Another talking point of school choice opponents just smashed into the brick wall of reality.
In spring 2025, Texas passed an expansive education savings account program. ESAs offer parents an alternative to public schools. Families enrolling in ESAs receive a portion of the money the government would have spent on a public school education in a use-restricted account. Parents can then spend that money on education-related expenses, including tuition, tutoring and curriculum. This allows parents to tailor an education to their child.
Opponents claimed that this program was merely a scheme to help rich families. In 2025, now-U.S. Senate candidate James Talarico was serving in the Texas House. He opposed the ESA effort.
“That’s why I call vouchers ‘welfare for the wealthy,’ ” Talarico said. “It is stealing from the poor to give to the rich.”
Aside from conflating ESAs and vouchers, his argument had other obvious problems. For one, wealthy Texans pay significantly more in taxes than low-income Texans. Another is that public schools are supposed to be free to all. As in Nevada, that’s in the Texas Constitution. It would be absurd for Mr. Talarico to accuse a wealthy family of accepting welfare for using a constitutionally mandated program. If a well-off family forgoes a public school education and uses an ESA, that family has saved taxpayers money. That’s the opposite result of welfare.
But there’s a more fundamental point. Rich families have always had school choice. They can afford private school tuition. They can afford to move to a neighborhood with a top-rated school. They can hire tutors.
What ESAs do is give middle- and low-income families access to some of the same opportunities wealthy families have long enjoyed. And interest in school choice isn’t limited to those in the top tax bracket.
More than 85,000 Texas students have confirmed that they’ll use ESAs this year. Around 80 percent — or about 68,000 — are in households making 200 percent of the federal poverty line or less. Another 17,300 students are in families making between 200 and 500 percent of the FPL. Also, around 25 percent of the students have a disability.
These results are intentional. Texas gave priority access to families with special needs students and those with lower incomes. Note the irony: School choice opponents will simultaneously accuse private schools of poaching top students and object to ESAs for students with special needs.
School choice is helping low-income families in Texas. It would do the same in Nevada.
