murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

I can't believe we still have self described conservatives who are still against school choice.

The propaganda that teachers unions have over this nation needs to be demolished.

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

BTKAG97 said:

---

aTmAg said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

BTKAG97 said:

---

CanyonAg77 said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Quote:

---

Simple solution is to restrict voucher acceptance to public schools. Homeschooling should be considered private education.

---

---

---

---

Private school can get vouchers, can't they?

---

Yes, and that's where the legislators screwed up.

---

Explain?

---

Public funds should go to public schools. Many may disagree by claiming private schools are needed to make public schools compete by improvement. I'm just not a proponent of subsidizing expensive private schools nor am I proponent of subsidies in general.

---

Then parents, who do not send their kids to public schools, should be a complete refund on the portion of their taxes that fund public schools.

---

How much do I get for not having kids?

---

Should get all of it (the portion for schools.. not police, roads, and all of that).

It would help to start calling them what they are: Government schools.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

the kind of republicans we need are the ones who fight the national teachers unions tooth and nail, not the one's who think public education should serve as an employment program for adults.

---

Regardless of our shared thoughts on public sector unions like teachers unions, all politics are local and ISDs in Texas hold sizable voting blocks of ISD employees who decide our elections. Taking a sledge hammer to them is a bad move if you want to get votes.

Damien Talarico is going to beat the heck outta Paxton in the US Senate race making Cornyn's senate seat the first fatality of the MAGA right Republicans in Texas. My prediction.

---

the reason the republican party in texas is in the shape its in is because house members work exclusively for school districts who are the biggest employers in their districts. Those republicans funnel money to the districts, who funnel money to unions and "education groups", who funnel money back to democrats. We're funding our own destruction under the guise of education. Any republican who cant call out his district isnt a republican worth having, they're only making the problem worse. Rogers sided with randy weingarten over abbott, who is the most popular republican in the state regardless of what people think of him.

Every single election I see predications of the first statewide democrat election since the 90s, every single election its not even close. The last time school choice was on a statewide ballot republicans supported it 90-10. I dont give a crap what your school district thinks if 9/10 of your voters want it. Only one county in the entire state said they didnt support it.

---

I agree in principle with your points of view. However, I disagree on your assumptions. They are:

1. Every ISD in Texas is a Top 10 (or likely Top 3) employer in every city, town, or county. This is why school bonds for hundreds of millions of added taxes are passed all of the time. This same voting block can be energized for local or statewide elections. If you're a politician from whatever party, Dem or R, if you want to win, you kiss the ass of the ISD workforce. I don't know what data can prove your next assumption, that ISD 'union' money is funneled to progressive NGOs, but if it's happening, why hasn't Lt Dan shut that down?

2. You sound like a Democrat in 1990 declaring Ann Richards will win handily because Democrats always won Texas elections since Reconstruction. HOWEVER, only thanks for the Clayton Williams gaffe machine, she _barely_ won. By 1994, she and the rest of the old dog Democrats were run out of Austin on a rail by the Republican George W Bush (who Republicans now call ugly names) political machine orchestrated by Karl Rove (who Republicans now call ugly names).

The 2018 Beto candidacy flipped entire texas courts from R to D (3rd Court of Appeals in ATX, for example) while Ted Cruz (who Republicans now call ugly names) _barely_ won (200k votes statewide??). Cruz in 2018 was Ann Richards in 1990. It's 2026 now and Damien Talarico is going to take the R US Senate seat by pounding Ken Paxton into the ground like the Bush machine did Ann Richards. The sad part? Ken Paxton is 10x more corrupt than Ann Richards and he's carrying the R guidon into the showdown in November. Republicans are supposed to be more righteous, amIright?

Pride commeth before the fall.

Quote:

---

1. Every ISD in Texas is a Top 10 (or likely Top 3) employer in every city, town, or county. This is why school bonds for hundreds of millions of added taxes are passed all of the time. This same voting block can be energized for local or statewide elections. If you're a politician from whatever party, Dem or R, if you want to win, you kiss the ass of the ISD workforce. I don't know what data can prove your next assumption, that ISD 'union' money is funneled to progressive NGOs, but if it's happening, why hasn't Lt Dan shut that down?

---

1. local off-cycle elections are not statewide elections. This is a silly contention.
2. you can kiss their ass without outright opposing conservative policy and promoting AFT policy. You are never going to out-progressive the democrats. A republican who advocates for progressive causes, in opposition to 90% of the people who vote republican, is just a progressive.
3. How can he shut it down? End tax payer funded lobbying, routinely killed by house R's doing the school district's bidding. Its not like you can defund a state entitlement like public education. You fight back when and where you can. You dont do what randi weingarten tells you to.

if there's a joke about calling tallerico "damien", i dont get it, but last i saw Crockett was ahead.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Quote:

---

1. Every ISD in Texas is a Top 10 (or likely Top 3) employer in every city, town, or county. This is why school bonds for hundreds of millions of added taxes are passed all of the time. This same voting block can be energized for local or statewide elections. If you're a politician from whatever party, Dem or R, if you want to win, you kiss the ass of the ISD workforce. I don't know what data can prove your next assumption, that ISD 'union' money is funneled to progressive NGOs, but if it's happening, why hasn't Lt Dan shut that down?

---

1. local off-cycle elections are not statewide elections. This is a silly contention.
2. you can kiss their ass without outright opposing conservative policy and promoting AFT policy. You are never going to out-progressive the democrats. A republican who advocates for progressive causes, in opposition to 90% of the people who vote republican, is just a progressive.
3. How can he shut it down? End tax payer funded lobbying, routinely killed by house R's doing the school district's bidding. Its not like you can defund a state entitlement like public education. You fight back when and where you can. You dont do what randi weingarten tells you to.

if there's a joke about calling tallerico "damien", i dont get it, but last i saw Crockett was ahead.

---

Damien Talarico's debut was in Omen II. I believe he's going to win the D primary. Crockett won't get the Hispanic D vote and she's cray cray.

DeschutesAg said:

---

To my generation of old greyhaired rural-county-raised Ags, that is not how the A&M we knew back in the 1960s & 1970s operated. But Ags like Earl Rudder, Bum Bright, and Dick Hervey who could place a single phone call and stop such shenanigans are long gone.

---

You see the irony here, right?

I personally wouldn't say public schools suck. Some are good. Some are bad. However competition is good. And having a choice is good.

Hard working kids in the ghetto shouldn't be forced to attend a ****ty school just because their parents are poor.

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

Maroon Elephant said:

---

"Roger's lost because he was anti- voucher. He thinks rural schools will be hurt by vouchers." - and Rogers is 100% correct about this. The school voucher program is the most idiotic, unforced error ever by Texas Republicans, and that's saying something.

I'm a lifelong Republican, and if we live in a day and age where someone can convince voters that Glenn Freaking Rogers isn't conservative enough...then we're in big trouble.

---

Long time Parker county resident here who helped put Roger's out on his ass vs Olcott. Roger's was the the type of garbage "republican" that stood side by side with Phelan and supported Democrat chairs and sharing power.

So good riddance.

So, I worked in Palo Pinto County and lived in Parker County during the time Rogers was effectively pushed out of his spot. It always seemed to me that Olcott supporters were borderline insane. It was the typical anti-establishment movement campaign against Rogers, yet Olcott was completely bought and paid for by the establishment? I could never square what the hell was happening, but I also didn't have strong feelings for either candidate.

One important point though - Olcott beat Rogers in Palo Pinto County. So, it seems even Rogers' own crowd had grown tired of him. It was not merely the eastern part of the district carrying the day for Olcott.

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

---

We are at $100 billion funding Texas Public Schools via the Foundation Schools Program (FSP). The voucher law didn't cut a dime of that. Rather, the voucher bill INCREASED the FSP budget by billions.

The voucher program is what we have now. It will grow and grow as a middle class entitlement and never be eliminated. I suspect vouchers will be in the multi-billions $$$ of cost just like the FSP in the near future and the legacy FSP will continue to grow and grow. Adding a multi-billion entitlement is not traditional conservative policy and that's what Rogers was getting at.

Should Texas just go into more debt like California to pay for this new middle class entitlement and hope the feds bail us out too? Or should we raise more money with an income tax?

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

---

We are at $100 billion funding Texas Public Schools via the Foundation Schools Program (FSP). The voucher law didn't cut a dime of that. Rather, the voucher bill INCREASED the FSP budget by billions.

The voucher program is what we have now. It will grow and grow as a middle class entitlement and never be eliminated. I suspect vouchers will be in the multi-billions $$$ of cost just like the FSP in the near future and the legacy FSP will continue to grow and grow. Adding a multi-billion entitlement is not traditional conservative policy and that's what Rogers was getting at.

Should Texas just go into more debt like California to pay for this new middle class entitlement and hope the feds bail us out too? Or should we raise more money with an income tax?

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. The school choice program isnt FSP. It runs through the comptroller's office. Schools funded through FSP are funded on projections 2 years in advance. If a district loses a student to the choice program they would lose that entitlement and have to settle up with the state (pay back the state for the money they were projected to receive but were not actually entitled to). The FSP will lower in proportion to the student moving to the school choice program. But, the school choice program is capped at $1B, meaning the appropriation limits the number of students who can receive it. The lege would have to increase the approp for more students to qualify, in addition to the FSP. Savings for the FSPwouldnt be realized until the next biennia.

sanangelo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

---

Schools should not preferentially allow Christian religious practice at the exclusion of non-Christian religious practice. I assume you are good with Muslim prayers before the football game as well.

Glenn Rogers posted this on FB today:

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

---

Schools should not preferentially allow Christian religious practice at the exclusion of non-Christian religious practice. I assume you are good with Muslim prayers before the football game as well.

---

Why?

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

---

Schools should not preferentially allow Christian religious practice at the exclusion of non-Christian religious practice. I assume you are good with Muslim prayers before the football game as well.

---

The schools did this at the time of our founding. Did they have it wrong?

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

---

Schools should not preferentially allow Christian religious practice at the exclusion of non-Christian religious practice. I assume you are good with Muslim prayers before the football game as well.

---

Why?

---

I was being facetious. It's good to have principles behind what you want and what you advocate for. "I want religion to have more of a place in the public square. But ONLY Christianity. And only the kind of Christianity that I believe in. Everything else should be banned."

Then you have to square that with the Constitution and with ethics. You have to think, what if the shoe was on the other foot, how would I feel about that?

Teslag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

---

Schools should not preferentially allow Christian religious practice at the exclusion of non-Christian religious practice. I assume you are good with Muslim prayers before the football game as well.

---

The schools did this at the time of our founding. Did they have it wrong?

---

The founding was much less Christian than most current people believe/think. Evangelical Christianity as it known today, was essentially absent from the founding.

shiftyandquick said:

---

Teslag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

---

Schools should not preferentially allow Christian religious practice at the exclusion of non-Christian religious practice. I assume you are good with Muslim prayers before the football game as well.

---

The schools did this at the time of our founding. Did they have it wrong?

---

The founding was much less Christian than most current people believe/think. Evangelical Christianity as it known today, was essentially absent from the founding.

---

This is incorrect in many places at the founding. They weren't a monolithic society. Some absolutely did have very religious centric schools and engaged in evangelical Christianity.

shiftyandquick said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

redcrayon said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

91AggieLawyer said:

---

murphyag said:

---

shiftyandquick said:

---

Rodgers made some noise with this editorial in the Dallas Morning News where he said the real aim here of Abbott and company is to harm public schools.

https://www.dallasnews.com/opinion/commentary/2026/01/23/rogers-go-ahead-close-public-schools/

---

He might be right. I know that Abbott's daughter attended private school in Texas. Then she attended college at USC in California. I always thought Abbott was a hypocrite for letting his daughter go to college in California. He's always been beaching about woke California, but then allows his daughter to spend four years living there. Makes no sense to me.

---

I went to A&M because it was my choice. You would feel better about this if Abbott forced his daughter to go somewhere other than where she wanted?

This is truly idiotic. It also isn't hypocritical. Cal Baptist, for one, is a school that, while in California, clearly isn't woke. USC may be, but some people want to go there for whatever reason and still avoid the woke culture. You have no idea what is going on with Abbott's daughter here and to make the generalization that one thing (California's wokeness) has anything to do with her school choice is, at best, presumptuous.

By the way, vouchers exists because public schools SUCK. Hurting rural or urban public schools isn't an issue because that's in part, what the legislation is designed to do. Maybe not intentionally hurting them without consideration for a future of improvement, but it is focused on improving educational opportunities for the school students of Texas. Whether rural (or urban) school districts are hurt isn't a part of the equation and no one should be focused on mediocre education to "save" bureaucracies. Again, that is idiotic and blindly supporting government institutions over the people they're supposed to serve is the reason we're in the mess we're in.

---

I attended Texas public schools, and graduated from a Texas public high school. Quite proud to have done so and received an excellent education. My children have all attended Texas public schools. And I'm quite proud of that as well. I believe our public schools are bedrocks of our community and should be supported by all citizens. And that's another reason (besides MAGA worship) that I can no longer support Texas Republicans. A pox on the "Texas public schools" suck crowd.

---

Did you go to A&M?

---

I want public schools to work. The issues with public schools are caused by woke liberals who broke the faith of ordinary Texans in public schools AND because some conservative orgs and personalities make money off of trashing public schools and offer money-generating solutions that only those trashing public schools benefit -- I am thinking of the billionaire Jeff Yass (SaaS for statewide voucher implementation) and billionaire Tim Dunn (parttime private school entrepreneur and queen bee).

1. The liberals broke schools first by kicking God out of them in the 1960s (Madalyn Murray O'Hare, Schempp decision) and from there it was a slippery slope to promoting homosexuality in schools capped by the final straw that was transgender ideology. Add atop that the Left's open borders policies that quickly transformed most ISDs in Texas to minority-majority. I get why private school vouchers are appealing.

2. The Yass-Dunn (use that for aiding understanding of the forces of capitalist exploitation of conservative taxpayers) took the concerns in #1 above and turned it into a profit center.

If I were to solve the public school problem I would start with a free maneuver that addresses the biggest problem -- that the public schools were forced to denounce God. To counter that, I would suggest legislation that every high school football game begin with a prayer to Jesus Christ. Then battle it out in the courts.

We need universal public school education to assimilate our different selves into a society that can be governed with laws. Vouchers aren't going to do that.

---

I disagree that the problem with public schools is not having mandatory religious instruction. If you want religious instruction get it from religious institutions.

---

I just want the prayer at football games to start a legal battle to reverse Madalyn Murray O'Hare policies. It is not that I want religious instruction. Rather I want public schools as an institution to not discredit the Christian worldview as they are now.

---

Schools should not preferentially allow Christian religious practice at the exclusion of non-Christian religious practice. I assume you are good with Muslim prayers before the football game as well.

---

Why?

---

I was being facetious. It's good to have principles behind what you want and what you advocate for. "I want religion to have more of a place in the public square. But ONLY Christianity. And only the kind of Christianity that I believe in. Everything else should be banned."

Then you have to square that with the Constitution and with ethics. You have to think, what if the shoe was on the other foot, how would I feel about that?

---

uhhh yeah, i want christianity and only christianity. I dont give a **** about pagan nonsense. Liberals (pretending to) misunderstand the meaning of the establishment cause shouldnt stop americans from living in the country they want to live in.

I feel like we are veering off topic...

Quote:

---

The founding was much less Christian than most current people believe/think. Evangelical Christianity as it known today, was essentially absent from the founding.

---

Revisionist history nonsense. Many states had state religions. Puritanism was one of the founding cornerstones of Americanism.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

---

We are at $100 billion funding Texas Public Schools via the Foundation Schools Program (FSP). The voucher law didn't cut a dime of that. Rather, the voucher bill INCREASED the FSP budget by billions.

The voucher program is what we have now. It will grow and grow as a middle class entitlement and never be eliminated. I suspect vouchers will be in the multi-billions $$$ of cost just like the FSP in the near future and the legacy FSP will continue to grow and grow. Adding a multi-billion entitlement is not traditional conservative policy and that's what Rogers was getting at.

Should Texas just go into more debt like California to pay for this new middle class entitlement and hope the feds bail us out too? Or should we raise more money with an income tax?

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. The school choice program isnt FSP. It runs through the comptroller's office. Schools funded through FSP are funded on projections 2 years in advance. If a district loses a student to the choice program they would lose that entitlement and have to settle up with the state (pay back the state for the money they were projected to receive but were not actually entitled to). The FSP will lower in proportion to the student moving to the school choice program. But, the school choice program is capped at $1B, meaning the appropriation limits the number of students who can receive it. The lege would have to increase the approp for more students to qualify, in addition to the FSP. Savings for the FSPwouldnt be realized until the next biennia.

---

You can't read well or I was unclear in my writing. Vouchers will not decrease FSP funding -- the legislature didn't decrease FSP in the inaugural legislation and will not in the next round or round after that. It's government and vouchers are now as sacred as FSP, making both uncontrollable entitlements.

With vouchers, we are building a second FSP-like liability on the backs of taxpayers while the legacy FSP funding will continue to grow unabated.

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

---

We are at $100 billion funding Texas Public Schools via the Foundation Schools Program (FSP). The voucher law didn't cut a dime of that. Rather, the voucher bill INCREASED the FSP budget by billions.

The voucher program is what we have now. It will grow and grow as a middle class entitlement and never be eliminated. I suspect vouchers will be in the multi-billions $$$ of cost just like the FSP in the near future and the legacy FSP will continue to grow and grow. Adding a multi-billion entitlement is not traditional conservative policy and that's what Rogers was getting at.

Should Texas just go into more debt like California to pay for this new middle class entitlement and hope the feds bail us out too? Or should we raise more money with an income tax?

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. The school choice program isnt FSP. It runs through the comptroller's office. Schools funded through FSP are funded on projections 2 years in advance. If a district loses a student to the choice program they would lose that entitlement and have to settle up with the state (pay back the state for the money they were projected to receive but were not actually entitled to). The FSP will lower in proportion to the student moving to the school choice program. But, the school choice program is capped at $1B, meaning the appropriation limits the number of students who can receive it. The lege would have to increase the approp for more students to qualify, in addition to the FSP. Savings for the FSPwouldnt be realized until the next biennia.

---

You can't read well or I was unclear in my writing. Vouchers will not decrease FSP funding -- the legislature didn't decrease FSP in the inaugural legislation and will not in the next round or round after that. It's government and vouchers are now as sacred as FSP, making both uncontrollable entitlements.

With vouchers, we are building a second FSP-like liability on the backs of taxpayers while the legacy FSP funding will continue to grow unabated.

---

As I explained, growth in the school choice program (an ESA is different from a voucher, words have meanings) will correspond in the FSP entitlement to districts decreasing (homeschoolers would be the only completely new cost). It could create a cashflow issue in the short term, but will likely be pretty close to a wash in a two biennia cycle. The ESA is not an entitlement, the legislature budgets for that program. The FSP on the other hand is an entitlement, a series of calculations are done that tell the legislature what they must budget to fund student entitlements. The legislature has alot more ability to scale the esa's than it does an entitlement. FSP grows at the rate of student growth. The largest elements of growth in the FSP recently has been the legislature increasing FSP entitlements to districts and property tax relief.

Saying committing $1 billion for school choice is the killer while the legislature increased funding to public schools by 8.5 billion in the exact same session doesnt make sense.

I apologize for being rude, there was no need for that. I beg your pardon.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

---

We are at $100 billion funding Texas Public Schools via the Foundation Schools Program (FSP). The voucher law didn't cut a dime of that. Rather, the voucher bill INCREASED the FSP budget by billions.

The voucher program is what we have now. It will grow and grow as a middle class entitlement and never be eliminated. I suspect vouchers will be in the multi-billions $$$ of cost just like the FSP in the near future and the legacy FSP will continue to grow and grow. Adding a multi-billion entitlement is not traditional conservative policy and that's what Rogers was getting at.

Should Texas just go into more debt like California to pay for this new middle class entitlement and hope the feds bail us out too? Or should we raise more money with an income tax?

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. The school choice program isnt FSP. It runs through the comptroller's office. Schools funded through FSP are funded on projections 2 years in advance. If a district loses a student to the choice program they would lose that entitlement and have to settle up with the state (pay back the state for the money they were projected to receive but were not actually entitled to). The FSP will lower in proportion to the student moving to the school choice program. But, the school choice program is capped at $1B, meaning the appropriation limits the number of students who can receive it. The lege would have to increase the approp for more students to qualify, in addition to the FSP. Savings for the FSPwouldnt be realized until the next biennia.

---

You can't read well or I was unclear in my writing. Vouchers will not decrease FSP funding -- the legislature didn't decrease FSP in the inaugural legislation and will not in the next round or round after that. It's government and vouchers are now as sacred as FSP, making both uncontrollable entitlements.

With vouchers, we are building a second FSP-like liability on the backs of taxpayers while the legacy FSP funding will continue to grow unabated.

---

As I explained, growth in the school choice program (an ESA is different from a voucher, words have meanings) will correspond in the FSP entitlement to districts decreasing (homeschoolers would be the only completely new cost). It could create a cashflow issue in the short term, but will likely be pretty close to a wash in a two biennia cycle. The ESA is not an entitlement, the legislature budgets for that program. The FSP on the other hand is an entitlement, a series of calculations are done that tell the legislature what they must budget to fund student entitlements. The legislature has alot more ability to scale the esa's than it does an entitlement. FSP grows at the rate of student growth. The largest elements of growth in the FSP recently has been the legislature increasing FSP entitlements to districts and property tax relief.

Saying committing $1 billion for school choice is the killer while the legislature increased funding to public schools by 8.5 billion in the exact same session doesnt make sense.

I apologize for being rude, there was no need for that.

---

My argument and prediction is that no matter how many kids are lost to ESA from the FSP, the FSP will continue to grow. And, the ESA will continue to grow too, almost exponentially. The Texas House budget score for SB2 (I think that was the bill and I'm going off elderly memory here) stated that the cost of ESAs could exceed $4 billion in a half decade. That was a low-ball prediction, I believe.

There is already a mountain of spending (FSP) and we are building a second mountain of spending with vouchers (ESA).

Back to Glenn Rogers' point of when the txleg faced an $11 billion shortfall in 2011: from where are the cuts coming to balance the state budget during the next downturn?

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

---

We are at $100 billion funding Texas Public Schools via the Foundation Schools Program (FSP). The voucher law didn't cut a dime of that. Rather, the voucher bill INCREASED the FSP budget by billions.

The voucher program is what we have now. It will grow and grow as a middle class entitlement and never be eliminated. I suspect vouchers will be in the multi-billions $$$ of cost just like the FSP in the near future and the legacy FSP will continue to grow and grow. Adding a multi-billion entitlement is not traditional conservative policy and that's what Rogers was getting at.

Should Texas just go into more debt like California to pay for this new middle class entitlement and hope the feds bail us out too? Or should we raise more money with an income tax?

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. The school choice program isnt FSP. It runs through the comptroller's office. Schools funded through FSP are funded on projections 2 years in advance. If a district loses a student to the choice program they would lose that entitlement and have to settle up with the state (pay back the state for the money they were projected to receive but were not actually entitled to). The FSP will lower in proportion to the student moving to the school choice program. But, the school choice program is capped at $1B, meaning the appropriation limits the number of students who can receive it. The lege would have to increase the approp for more students to qualify, in addition to the FSP. Savings for the FSPwouldnt be realized until the next biennia.

---

You can't read well or I was unclear in my writing. Vouchers will not decrease FSP funding -- the legislature didn't decrease FSP in the inaugural legislation and will not in the next round or round after that. It's government and vouchers are now as sacred as FSP, making both uncontrollable entitlements.

With vouchers, we are building a second FSP-like liability on the backs of taxpayers while the legacy FSP funding will continue to grow unabated.

---

As I explained, growth in the school choice program (an ESA is different from a voucher, words have meanings) will correspond in the FSP entitlement to districts decreasing (homeschoolers would be the only completely new cost). It could create a cashflow issue in the short term, but will likely be pretty close to a wash in a two biennia cycle. The ESA is not an entitlement, the legislature budgets for that program. The FSP on the other hand is an entitlement, a series of calculations are done that tell the legislature what they must budget to fund student entitlements. The legislature has alot more ability to scale the esa's than it does an entitlement. FSP grows at the rate of student growth. The largest elements of growth in the FSP recently has been the legislature increasing FSP entitlements to districts and property tax relief.

Saying committing $1 billion for school choice is the killer while the legislature increased funding to public schools by 8.5 billion in the exact same session doesnt make sense.

I apologize for being rude, there was no need for that.

---

My argument and prediction is that no matter how many kids are lost to ESA from the FSP, the FSP will continue to grow. And, the ESA will continue to grow too, almost exponentially. The Texas House budget score for SB2 (I think that was the bill and I'm going off elderly memory here) stated that the cost of ESAs could exceed $4 billion in a half decade. That was a low-ball prediction, I believe.

There is already a mountain of spending (FSP) and we are building a second mountain of spending with vouchers (ESA).

Back to Glenn Rogers' point of when the txleg faced an $11 billion shortfall in 2011: from where are the cuts coming to balance the state budget during the next downturn?

---

The fiscal note was if full takeup was allowed. But its capped at $1 billion. It is not possible to exceed the appropriation. The FSP always grows because the state is getting new students and more special education students are being identifies. Its they way its supposed to work. But it will not jump in an unpredictable way without legislative action.

Cuts come from everywhere. The 2011 cuts were largely a result of a federal funding cliff hitting the state at the same time as an economic downturn. If cuts are needed, well, education is about half the budget and health and human is another 30%. I agree with you the state should cut spending, but glenn is dishonestly pointing to a drop of water and not the busted water mane that is pub ed. He wasnt there for any of it, he never authored important legislation, he never understood what he was complaining about. He just sat on the sideline and threw rocks on behalf of democrats.

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

sanangelo said:

---

King of the Dairy Queen said:

---

Maroon Elephant said:

---

I respect your opinion on that. I think this Op Ed that Rogers wrote two years ago gives reasonable insight into his perspective, re: vouchers.

https://texasruralreporter.com/articles/17/view/vouchers-are-not-conservative

"The more than $32 billion surplus available for the 88th Legislature would have allowed for both enhanced public school funding and a limited voucher program. However, in 2011 Texas legislators were faced with a major budget shortfall and were required to take $5 billion away from public schools, an amount that has never been fully recovered. It would not be conservative to implement a massive voucher entitlement program expecting continued large budget surpluses.

Ultimately, vouchers can only be maintained by raising property taxes and/or defunding our public schools. Neither of these should be acceptable to conservative Texans."

---

This is such a lie. The thing that makes this guy so loathsome is that he showed up understanding nothing, declared himself an expert, and pushed AFT talking points as if they were his unique thought.

1. Public education funding had never been higher when he wrote this. Post HB3.
2. Choice program is paid from GR, that's state money. The state gets nothing from property taxes as the state levies no property taxes. The state plugged 8.5 billion new dollars into public school entitlements while simultaneously providing $1B for school choice.

---

We are at $100 billion funding Texas Public Schools via the Foundation Schools Program (FSP). The voucher law didn't cut a dime of that. Rather, the voucher bill INCREASED the FSP budget by billions.

The voucher program is what we have now. It will grow and grow as a middle class entitlement and never be eliminated. I suspect vouchers will be in the multi-billions $$$ of cost just like the FSP in the near future and the legacy FSP will continue to grow and grow. Adding a multi-billion entitlement is not traditional conservative policy and that's what Rogers was getting at.

Should Texas just go into more debt like California to pay for this new middle class entitlement and hope the feds bail us out too? Or should we raise more money with an income tax?

---

You have no idea what you're talking about. The school choice program isnt FSP. It runs through the comptroller's office. Schools funded through FSP are funded on projections 2 years in advance. If a district loses a student to the choice program they would lose that entitlement and have to settle up with the state (pay back the state for the money they were projected to receive but were not actually entitled to). The FSP will lower in proportion to the student moving to the school choice program. But, the school choice program is capped at $1B, meaning the appropriation limits the number of students who can receive it. The lege would have to increase the approp for more students to qualify, in addition to the FSP. Savings for the FSPwouldnt be realized until the next biennia.

---

You can't read well or I was unclear in my writing. Vouchers will not decrease FSP funding -- the legislature didn't decrease FSP in the inaugural legislation and will not in the next round or round after that. It's government and vouchers are now as sacred as FSP, making both uncontrollable entitlements.

With vouchers, we are building a second FSP-like liability on the backs of taxpayers while the legacy FSP funding will continue to grow unabated.

---

As I explained, growth in the school choice program (an ESA is different from a voucher, words have meanings) will correspond in the FSP entitlement to districts decreasing (homeschoolers would be the only completely new cost). It could create a cashflow issue in the short term, but will likely be pretty close to a wash in a two biennia cycle. The ESA is not an entitlement, the legislature budgets for that program. The FSP on the other hand is an entitlement, a series of calculations are done that tell the legislature what they must budget to fund student entitlements. The legislature has alot more ability to scale the esa's than it does an entitlement. FSP grows at the rate of student growth. The largest elements of growth in the FSP recently has been the legislature increasing FSP entitlements to districts and property tax relief.

Saying committing $1 billion for school choice is the killer while the legislature increased funding to public schools by 8.5 billion in the exact same session doesnt make sense.

I apologize for being rude, there was no need for that.

---

My argument and prediction is that no matter how many kids are lost to ESA from the FSP, the FSP will continue to grow. And, the ESA will continue to grow too, almost exponentially. The Texas House budget score for SB2 (I think that was the bill and I'm going off elderly memory here) stated that the cost of ESAs could exceed $4 billion in a half decade. That was a low-ball prediction, I believe.

There is already a mountain of spending (FSP) and we are building a second mountain of spending with vouchers (ESA).

Back to Glenn Rogers' point of when the txleg faced an $11 billion shortfall in 2011: from where are the cuts coming to balance the state budget during the next downturn?

---

The fiscal note was if full takeup was allowed. But its capped at $1 billion. It is not possible to exceed the appropriation. The FSP always grows because the state is getting new students and more special education students are being identifies. Its they way its supposed to work. But it will not jump in an unpredictable way without legislative action.

Cuts come from everywhere. The 2011 cuts were largely a result of a federal funding cliff hitting the state at the same time as an economic downturn. If cuts are needed, well, education is about half the budget and health and human is another 30%. I agree with you the state should cut spending, but glenn is dishonestly pointing to a drop of water and not the busted water mane that is pub ed. He wasnt there for any of it, he never authored important legislation, he never understood what he was complaining about. He just sat on the sideline and threw rocks on behalf of democrats.

---

Olcott was a better candidate than the Abbott stooges out here in district 71 & 72.

The txleg may have capped ESAs for now, but no governing body, R or D, can control the urge to spend more. Abbott got the ESA scaffolding in place and next session they'll increase it 50%-400%. The score sheet attached to SB2 in the house predicted demand will require $4 billion or more if I recall. Meanwhile, to my point, FSP will not ever decrease, or just grow with population increase. They'll spend $7 bil extra last session, $10 billion extra next session. "It's for the children!"

Regardless of Glenn Rogers' intentions, he was correct to point out that the state budget doesn't always enjoy $20 billion surpluses.