private school tuition and expenses, or $2,000 for homeschoolers. The first year of operation will begin in 2027, and in the run-up, the state will choose nonprofits to run the program, develop the application process and pick which families will have access.

    All students will be eligible, although families making more than 500% of the federal poverty line, about $160,750 in income for a family of four, cannot take up more than 20% of the funds. The funds will be tied roughly to the amount of money the students would have received in public schools, meaning students with disabilities will receive extra.

    School vouchers have become a signature of Abbott’s three terms in office. 

    After the COVID-19 pandemic, other Republican-controlled states such as Florida, Arizona, Iowa and Indiana created or expanded their own voucher programs. But school choice advocates repeatedly fell short in Texas thanks to an alliance between Democrats and rural Republicans. Bills passed the Senate but failed to gain traction in the House. 

    Then, in May 2022, Abbott announced in a speech at San Antonio’s Southside that he’d be throwing his full weight behind the policy. Even as public schools struggled to keep teachers in the classroom and balance their budgets, the governor told lawmakers he wouldn’t approve extra funds until a voucher bill made it to his desk. When it didn’t happen, even in special sessions, he took to the campaign trail, spending millions to unseat about a dozen key GOP lawmakers who stood in his way.

    This session, he enlisted President Donald Trump’s help at the last minute to rally Republican House members, some of whom said they felt forced to back the policy.

    Critics warn the state’s voucher program lacks safeguards to ensure it reaches the children it was designed to help and say they expect many of the slots to go to students already in private schools, which can pick and choose who they educate. The majority of private schools in Texas are religiously affiliated, and the average tuition costs upwards of $10,900, according to Private School Review.

    Though $1 billion is set aside for the program in the first biennium, the nonpartisan Legislative Budget Board projects it could grow exponentially in the next decade amid huge demand from students currently in private or home schools.

    It remains to be seen how many private schools will accept the vouchers, but many advocated their passage, including Catholic, Jewish and Muslim schools.

    Although Abbott has said repeatedly that the program won’t pull funds from public schools, because schools are funded based on attendance, the LBB analysis showed that the program would reduce state payments to public schools by more than $1 billion by 2030. 



    Source link

  • University of Texas Chancellor James Milliken chosen as next University of California president

    University of Texas Chancellor James Milliken chosen as next University of California president


    James Milliken, the next UC president, has deep experience running higher education systems in Texas and New York.

    Credit: University of California

    James B. Milliken, the chancellor of the University of Texas system and a veteran administrator with a history of leading public college systems, was selected Friday as the next president of the University of California.

    Milliken will take over the 10-campus UC system at a tumultuous time as it faces Trump administration threats to pull funding that could diminish the university’s research capacity, medical care and student services. UC is also likely to receive a significant cut to its state funding this year, providing further complications. 

    Milliken, familiarly called JB, also previously headed the University of Nebraska and the City University of New York, an urban system that includes seven community colleges, 11 four-year campuses and seven professional, graduate or honors schools. 

    Janet Reilly, chair of the UC board of regents, said Milliken is someone “who understands the transformative power of a public university system and who can build on UC’s legacy as a global leader in research and academics and public service.”

    “These times call for a president who is an effective advocate, a clear communicator and a collaborative partner to our many constituents, someone who can lead with vision and humility,” Reilly said, “and after an extensive national search. I am proud to say I think we have found that leader in JB Milliken.”

    Milliken, who is 68, will start his new job on Aug. 1 after Michael V. Drake, the system’s current president, steps down. Drake has been UC’s president since 2020 and has had stints as president of Ohio State University and chancellor of UC Irvine. 

    Milliken, who attended the regents meeting in San Francisco on Friday in person, acknowledged this is a difficult time but struck an optimistic note. We know that higher education faces challenges and changes. What will not change is the University of California’s historic mission, teaching, research, health care and public service,” he said.

    Milliken, whose initial contract is for five years, will make a base salary of $1.475 million, up from Drake’s $1.3 million.  

    During past stints as a president and chancellor, Milliken is credited with expanding STEM programs, prioritizing affordability and supporting undocumented students. Under his leadership at UT, the system cut a number of jobs and programs after Texas Gov. Greg Abbott signed a law banning many diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.

    Milliken said Friday that U.S. colleges are “the greatest engines of social and economic mobility the world has ever seen,” but noted that confidence in the sector is at historic lows.

    “Yet I remain firmly convinced that higher education is more important than at any point in our history, at a time when knowledge is increasing at a faster rate than ever,” he said. “New technologies are providing previously unimagined capabilities, and our graduates are enjoying opportunities in fields that didn’t even exist a few years ago. It’s abundantly clear that we must continue to invest in the most successful higher education model in the world.”

    Prior to his career in academia, which also included a period as senior vice president at the University of North Carolina, Milliken worked at a Wall Street law firm. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Nebraska and a law degree from New York University.

    Milliken is the second UC president in recent history to enter the job after a stint as chancellor of the University of Texas system. Mark Yudof, UC’s president from 2008 to 2013, was UT’s system chancellor from 2002 to 2008. He will be the 22nd UC president since the university was founded in 1868.

    Milliken will be required as UC’s president to oversee 10 varied campuses, $8 billion a year of research money and six medical centers. His experience leading UT may make him well-positioned to do that. The UT system includes nine academic universities and five health institutions. The system enrolls about 256,000 students; UC has nearly 300,000.

    UT has annual research expenditures of $4.3 billion, and the system ranks second in annual federal research spending among public universities — trailing only UC.

    UC gets about $6 billion annually in federal funds for research and other program supports, not including additional large sums its hospitals receive through Medicare and Medicaid. Cuts to that funding would be felt across the immense system, which comprises nine undergraduate campuses and one graduate-only campus, UC San Francisco. All 10 campuses have R1 status from the Carnegie Classification of Institutions of Higher Education, the highest tier for research universities. 

    UC officials defended Milliken’s new salary, on top of which he will receive free housing. A memo to the regents outlining his compensation package said UC faces “a highly competitive national market” for presidents and chancellors to lead top-tier research universities. Market data shows “increasingly higher compensation levels” among suitable candidates, according to the memo.

    In a statement, Gov. Gavin Newsom, a UC regent by virtue of his office, said Milliken “brings years of experience and the steady, strategic leadership needed to expand UC’s impact across the state.”

    Constance Penley, president of the Council of University of California Faculty Associations, said she was “cautiously optimistic” about the new UC president. “I liked very much what I’ve been able to discover about his commitment to access and equity in public higher education that he’s shown across four different universities and four different states.”

    Currently, the Trump administration is investigating several UC campuses on a variety of allegations, including discriminatory admissions practices and complaints of antisemitism. Most recently, the Department of Education opened a probe into UC Berkeley, accusing the campus of “incomplete or inaccurate” disclosures of foreign funding sources.

    The Trump administration has also zeroed in on race-based programs. Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Education said colleges that use race in “admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” violate federal law. 

    UC officials have since said that the order would not immediately impact its campuses and that maintaining their racially themed programs, such as graduation ceremonies and dormitory floors, is not illegal.

    In Texas, lawmakers in 2023 passed Senate Bill 17, which prohibits colleges from having a DEI office, hiring employees to perform the duties of a DEI office or requiring anyone to provide a DEI statement or undergo DEI training, according to The Texas Tribune.

    In response, UT cut 300 staff positions and eliminated more than 600 programs related to DEI training, according to The Associated Press. 

    “You may not like the law, but it is the law,” Milliken said at the time.

    UC in March announced it would no longer require diversity statements as part of its faculty hiring process, but has otherwise made no major changes to its DEI programming or policies. 

    On top of the federal uncertainties, UC also faces the likelihood of a substantial cut to its state funding this year, even as it is expected to continue increasing California resident enrollment and improve graduation rates. Gov. Gavin Newsom’s January budget proposal included an 8% cut, or $400 million, for UC. Milliken has previously had to contend with state funding cuts — or at least the threat of them. In 2016, then-New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo planned to slash $485 million from CUNY’s budget, though that funding was ultimately restored. 





    Source link

  • Why Texas is ahead of California on bilingual education

    Why Texas is ahead of California on bilingual education


    Wendell Norris Marquez teaches pre-AP Spanish to seventh graders at Lively Middle School in Austin, Texas.

    Credit: Zaidee Stavely/EdSource

    On a recent Monday morning in Wendell Norris Marquez’s classroom in Austin, Texas, students were getting ready to read a story in Spanish by Gabriel Garcia Marquez. But first, they discussed the differences between a story and a novel, and between a story and a legend.

    “Los cuentos son ficción (Stories are fiction),” said one student. “But are legends real?” asked Norris Marquez.

    No, the students decided. They may have started based on something real, but then they changed over time as they were told and retold.

    This is a sophisticated literature class. But these students aren’t in high school. They’re in seventh grade. And they’ll be taking the AP Spanish exam before they graduate from middle school. 

    “When I describe this class, I tell people it’s not really what you think in the back of your head as a language course, because in elementary, the kids already learned Spanish, so by the time they get to us, they’re already fully bilingual,” Norris Marquez said. “So it is about taking them to the next level. We learn literary genres, we talk about metaphors, we analyze poems, and we write essays.”

    This kind of advanced Spanish class is only possible at the middle school level because most of Norris Marquez’s students have been attending dual-language programs with instruction in both Spanish and English since preschool or kindergarten.

    It turns out that bilingual education is much more common in Texas than in California.

    “Anybody who studies bilingual education, English learners, dual-language students, eventually stumbles across this reality that Texas has this long and linguistically rich, multilingual, multicultural K-12 history, and California doesn’t,” said Conor P. Williams, senior fellow at The Century Foundation and author of a report called “Making California Public Schools Better for English Learners: Lessons from Texas.”

    According to the report, Texas enrolls 38% of English learners in bilingual education programs — more than double the 18% California enrolls.

    Williams also found that Texas’ English learners have consistently done better than California’s on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in both reading and math. 

    “On every single administration of the test, Texas is better, over and over and over,” he said. 

    It’s not clear whether Texas’ English learners are doing better because of bilingual education. Multiple other factors could influence scores. Still, Williams points out that the findings are consistent with research that shows that bilingual education helps students achieve fluency in English and do better on academic tests over time.

    “The research suggests that English learners in bilingual schools will score a little lower in English acquisition and in academics for a couple of years, but by roughly fourth grade, they should be outperforming English learners in English-only,” Williams said. “So you would expect to see that by about fourth grade, Texas, with its large number of bilingual programs, would start to really outperform California. You would expect that to be especially true by eighth grade. And that’s sort of what we see.”

    Money and a mandate

    Texas requires school districts to offer bilingual education if at least 20 children in the same grade speak the same language other than English at home, a mandate that dates back to 1973.

    By contrast, California voters passed a law in 1998, Proposition 227, that required English learners to be taught in English-only classrooms unless their parents signed a waiver. That law remained in place for 18 years, until voters overturned it in 2016. The almost two decades of English-only instruction set the state back, officials say.

    “The passage of Proposition 227 deeply impacted bilingual teacher education programs, resulting in fewer teachers earning bilingual certification over the past two and a half decades. Bilingual teacher education programs are still recovering,” wrote Alesha Moreno-Ramirez, director of multilingual support at the California Department of Education, in an email.

    After Proposition 227 was overturned, California published two documents that set out a vision and goals for expanding bilingual education, the English Learner Roadmap and Global California 2030. But Williams says these documents have no teeth.

    “There hasn’t been commensurate investment, accountability and oversight to make sure that these goals and vision documents matter,” Williams said. “Neither can make any school district do anything. It’s all voluntary.”

    Texas passed a law in 2019 that sends additional funds to schools for all students enrolled in dual language immersion, and even more for English learners enrolled. By one calculation, Texas schools receive $924 more per year for every English learner in dual-language immersion. The state also has a long history of bipartisan support for bilingual education, and the top education official reportedly sends his own children to a bilingual school. 

    In Austin alone, there are 57 elementary schools offering dual-language programs, in Spanish, Mandarin and Vietnamese. More than half of the district’s English learners, referred to as “emergent bilingual” students, attend these programs.

    At Perez Elementary, Spanish and English can be heard in classrooms, hallways, and out on the playground. One corner of the school library is dedicated entirely to books the students wrote themselves in both languages. Alongside a book that one child wrote about Roblox, a game creation platform, is a poignant story about a family’s journey to the U.S. from Honduras.

    Yadi Landaverde teaches fourth grade at Perez Elementary School in Austin.
    Credit: Zaidee Stavely/EdSource

    In a fourth grade classroom, as students prepared for a math lesson in English, teacher Yadi Landaverde walked them through how to say some terms in English and Spanish — right angle, obtuse angle and protractor, for example.

    Landaverde, who has been teaching for 10 years, said that explicitly teaching the differences and similarities between languages is especially important for students who recently immigrated to the U.S. and are not as familiar with English. This year, she said, she has eight recent immigrants in her class. Landaverde was born in Mexico and grew up in South Texas. Growing up, she only had English instruction in school. But she’s seen the benefits of dual-language immersion with her students.

    “As long as the first language is strong, students do tend to score higher on state tests,” Landaverde said. “I’ve seen that.”

    Her students were eager to share why they love bilingual education.

    “Being in a dual-language program is just the best thing you could do in school because you are learning two languages, and that feels like a superpower for everybody,” said Emil, 10. Austin Independent School District officials asked EdSource not to publish students’ last names to protect their privacy.

    His classmate Luis, also 10, emigrated from Venezuela two years ago, but first attended an English-only school in New York, where he didn’t feel like he could communicate with anyone.

    A fourth grade dual-language classroom at Perez Elementary in Austin, Texas.
    Credit: Zaidee Stavely/EdSource

    “I couldn’t understand nobody and I couldn’t talk to nobody. One time I got home, and I was crying because nobody talked to me,” he said. When he moved to Texas and began attending Perez, he said, he was immediately welcomed.

    “Now in class, I can speak Spanish normally without nobody saying that they don’t understand me,” he said. “And when I don’t know … something in English, I can just ask my friend that speaks more English than me and say, ‘What does this word mean?’”

    Mathilda, who has been in the dual-language program at Perez since pre-kindergarten and speaks Spanish at home, said it has helped her keep both languages strong. 

    “My cousins in California cannot speak Spanish, so I need to teach them to learn Spanish ’cause they don’t go to a program for bilingual,” she said.

    Middle and high school classes

    In Austin, 13 middle schools and five high schools have bilingual programs in which students take at least two classes a semester in Spanish. One is a language or literature course, and the other is a content class, like science or math. Many schools also have electives available in Spanish, like film history or web design.

    Down the hall from Norris Marquez’ class at Lively Middle School, Antonia Vincent teaches AP Spanish to eighth graders.

    “At the beginning, they don’t even believe that they can do an AP class, and they don’t understand, most of them, what is an AP class,” Vincent said. “But at the end, we have good results, and they are very proud of themselves.”

    Antonia Vincent teaches AP Spanish to eighth graders at Lively Middle School in Austin.
    Credit: Zaidee Stavely/EdSource

    The majority of students in the dual-language classes in middle and high school in Austin are students who have been enrolled in bilingual education since elementary school. But some are also recent immigrants.

    Advanced classes in Spanish can be empowering for recent immigrant students, Vincent said.

    “Some of them, in the beginning, they are very shy,” Vincent said. “And this class empowers them because they feel that we listen to them, so they are building their confidence.”

    One immigrant student wrote Vincent a letter saying, “Thanks to your class, I know that I can express myself, and that is empowering me to continue and to take this opportunity in my other classes.”

    The classes also have benefits for students who are not English learners. Caroline Sweet, the dual-language instructional coach at Perez Elementary School, sent both her children to dual immersion programs. Her oldest son, now in 10th grade, attended Perez and then continued in dual immersion at Lively Middle School and Travis High School. 

    “His advanced Spanish courses in high school are so hard that when I look at those texts, I’m like, I do not know what that medieval poem means,” Sweet said. “But I think it’s just kept him pretty astute and paying attention to language and then just kind of really flexible in his brain.”

    Patchy progress in California

    Dual-language immersion programs like the ones at Perez Elementary and Lively Middle School do exist in California. Los Angeles Unified, for example, has more than 230 dual-language programs that span transitional kindergarten through 12th grade. But advocates for English learners say the investment of resources by the state has been piecemeal.

    “Access to bilingual programs varies wildly depending on the district, the community, and available resources,” said Martha Hernandez, executive director of Californians Together, a nonprofit organization that advocates for English learners statewide.

    Advocates and state officials agree that the biggest challenge is a lack of teachers with bilingual credentials. 

    Moreno-Ramirez, from the California Department of Education, pointed to recent investments to show that the state is supporting school districts to expand bilingual education. 

    In 2021, California invested $10 million for grants to expand dual-language immersion programs. In 2022, the state put another $10 million toward grants for helping train teachers in “effective language acquisition programs” for English learners, including bilingual proficiency. Most recently, the state invested $20 million in a program to help more teachers get bilingual credentials.

    These investments have been helpful, but insufficient, said Anya Hurwitz, executive director of SEAL (Sobrato Early Academic Language), a nonprofit organization that promotes bilingual education.

    “If we want to see multilingual education scaled in California, it’s got to be invested in,” Hurwitz said. “Money alone is not the answer ever to almost anything in life, yet we can’t pretend that it’s not an important ingredient.”

    Williams agreed.

     “227 is a real thing, no question. But 227 ended almost a decade ago,” said Williams. “At some level, if you’re going to be a progressive leader on this, it’s been a decade, it’s time, you can’t blame that anymore.”





    Source link

  • Texas: The Sordid Story Behind the Passage of Vouchers

    Texas: The Sordid Story Behind the Passage of Vouchers


    It was no secret that Governor Abbott was intent on passing voucher legislation by any means necessary. In 2024, he called four special sessions to demand a voucher law, offering a big increase in public school funding as a sweetener. A coalition of rural Republicans and Democrats voted them down again and again. Rural Republicans know that their schools are the most important institution in their community. They know the teachers and the principal. They and everyone else in the community support the school and its activities. In rural areas, the public school is not only the hub of community life, but the largest contributor to the economy.

    With the help of out-of-state billionaires and home-grown evangelical billionaires, Abbott succeeded in defeating most of the Republicans who opposed vouchers. He blatantly lied about them, claiming they opposed his tough tactics at the border (they didn’t), he claimed they didn’t support increased funding for their local schools because they voted against his bribe. He blanketed their districts with lies.

    The Houston Chronicle tells a straightforward account of how the voucher vote went down, based on Abbott’s strong arm tactics. Fear won.

    Benjamin Wermund and Edward McKinley of The Houston Chronicle wrote the back story:

    Pearland Republican Jeff Barry has long been skeptical of school vouchers, but on Thursday morning he voted to create what could become the largest voucher program in the nation. 

    Barry, a freshman House lawmaker, said it felt like he had no choice. 

    “If I voted against it I would have had every statewide and national political…figure against me – not to mention all of my bills vetoed,” Barry wrote in a post responding to one user who called his support for the measure a “betrayal.”

    He added: “The consequences were dire with no upside at all.” 

    Barry wasn’t the only Republican House member who felt cornered after an unprecedented, years-long pressure campaign by Gov. Greg Abbott to bend the chamber to his will. 

    Only two GOP members joined Democrats in opposing the measure on Thursday, a remarkable turnaround from their widespread opposition to vouchers just a few years ago. It was a major vindication of Abbott’s governing approach of strong-arming lawmakers into submission. 

    Where his predecessors, including Gov. Rick Perry, often cozied up to members of the Legislature, Abbott has looked to exploit their weaknesses. His success on what was once seen as an impossible issue marks a potentially major power shift in state leadership, where lieutenant governors have long been seen to hold as much or more power than the governor, because of their control over the Senate. 

    “What Perry got by finesse, Abbott gets by force — and that definitely matters for the power structure,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political scientist at the University of Houston. “He, through expending a tremendous amount of political capital and money, was able to reshape the Republican party in his image. That’s something very few governors have been able to do.”

    Abbott spent months on the road advocating for vouchers and poured nearly $12 million into unseating fellow Republicans who opposed the same legislation in 2023. Ahead of the vote this month, he met privately with GOP lawmakers on the fence, and on Wednesday morning he gathered the caucus for a call from President Donald Trump, who not-so-subtly reminded them of his success rate in Texas GOP primaries. 

    Just four years ago, before Abbott began seriously campaigning for vouchers, four out of five House members publicly opposed the thought of using taxpayer dollars for private education. That included House Speaker Dustin Burrows and state Rep. Brad Buckley, the education committee chairman who carried the bill this year in the House. 

    Just one of the remaining Republican holdouts voted the same way early Thursday morningas they did in 2021: state Rep. Gary VanDeaver of New Boston, who narrowly survived a primary runoff election last year against an Abbott-backed challenger.

    State Rep. Drew Darby, R-San Angelo, also defeated one of Abbott’s primary challengers last year. He voted for vouchers this time, calling it a pragmatic move to retain at least some modicum of leverage.

    “We made this decision with a clear understanding: the bill would pass with or without our support,” Darby wrote on social media shortly after the vote. “Rather than stand by, we chose to stay in the fight, negotiating critical amendments to reduce the impact on our communities.”

    Those concessions included annual public audits of the voucher program and its contractors, clarified residency requirements for participants, a requirement that private schools be accredited for at least two years before participating and a permanent one-fifth cap of slots going to students from families that make more than 500% of the federal poverty line — or $160,750 for a family of four. 

    One of the aims, Darby and others said, was to block unproven private schools from popping up in areas with few other options, just to access the new state dollars. And critics hoped to prevent existing private school students with wealthy families from taking up a bulk of the voucher slots, as has happened in other states.

    Darby’s wife, Clarisa Darby, also posted online that not backing vouchers would have jeopardized billions of dollars in new public school funding for teacher raises and special education.

    “School funding would be cut by the Senate in retribution and bills affecting our west Texas economy had a high chance of being vetoed if they voted against the bill,”  she wrote. “Bills affecting school funding, oil, gas, water, jobs, ASU, Howard College, are too important to be vetoed.”

    Ahead of the vote Wednesday night, state Rep. James Talarico, an Austin Democrat, accused Abbott of intimidating Republican colleagues with the threat of a primary “bloodbath.” 

    “No one including the governor should ever threaten a lawmaker,” Talarico said. “We do not serve the governor, we serve our constituents.” 

    Abbott’s office denied the claim. But whether threats were real or implied, House Republicans were clearly feeling the heat after Abbott’s all-out offensive in last year’s primaries. 

    “He’s working behind the scenes to make sure he’s got the vote. There’s no question about that,” state Rep. Sam Harless, a Spring Republican, said Wednesday as the voucher debate was beginning. 

    Trump’s call Wednesday morning helped quash any lingering doubts among Republicans.

    “Many of you I’ve endorsed, and I’ll be endorsing,” Trump told the members. “I won Texas in a landslide. Everybody who was with me got carried.” 

    State Rep. Wes Virdell, who campaigned on supporting school vouchers, said earlier this week it was “no secret that the governor is pressuring a lot of people” to support the proposal. 

    Steve Allison, a former Republican state lawmaker from San Antonio who lost his seat to an Abbott-backed challenger after opposing vouchers last session, said he liked the changes fought for by Darby and others but would have still voted against the bill.

    “I think that members need to prioritize their districts… and I think that was interfered with here, not just in (my) district but elsewhere,” he said, adding that he’d spoken with several current lawmakers who’d been threatened by Abbott. He declined to say who. “It’s just unfortunate what the governor did,” Allison said.

    The House GOP shift on vouchers stretched all the way to its top leadership. Even as he has helped block voucher legislation in the past, newly-elected Speaker Dustin Burrows was a vocal champion of the bill this year, appearing at multiple events with Abbott. 

    “Speaker Burrows was the real X factor in the debate,” said John Colyandro, a former Abbott adviser who lobbied for the legislation. 

    Burrows took the gavel from state Rep. Dade Phelan, one of only two Republicans to vote against the bill. 

    As speaker, Phelan had not openly opposed the legislation. And heading into the speaker’s race he said he would prioritize it. 

    But before the vote, he explained he was planning to vote against it because he felt voters in his Beaumont district did not support vouchers. He wanted to put it on the ballot in November, a failed proposal offered by Talarico. 

    Phelan, who narrowly fended off a Trump-backed primary challenger last year, shrugged off the fear of political threats — real or implied. He brought up the Trump call in an interview ahead of the vote, saying he wasn’t in the room but heard audio of it. 

    Trump noted only one of his endorsed candidates lost, apparently referencing David Covey’s failed bid to unseat Phelan, though the president did not name either candidate. 

    “He said he went 42 and 0,” Phelan said. “And then he remembers he lost one.”



    Source link

  • Texas: Republican Legislators Endorse Vouchers

    Texas: Republican Legislators Endorse Vouchers


    Governor Greg Abbott finally got the voucher legislation he wanted, after years of defeats. His goal was frustrated by a coalition of Democrats and rural Republicans. The latter were defending their hometown schools, which are staffed by friends and relatives and are the community’s hub.

    In last year’s elections, Abbott ran hard-right Republicans against the rural Republicans who stood in his way and disposed of most of them. He attacked them with a campaign of lies, saying they opposed border control, never mentioning vouchers. His efforts to oust anti-voucher Republicans were funded by out- of-state billionaires, including Jeff Yass, the richest man in Pennsylvania, Betsy DeVos, and Charles Koch, as well as home-grown Texas billionaires. Even Trump intervened to encourage the passage of vouchers.

    The article says that the legislators refused to permit a referendum because such votes “generally” reject vouchers. Fact-checking would have changed the word “generally” to “always.” In more than 20 state referenda over the years, the public has always voted against vouchers. The article does not mention that the vast majority of vouchers in every state that have adopted them are used by students already in private schools, mostly religious schools. Nor does it note that the academic results of vouchers are strikingly negative (see Josh Cowen’s book The Privateers). Typically the students at private schools are exempt from state testing requirements (which conservatives contend is absolutely necessary for students in public schools).

    Most important, it is not the students or the parents who have choice. It is the schools that choose their students. Voucher schools are not bound by anti-discrimination laws. They may exclude students for any reason, including their race, religion, disability, gender or sexual orientation. Some religious schools accept only children of their own sect.

    Gregg Abbott campaigned exclusively at private Christian schools. He attacked public schools for “indoctrinating” students, but the best schools for indoctrination are the evangelical schools that will benefit from this legislation.

    The following article is a gift, meaning no pay wall.

    The New York Times reported:

    The Texas House of Representatives voted early Thursday morning to create one of the largest taxpayer-funded school voucher programs, a hard-fought victory for private school choice activists as they turn their attention to a nationwide voucher push.

    The measure still has some legislative hurdles to clear before Gov. Greg Abbott signs it into law, but the House vote — 85 to 63 — secured a win that was decades in the making, propelled by the governor’s hardball politics last year. It was also a significant defeat for Democrats, teachers’ unions and some rural conservatives who had long worried that taxpayer-funded private-school vouchers would strain public school budgets.

    The program would be capped at $1 billion in its first year, but could grow quickly, potentially reaching an estimated $4.5 billion a year by 2030. The funds can be used for private school tuition and for costs associated with home-schooling, including curriculum materials and virtual learning programs.

    The bill was championed by an ascendant wing of the Republican Party, closely allied with President Trump and important conservative donors, including Betsy DeVos, Mr. Trump’s wealthy former education secretary, and Jeff Yass, a billionaire financier from Pennsylvania and a Republican megadonor.



    Source link

  • Texas: Religious Leaders Condemn Governor Abbott’s Decision to Hold Vote on Vouchers During Holy Week

    Texas: Religious Leaders Condemn Governor Abbott’s Decision to Hold Vote on Vouchers During Holy Week


    Pastors for Texas Children has been working hard to defeat vouchers, which would not only eliminate separation of church and state but destroy the state’s rural schools.

    Pastors for Texas Children said the following:

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

    Contact: Jay Pritchard, 214.558.6656, jay@upwardpa.com

    April 14, 2025

    Faith Leaders Condemn Voucher Vote During Holy Week as an Affront to Religious Liberty

    Austin, TX — Pastors for Texas Children (PTC) strongly condemns the Texas House’s decision to schedule a vote on HB3—the Governor’s private school voucher bill—for this Wednesday, squarely in the middle of Jewish Passover and ChrisHan Holy Week.

    “This is an outrageous assault on religious liberty,” said Rev. Charles Johnson, ExecuHve Director of Pastors for Texas Children. “Governor AbboP is exploiting sacred days of worship and family observance to silence faith leaders who have led the opposiHon to his dangerous voucher scheme.”

    For months, clergy and faith communiHes across Texas have spoken out against diverHng public funds to private and religious schools. By scheduling this vote during the holiest days of the year, Governor Abbott and House Public Education Chair Brad Buckley are showing calculated disrespect for those religious tradiHons.

    “By forcing this vote during ChrisHan Holy Week and Jewish Passover, Greg Abbott and Brad Buckley aredefiling our sacred Hme and silencing prophetic voices,” said Rev. Johnson. “It’s a cynical and cowardly political tacHc.”

    Let the People Decide

    PTC calls on Governor Abbott and Chair Buckley to reschedule the vote or, better yet, put the issue on the November 2025 ballot and let Texans decide whether public tax dollars should fund private and religious schools.

    Momentum is growing to place a school voucher referendum before the voters. Texas law allows for ballot initiatives with a simple majority vote in the Legislature—a far more democratic path than ramming this bill through during a religious holiday week.

    “God is God is God—not Greg Abbott,” said Rev. Johnson. “We have a divine and constitutional mandate to protect free, public education. To schedule this vote when clergy are in the pulpit and families are at the Seder table is a disgrace. If the Governor believes in his plan, he should put it before the people—not hide behind a holiday.”

    Pastors for Texas Children urges lawmakers of all faiths and parties to stand up against this manipulaHon and vote NO on HB3. Let Texans decide the future of their schools—not politicians exploiting the calendar for poliHcal gain.

    About Pastors for Texas Children

    Pastors for Texas Children is a statewide network of nearly 1,000 churches, synagogues, and other houses of worship working to protect and support public educaHon. We equip faith leaders to advocate for fully funded public schools and oppose efforts to divert public dollars to private and religious institutions.

    Learn more at pastorsfortexaschildren.org



    Source link