You have reached your limit of free articles this month.

Enjoy unlimited access to

Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks.


  • ePAPER

You have read of premium articles.

Get unlimited access to all of our breaking news, in-depth coverage and bonus content- exclusively for subscribers. Starting at just 99¢ for 8 weeks


Welcome to

This subscriber-only site gives you exclusive access to breaking news, in-depth coverage, exclusive interactives and bonus content.

You can read free articles of your choice a month that are only available on

No matter what they’re called, vouchers won’t improve public schools

As the saying goes, a rose by any other name still smells as sweet.

Similarly, vouchers by any other name still stink.

You would think that Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and other lawmakers in love with vouchers would know as much by now, after more than a decade of pushing to get them passed into law. Instead, they continue romanticizing them as the answer for improving public schools, especially low-performing ones.

If the goal of the latest voucher measure, Senate Bill 3, is really to “improve public schools and overall academic performance,” then lawmakers must see them for what they are — not what they imagine or want them to be.

In all forms, including the latest dressed up version called “education savings accounts,” vouchers divert public school dollars to private schools. One analysis by the liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities estimates that Central Texas schools could lose $86 million if the Legislature passes SB 3.

Critics dispute that number. What is not in dispute is that public schools would lose significant dollars as their students transfer to private schools. Central Texas districts — including Austin, Eanes, Pflugerville, Round Rock and Lake Travis — have told their lawmakers they are financially strapped and unable to absorb any more losses to their bottom lines without cutting into instruction.

Savings accounts, like other voucher programs, would hand private schools a check paid for by Texas taxpayers but would not hold recipients in the private sector accountable for results the state spells out to public schools in underfunded mandates.

Patrick asserts public schools would be made better by competition afforded by savings accounts that go to private schools. But it’s cheating when the race is rigged in favor of private schools, as SB 3 does.

Under SB 3, private schools could continue cherry-picking students with their selective policies or expel low-performing students, while public schools still would be required to enroll and educate all-comers. Public schools don’t have the option of ejecting lower-performing students and can be harshly penalized by the state for their failures.

While public schools are measured in part on their dropout rates, private schools can escape such accountability through attrition rates that don’t count students as dropouts if they return to public schools.

And there are legitimate questions about equity, such as whether SB 3 provisions would help wealthier families who could make up the difference in tuition from their own pockets to pay the bills at private schools while poorer families couldn’t afford such tuitions — even with a voucher or education savings account.

The bill by state Sen. Larry Taylor, R-Friendswood, does little, if anything, to resolve such equity and financial issues at the core of establishing a voucher system that is fair and accountable.

Instead, SB 3, like its predecessors, shows how little Patrick, Taylor and other voucher supporters understand the educational and economic decisions facing low- to middle-income families. It also illustrates their insensitivity to the challenges public schools confront in delivering quality instruction in a school financing system that is antiquated and underfunded.

Specifically, Taylor’s bill would establish a system of so-called education savings accounts that would use state money to offset costs for private school tuition and home-schooling. Those accounts would be overseen by parents or guardians who could use them to defray other costs as well, such as online courses, educational therapies and tutors.

Under SB 3, a family of four with an income above $89,910 would receive $5,400 per eligible student, while a similarly situated family with an income of less than that would get about $6,750 per student, The Texas Tribune reported.

To bridge a big gap between those amounts and private school tuition and fees, the bill would set up tax credit scholarships, which allow certain businesses to claim tax credits for donating money to the scholarships for private schools. The money would be awarded based on a student’s academic or financial need.

Thankfully, lawmakers in the Texas House are more clear-eyed about vouchers. House Speaker Joe Straus has shown little enthusiasm for them so far — and they have also not proved to be popular with some Republicans who represent small or rural communities.

Aside from educating kids, public schools in smaller communities are some of the largest employers. They serve as a center for sports, recreation, adult education and public meetings. As small districts, they can’t afford to lose money.

Many school districts, including Austin, find themselves in the same boat, albeit for different reasons.

In the next school year, the Austin district estimates it will send $500 million of its local property tax revenue to the state in recapture payments Texas uses to balance inequities between property-wealthy districts and property-poor districts. That would leave Austin with $757.8 million for operating expenses.

Vouchers could further diminish that figure. It’s true that SB 3 aims to help lessen the financial blow to districts by allowing them to keep some of the money they would lose when a student using an education savings account leaves.

But there’s a caustic irony in an approach that punishes Austin and many other districts that are forced to shoulder much of the state’s responsibility in paying public education costs through recapture, then further drains their budgets through a voucher program.

SB 3 is hardly a rose. But the public school that continues to do the tough job of educating every child clearly is.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Letters to the editor: May 30, 2017
Letters to the editor: May 30, 2017

Re: May 24 article, “Lawmaker circumvents Texas Legislature to address school lunch shaming.” I agree children should not go hungry in school. As one who frequents school cafeterias in the Austin Independent School District, I see the source of hunger coming not from the lack of food available to children, but from children not eating what...
Commentary: Finstas are a window into millennial’s imperfect life
Commentary: Finstas are a window into millennial’s imperfect life

Do you know what a finsta is? Neither did I, because I am not between the ages of 13 and 34. Anyone 13 to 18 is part of Gen Z, and those ages 18 to 34 are the much-discussed millennials. Dan Coates studies them both. His company, Ypulse, is a youth-marketing research firm based in New York, and lately some of its research has been on finstas. Finstas...
Commentary: How SB4 dims hopes for immigrants — and the rest of America
Commentary: How SB4 dims hopes for immigrants — and the rest of America

A student I taught last year — I’ll call her Ana — comes by my classroom at the end of the day to ask if I’ll write a recommendation for her when she applies to colleges next fall. I tell her of course, and ask her if she’s excited to be a senior. She says she is, but she’s nervous. “Why?” I ask. She...
Herman: Dan Patrick assigns blame, wins with likely special session
Herman: Dan Patrick assigns blame, wins with likely special session

And on Sunday, the 139th day of the 140-day regular session of the 2017 Texas Legislature, the blamethrowers came out full blast on both sides of Your State Capitol. And, as usual, the flames of political rhetoric singed the usual bystanders: me, you and our fellow Texans. The inevitable bottom line as the session sputters towards its Monday conclusion...
Opinion: On JFK's 100th birthday, Trump repudiates his legacy
Opinion: On JFK's 100th birthday, Trump repudiates his legacy

Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter are both over 90, and still with us — making it just barely conceivable that John F. Kennedy might have lived to celebrate his 100th birthday on Monday, if he had not been assassinated in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963. Surely JFK would have noted a contrast between his Jan. 20, 1961, inaugural...
More Stories