The Dark Money Behind Abbot’s $1 Billion Private School Voucher Program

The Texas Senate has approved the controversial school voucher bill, sparking a heated debate about the future of public education in the state and dark money’s hold on government.

Senate Bill 2, a school voucher bill that creates a statewide program allowing families to use taxpayer dollars to fund a child’s education at an accredited private school, has officially been signed into law.

The proposed legislation was championed by Gov. Greg Abbott, who, during the 2023 legislative session, pushed hard so hard for the voucher bill that he call lawmakers back for a special session to pass a voucher bill that would allow parents to use public funds to pay for private school tuition, homeschooling expenses, and other education-related needs. But the 2023 special session proved to be a flop for Abbott after most Democrats in the Texas legislature voted against the bill and Abbott’s own house was divided over their support.

Supporters argue that vouchers empower parents, giving them greater control over their children’s education and providing an escape from underperforming public schools. Critics, however, contend that vouchers drain vital resources from public education, exacerbating existing inequalities and potentially harming already struggling schools.

Critics of the program, including all of the Texas legislature’s Democratic Senators and Robert Nichols, a Republican who represents Texas’s 3rd District (Jacksonville), all of whom voted against the bill last week, say that the program is either a plot to redirect public funds into the hands of already well-off Texans, a ploy to defund public school and funnel tax dollars into schools that prioritize conservative Christian values, or all of the above.

“The Texas Senate’s passage of SB 2 is the biggest launch of any universal school choice program in American history, with $1 billion in funding for 100,000 students,” Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a statement made just after the Senate’s passing of the bill. 

Under Abbott’s school voucher plan, parents will receive a fraction of a to-be-established $1 billion “Education Savings Account”, endowed by taxpayer dollars. Parents will then be required to use said funds to pay for tuition at an eligible private school and/or other expenses such as textbooks, transportation and therapy while homeschooling. Under the plan, homeschool students will now receive $2,000 a year while with homeschooled students with disabilities could receive an additional $2,500 a year for therapy. Students that are enrolled at an accredited private school would get $10,000 and students with disabilities enrolled in accredited private schools would receive $11,500 each year.

The bill was pushed by Abbott and a network of well-funded organizations and political action committees (PACs) as a program that would not only give parents “school choice,” but prioritize children from low-income families and those with disabilities.

According to Senate Bill 2, if the demand for enrollment in the program exceeds the funding available, the bill will prioritize students from low income households. Though SB 2’s definition of “low income” differs a bit from the Texas Education Agency (TEA), the branch of the government of Texas responsible for public education in the state – often recognized as the central authority for everything related to K-12 education in Texas.  

The TEA considers a student low income if their household earns between 130% and 185% of the poverty level — or an approximate income of $40,560 and $57,720 for a four-person household. As of 2024, sixty-two percent of Texas’ public school students came from low-income households.

SB 2, though, makes eligible any student that resides in a household earning less than 500% of the federal poverty level, or less than about $156,000 for a four-person household.

Still, critics have pointed out that while, under SB 2, any child eligible to attend public school, enrolled in a public school, or already attending private schools may participate in the program, other states running similar programs have proven that vouchers almost exclusively benefit families who already have children enrolled in private school.

A similar voucher program in Arizona became a testing ground for expansive voucher programs, and is performing with mixed results. Data from the Arizona Department of Education reveals that a significant portion of voucher funds has benefited students already enrolled in private schools, raising questions about whether these programs truly expand educational access for disadvantaged families. Specifically, 75% of vouchers went to students already in private schools, and 78% went to students who had no previous public school history.

Some key organizations behind the school vouchers include:

• American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC): This conservative organization provides state legislators with pre-written “model policies,” including voucher legislation. ALEC’s influence in Texas has been evident for years, with critics alleging that the group has played a key role in shaping the state’s education policy.
• Educational Equity PAC: Backed by wealthy donors, including Netflix co-founder Reed Hastings, this PAC funnels money into pro-voucher campaigns. Its financial support has bolstered the efforts of voucher proponents in Texas and other states.
• American Federation for Children (AFC): This national organization advocates for school choice and has been instrumental in pushing for voucher programs across the country. The AFC has also been accused of targeting Republican lawmakers who oppose vouchers, demonstrating the organization’s willingness to use its resources to influence elections.

The concept of shutting down the Department of Education and the push for school vouchers often appear within the same ideological circles, though their direct interaction is complex. Proponents of both argue for increased local control over education and a reduction in federal government influence. From this perspective, eliminating the Department of Education would remove a layer of federal oversight, potentially empowering states and local districts to implement voucher programs more freely. Furthermore, the argument goes, vouchers could foster competition and innovation, theoretically making a centralized federal body like the Department of Education less necessary.

However, critics argue that dismantling the Department of Education would eliminate crucial protections for marginalized students and vital funding streams for public schools, exacerbating inequalities. They also contend that vouchers, rather than promoting competition, could divert public funds to private institutions with less accountability, further weakening the public education system that a Department of Education is meant to support. Therefore, while the ideas of abolishing the Department of Education and implementing widespread school vouchers share a common thread of decentralization, their combined impact on the educational landscape is a subject of intense debate, with potential consequences for equity and access.

Gov. Abbott’s voucher program will allocate approximately $10,000 per student annually, a sum that critics argue falls short of covering the full cost of private education. The average yearly cost of private K-12 schools in Texas is around $11,017 (as of 2024), but can be substantially higher depending on the school. This funding gap raises concerns that vouchers primarily benefit wealthier families, leaving lower-income students behind.

Opponents also point to the lack of oversight and accountability for private schools participating in voucher programs. Public schools are subject to rigorous standards and regulations, while private schools often operate with greater autonomy. This disparity in accountability raises concerns about the quality of education students receive in private schools and the potential for misuse of public funds.

The involvement of these organizations, often referred to as “dark money” groups due to their lack of transparency, raises concerns about the influence of special interests in education policy. Critics argue that these groups are using their financial clout to push for policies that benefit private schools and their donors, rather than serving the best interests of students and families.

The debate in Texas mirrors similar battles unfolding across the nation. Education policy has become increasingly politicized, with school vouchers serving as a flashpoint in the broader debate over the role of government in education. As the 2025 legislative session approaches, the future of public education in Texas hangs in the balance. The outcome of this debate will have far-reaching consequences for students, families, and the future of the state’s education system.

The voucher debate boils down to this: supporters say it’s about giving parents choice. They argue it’s a way to escape “woke” public schools (whatever that means) and get a better education. But critics? They see it as a way to siphon money away from public schools that are already struggling. Think about it: less money for public schools means bigger class sizes, fewer resources, and a harder time for teachers.

And let’s be real, private schools aren’t cheap. Even with an $10,000 voucher (which is what Abbott proposed), most families still couldn’t afford it. It’s like getting a coupon for a fancy restaurant – cool, but you still gotta pay the rest. The average cost of private K-12 schools in Texas is around $11,017 a year, but can be much higher.

As similar battles are playing out across the country, voucher proponents continue to try to gain ground in state legislatures. And with the expansion of programs around the country, strategies to ensure greater funding for private school vouchers are likely to be emulated or tweaked accordingly across states.