Now, a new analysis, exclusive to The 74, sheds light on why he’s had so much trouble. While it’s common knowledge that in the state House have been standing in his way, homeschool parents opposed to education savings accounts have also been part of the resistance. 

Leslie Finger, a political science professor at the University of North Texas, analyzed roll call votes on 13 private school choice bills that reached the floor of either the state House or the Senate between 2013 and 2023. She found that lawmakers were more likely to vote against private school choice not only if they represented a rural area, but also if they had more homeschoolers in their districts.

“We specifically opted out of this system,” Faith Howe, president of Texans for Homeschool Freedom, said about public schools. While proponents of the voucher plan say it will be optional for families, that doesn’t satisfy Howe. “I don’t think they’re going to have a problem coming back and saying ‘Well we need more regulations on these homeschoolers.’”

Texas voters ousted the Republican holdouts in last year’s primary election after Abbott campaigned against them. He is counting on their replacements to deliver a victory this session. But even if that happens, Finger’s results point to a segment of parents who have been getting louder in recent years as ESAs, which parents can spend on tuition or homeschooling costs, have spread across red states. Many traditional homeschoolers fought for the right to educate their children at home and fear that ESA laws could erode some of those protections — even if they don’t take the funds. 

While voucher advocates dismiss many of the homeschoolers’ concerns, Finger said her findings should serve as a warning.

“The presence of big homeschooling communities could make selling private school choice challenging,” Finger said.

‘Government control’

That was certainly the case in Colorado, one of three states last November where voters defeated school choice ballot measures. 

“Government money comes with government control,” said Carolyn Martin, who monitors state legislation for Christian Home Educators of Colorado. Her group viewed the measure as a potential infringement on parents’ rights to educate their children as they see fit.  

Two issues raised red flags for them. The measure said all children should be able to “access a quality education,” which they interpreted as an opportunity for the government to define quality for homeschoolers. It also gave students, as well as parents, the right to school choice. That could spell trouble if kids and parents aren’t on the same page when it comes to education, Martin said.

“At some point the state would probably have to step in and arbitrate between the parent and the child,” she said. “That is not our worldview.”

Other homeschoolers say ESAs contradict conservative values, such as smaller government and less regulation. Gary Humble, executive director of Tennessee Stands, a Christian organization, called the state’s recently passed voucher bill “wealth redistribution.”

“This is another Tennessee entitlement program,” he said. “It’s expensive. It’s irresponsible.” 

The state is expected to spend $1 billion on the program over the next five years. While opponents weren’t able to stop the Republicans from passing the law, Humble tells homeschoolers that if they participate, they could be giving up the freedom to educate their children the way they choose.

“All they hear from special interest groups is that they get seven grand and there are no strings attached,” he said. “They’re not policy wonks, so they don’t understand the trap doors that are laid out ahead of them.”  

ESA programs often require homeschooling families to reapply for funding every year, to take annual standardized tests and to only buy approved items from specific vendors. Homeschooling families who don’t participate want to ensure such restrictions don’t eventually extend to them. 

But those worries fall under what Jeremy Newman, vice president of policy and engagement for the Texas Homeschool Coalition, calls “free-floating anxiety.” 

“They’re concerned somebody is going to do something, sometime, but they’re not sure who or when or what,” he said. 

His organization is strongly in favor of passing a voucher bill in Texas, saying that tax-paying homeschoolers should have just as much access to state education funds as parents who send their kids to public school.

He points to on “regulatory creep” from Angela Watson, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore and an expert on . She found that publicly funded school choice programs, like ESAs, don’t contribute to more government overreach. 

Not ‘a monolith’

But the fact that some homeschoolers are so opposed to them proves a point, Watson said. 

“The mistake that everyone makes when they talk about homeschooling is that they continue to think of it as a monolith,” she said. “Homeschooling is just so varied.”

Nationally, of the nation’s students are homeschooled, according to U.S. Census Bureau data. Traditional homeschoolers often chose that path for ideological or religious reasons. 

But many new converts, who left public schools during the pandemic, show support for what former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos calls “” — allowing parents to spend education dollars on any type of schooling they choose. It’s a policy that polled high in a from the National Parents Union, with 71% of parents favoring such a system. 

The split among homeschoolers over ESAs, Watson said, has created some “interesting bedfellows” — conservative parents aligning with liberal teachers unions to oppose school choice ballot measures. That’s what happened, not only in Colorado, but also in , where two-thirds of voters rejected such a proposition last year.  

Howe in Texas has heard the criticism. “We’re being accused of being leftist, Marxist and supporting the teachers unions,” she said. 

Newman, with the Texas coalition, said his group is watching out for homeschoolers’ interests. Leaders maintain a “strong presence” at the state capitol in Austin to ensure legislation doesn’t interfere with homeschoolers’ freedom to choose their own curriculum and teaching methods, he said. 

Homeschooled himself as a child, Newman sympathizes with those who recall when it was to educate children at home and not unusual for child protective services to a family when a neighbor reported children not being in school.

But Howe notes that it was a state regulation in Texas — not legislation — that treated homeschooled students as truant. After a lengthy legal fight, the state that parents who homeschool are essentially small private schools.

In Idaho, it’s the state tax commission that will be writing some of the rules for a new that Gov. Brad Little signed into law last month, despite from the public. The state also has an existing grant program targeted toward lower-income families.

Audra Talley, a board member of Homeschool Idaho, said Republican lawmakers have assured her that as long as they control the legislature and the governor’s office, homeschoolers don’t have to worry about rules encroaching on their parental rights. But that’s what she finds disturbing.

“It’s an admission that the potential exists,” she said. “Now we are relying on a certain party or a certain group of individuals to keep those regulations from coming at some future date.”

‘Don’t want to go back’

She’s not exaggerating that some Democrats would prefer to increase monitoring of families who homeschool.

A , for example, would require families to notify their local school district if they intend to homeschool. Families would have to submit teaching materials and their children’s work if authorities are concerned about their education. Hundreds of at the state capitol against the bill earlier this month.

Under another , Michigan homeschoolers would have to register with the state. Superintendent Michael Rice argues that officials should have a count of students in all types of schooling — public, private, parochial and home. and neglect involving homeschool families led to his proposal for more oversight. 

Homeschoolers opposed to ESAs often point to West Virginia — a Republican-led state — as an example of how lawmakers sometimes forget that not everyone wants the government’s money.

The state passed its Hope Scholarship ESA program in 2021, which requires homeschooled students receiving the scholarship to take annual or have their work reviewed each year by a certified teacher.  The law specifically exempted homeschoolers not in the program from the requirements, but a 2023 bill would have erased what advocates call a “carve out” if they hadn’t stepped in. 

ESA proponents use the same example to say the homeschoolers’ fears were overblown and no harm was done. Colleen Hroncich, a policy analyst with the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, thinks the division among homeschoolers over school choice will fade over time.

“As we get further past the generation of homeschoolers that fought for the right to homeschool, it seems like most homeschoolers support funding programs,” she said. “Hopefully the bigger numbers also help push back on additional regulations down the road.”

Time and again, I have scoffed at such accusations, pointing out how public school choice policy is wildly different than private school choice policy. The two policies should never be conflated when discussing the merits of education reform policies with lawmakers, though many lazily place both in the same basket. It was easy for me to end that feckless argument by reminding lawmakers I was there to discuss public education reform policies only, dismissing any melding of public and private school choice policies. 

But with the U.S. Supreme Court taking up a in which the Oklahoma Supreme Court has already invalidated the approval of an application by the Catholic Church to open a religious based virtual charter school, I now find myself concerned we have crossed the Rubicon, forever merging public and private school policy while dismantling the foundational belief in the separation of church and state. A hearing is set for April 30.

The proposed charter school, which would be managed by the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City, proclaims in its application that it would carry out “the evangelizing mission of the [Catholic] Church” by fully embracing its religious teachings and incorporating those teachings “into every aspect of the School.” The school also acknowledged that it would discriminate in admissions, student discipline, and employment, as necessary to satisfy the Catholic Church’s religious doctrine, and that it would not accommodate a student’s disability if doing so would violate the school’s Catholic beliefs.

If one religious organization is allowed to operate a charter school under the umbrella of public funding, other groups will seek similar privileges, creating a patchwork of public schools, each with its own set of religious doctrines, prioritizing their religious mission over the educational needs of all students. 

The profound implications for the separation of church and state, public education, and the future of religious influence in the public sphere is in the balance. If the Court rules in favor of this school, it will not only shift the boundaries of constitutional law but also set a dangerous precedent that undermines the secular nature of our public education system.

Beyond the immediate risks of religious instruction and outright discrimination within a publicly funded space, the ramifications for the separation of church and state could be catastrophic. The Supreme Court has historically been tasked with interpreting the Constitution’s Establishment Clause, which serves as a safeguard against government interference in religious practices and vice versa. By permitting religiously affiliated institutions to receive state funding, this decision could pave the way for religious schools—ranging from the aforementioned Catholic virtual school to the Church of Satan and every religious belief in between. 

This would lead to disastrous consequences where states increasingly entangle themselves with religion, creating a de facto state-sponsored religious system, serving as gatekeepers of what religions are worthy of overseeing public schools and the children who attend them.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court must consider not only the legal questions of the case but also the broader social and political context. Allowing a religiously affiliated charter school to operate within the public education system would set a precedent that we are likely to regret. It is crucial that the Court uphold this principle and prevent the Catholic Virtual Charter School in Oklahoma from becoming the gateway drug I was warned about—before it opens the door to a much more divided and religiously entrenched education system.

This is not a matter of denying the right to religious expression; it’s about ensuring that the public education system remains a neutral space for all students, regardless of their faith or belief. Let’s not forget: The preservation of the separation between church and state is vital to the integrity of our democracy.

This argument misses a critical point: These policies provide families with new opportunities while taking no existing options away.

The commentary by Lauren Morando Rhim at the Center for Learning Equity expresses concerns that private schools are not bound by the same rules, regulations, and processes as public schools. But that’s precisely the point of alternatives. As Rhim herself noted in a previous , “The system can be very large and rigid,” often leaving students with disabilities marginalized by a one-size-fits-all approach. 

I’m hard pressed to find more compelling reasons to support giving families more options.

Public schools work well for many students with disabilities. But for families seeking something different, what’s the harm in allowing them to use their funds to choose a private alternative they believe will better serve their child? 

Public schools are governed by laws like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which was enacted at a time when with disabilities were denied access to public schools. However, IDEA’s aspirational goals have not always translated into effective implementation across the nation’s 13,000-plus school districts. Many families face endless battles for evaluations, services, and compliance. For every success story, there are countless examples of parents left frustrated by the system.

It’s tedious that I must point this out, because there are just as many stories of parents satisfied with what their public school offers their child. But the world doesn’t run on generalities—it runs on the lived experiences of individuals. Some schools do better than others, and some adults do better than others. 

Florida passed the first statewide voucher program in 1999 specifically for students with disabilities. Today, over 90,000 students in Florida benefit from these programs, which cover tuition, therapies, tutoring, and other expenses.

Research supports their effectiveness. A from Boston University and the University of Arkansas found 93% satisfaction rates among families participating in Florida’s Gardiner Scholarship Program, an education savings account specifically for students with disabilities, compared to 85% satisfaction among families who are not participating. (The program is now part of the state’s newer Family Empowerment Scholarships for Students with Unique Abilities program.)

Participating parents reported significantly higher satisfaction rates in terms of the services and accommodations their private school provided compared to parents in public schools. These families valued the ability to choose schools and services that met their children’s specific needs—freedom that is often unavailable in public systems.

Unlike public schools, private school programs don’t necessarily have public meeting requirements, standardized test score reporting and federal disability law protections. Yet parents in these programs overwhelmingly report higher satisfaction. Why? These programs give families a right they don’t have elsewhere: the ability to control their educational funds and choose what works best for their child. 

One parent in the Florida study put it best, saying the option “opened up a whole avenue of feeling like I didn’t have to have him stay in a setting that I felt like he wasn’t going to be successful in. And without it, I don’t think he’d be where he is today.”

I won’t pretend every program is perfect. Bureaucratic red tape can make them harder to navigate, and experiences vary. But expanding options that outperform the status quo in parent satisfaction does not harm families of students with disabilities – it helps them. 

I have a son with autism. I’m motivated to find him a school where he’s welcomed, supported, understood, and loved. I want him to grow academically, socially, and cognitively. I hope he’ll make friends and be able to share highlights of his day. These basic human needs are obvious to any parent, yet they’re rarely mentioned in debates about regulations and government processes. 

With over 55 million schoolchildren in the United States, why dismiss choice and alternatives because they are not bound by a federal regulatory apparatus? That is often the very reason parents seek alternatives. Expanding options empowers families to find solutions that work for them—solutions that no one can dictate better than a parent.

Adam Peshek is senior director and senior fellow of Stand Together Trust.

Disclosure: Stand Together Trust provides financial support to The 74.

I fear that in the coming rush to expand publicly-funded private school choice, students with disabilities have a great deal to lose. As the leader and co-founder of a national nonprofit dedicated to advocating for students with disabilities to have access to high-quality educational opportunities and choices, I see school choice and parent empowerment as vital to student success. 

I have also served as a board member, appointed and elected, for a local charter school and a traditional school district. In those roles, I saw firsthand the importance of open enrollment, a public budgeting process, open meeting laws, and essential accountability via state assessments, with an expectation that results are transparent and available for all to see. After all, exercising school choice is a big responsibility for families.

They deserve ready access to clear information and excellent school options – criteria that are especially urgent for students with disabilities and their families.  But too often, as a new paper from the Center for Reinventing Public Education found, families are faced with convoluted admissions policies, limited transportation options and a dearth of choices that can actually meet their children’s needs.

Today, roughly one in five U.S. students requires support under the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. Their families come from across the political spectrum, from every corner of the country: small towns and rural areas, big cities, sprawling suburbs, and “red” and “blue” states.

The current push to expand private school choice – whether called vouchers, education savings accounts (ESAs), or tuition tax credits – promises little in the way of public access or accountability for delivering results. Instead, these approaches have the dubious distinction of potentially being bad for kids and taxpayers. 

Despite multiple methods of enacting private school choice programs, what is universal is that the rights of children with disabilities are diminished when they step inside a private school. This includes not only the right to attend but also to be taught alongside their peers, and to access individualized supports. So, a child with autism, dyslexia, or Down syndrome, for example, may be denied access, and private schools are under no obligation to provide any specialized services or supports to help them succeed. 

This extends to needs that surface after enrollment – that is, a private school can simply inform the family that the child is “no longer a good fit” for the school. By contrast, a traditional or public charter school is required to conduct an evaluation and provide services. While some private schools cater to students with disabilities, it is very unclear to what extent this model is financially or programmatically sustainable absent designated funding or explicit federal protections.

Making good school choices requires information. Our public education systems are obligated to provide detailed information regarding school and student achievement, graduation rates, and other measures of school quality. Public school choice – among charters, magnets, and traditional schools – is also defined by transparent application and enrollment procedures to ensure fairness. 

In the charter schools sector, for example, when demand exceeds the supply of seats, uniform enrollment systems and public lotteries provide transparency. Yet, as states expand private school choice, only some require participating private schools to adhere to the accountability and oversight systems that apply to public schools. 

The right of any child with a disability to attend school, to be included with peers, and to access individualized supports is only 50 years old in the United States. These important rights have created possibility and independence through education. But they hinge upon public schools: Those rights do not follow students into private educational settings. We cannot forget our recent history, when exclusion was the norm – and we must not go back.

President-elect Trump and his team are not hiding their cards. They have been transparent about seeking to leverage the federal tax code, and specifically tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and large corporations, to expand private school choice. As someone who has worked for many years to create the conditions for families to make informed school choices and to help schools earn and keep their trust, I’ve learned that simply having options isn’t enough. A choice in schools is only meaningful if it leads to a better education.