AUSTIN, Texas — In rural Texas, public schools are the cultural heart of small towns. People pack the high school stadium for Friday night football games, and FFA classes prepare the next generation for the agricultural life. In many places, more people work for the school district than for any other employer.

For years, many rural Texas school districts, often barely scraping by on lean operating budgets, have relied on their local representatives in the Republican-led state legislature to fend off school voucher programs. Some of these GOP lawmakers, along with many of their liberal colleagues from larger cities, have argued that giving families taxpayer dollars to send their children to private schools or to educate them at home would drain money from the public schools.

That wall of resistance is now on the verge of collapse, thanks to a multimillion-dollar political offensive led by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott and heavily funded by billionaire out-of-state allies committed to spreading school choice nationwide.

Six of the Republican House members Abbott targeted for opposing his school choice initiative were defeated in the March 5 primary election, and four others were thrown into a May runoff. Abbott said last week that his side is within two votes of enacting a school choice program in Texas.

“Even individuals who voted against school choice who won need to rethink their position in light of Abbott’s success on the issue,” said Matt Rinaldi, outgoing chair of the Texas Republican Party. “It’s sure to pass after these election results.”

Similar dynamics have been on display over the past two years in other states where rural opponents, sometimes aligned with labor groups and teachers unions, have sought unsuccessfully to head off the widening push. School choice can come through vouchers, refundable tax credits or education savings accounts.

In Arkansas, lawmakers sent  to Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders last year for her signature after proponents overcame years of opposition from rural Republicans allied with Democrats.

In Oklahoma, Tom Newell, a former Republican state legislator who works for a  that advocates for school choice, said rural resistance has steadily diminished in that state, too, enabling lawmakers to equip parents with education tax credits that became effective this year.

Rural Texas educators who have long opposed school choice are now bracing for it. “We really are the heart, soul and backbone of Texas,” said Randy Willis, executive director of the Texas Association of Rural School Districts, which has long opposed school choice. “We’re going to be left with a lot less resources as this progresses and goes through.”

In the small Texas Panhandle community of Booker, which has two blinking traffic lights and is closer to Cheyenne, Wyoming, than the state capital of Austin, school Superintendent Mike Lee has similar concerns.

“In all likelihood, that makes it where Abbott could pass vouchers,” Lee said of the primary election results.

Like many other rural school leaders, Lee said any loss of funding would make it even harder for his district to pay for basic operations and new, state-mandated safety programs launched in response to school shootings.

Primary battles

Despite the concerns of school officials such as Willis and Lee, school choice proponents say the rapid spread of the concept in Texas and other states dismantles the perception that rural residents oppose it.

“There’s been a myth in Texas that rural Republicans do not want school choice,” said Genevieve Collins, state director of the Texas branch of Americans for Prosperity, a conservative political advocacy group. Voters “put that myth to bed” in the recent Republican primary, she told Stateline.

Abbott said during a speech last week that parents frequently approached him on the campaign trail “begging” and “pleading” for school choice. “Any Republican House member who was voting against school choice was voting against the voice of the Republicans who voted in that primary,” he said.

School choice advocates argue that giving families public education dollars to pay for private school allows everybody — not just the wealthy — to choose the school that is best for their child. Though most Republicans support school choice and most Democrats oppose it, the issue doesn’t break cleanly along party lines: Just as some rural Republicans oppose vouchers, some Black and Hispanic Democrats support them, arguing that families should have an alternative if their local public schools are substandard.

“When you look at this, you can see that the majority of parents want school choice. They just want to be empowered with the decisions of their children’s future,” Hillary Hickland, a mother of four who defeated Republican incumbent state Rep. Hugh Shine of Temple, said of the primary results. Shine was one of 21 Republicans who voted to take vouchers out of the education bill last year,  to The Texas Tribune, and the governor endorsed Hickland.

“I think the arguments against school choice are based in fear and control. Ultimately, we have to do what’s best for the students. That’s the purpose of education,” said Hickland, who added: “For the majority of families, public school will always be right and best, and that’s great. We’re not giving up on our public schools.”

Janis Holt, a former teacher in the Silsbee Independent School District northeast of Houston, defeated incumbent Republican state Rep. Ernest Bailes, another voucher opponent who earned Abbott’s ire. Holt said she is reassuring rural superintendents in her district that she is a staunch supporter of both public school funding and school choice.

“We’re going to make sure that we protect the students that will be in our public schools, our teachers and administrators, but will also give parents opportunities to get their kids out of a failing school when they need to,” Holt said.

Republican state Rep. Gary VanDeaver, one of the House members targeted by Abbott, hasn’t wavered from his opposition to school choice initiatives. VanDeaver survived in the first primary round on March 5 but wound up in a May 28 runoff against an opponent backed by the governor.

“I’m just going to try to dodge all the bombs that are dropped on me and keep working to get a positive message out there and make sure everybody understands what’s at stake,” said VanDeaver, a former school superintendent.

He fears Abbott’s school choice drive will redirect billions of dollars a year from rural Texas school districts to urban and suburban ones. “The economies of the small communities are struggling as it is,” he said. “There’s just a lot of reasons that something like this is bad for rural Texas.”

Rapid spread

School choice programs have spread rapidly in recent years, aided by groups such as the American Federation for Children, which was founded by the billionaire family of former U.S. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos, and Americans for Prosperity, affiliated with the conservative billionaire Koch family.

“Nationally we really saw that momentum take off a couple of years ago,” said Chantal Lovell of EdChoice, a nonprofit group that tracks and promotes school choice. “After 2023 there was no stopping it, and it’s clear that universal educational choice isn’t a fleeting trend, but here to stay.”

As many as 73 programs have been implemented in 32 states, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, including 11 with a comprehensive statewide reach and 62 that serve various portions of the population, according to EdChoice.

Alabama Republican Gov. Kay Ivey signed a program into law earlier this month, and a bill is awaiting the governor’s signature in Wyoming.

Texas emerged as the most closely watched school choice battleground after Abbott last year made the issue one of his top priorities and called repeated special sessions in an attempt to overcome opposition from a coalition of rural Republicans aligned with Democrats.

Abbott unleashed millions of dollars from his campaign funds and traveled into the home counties of resistant Republicans after a school choice initiative collapsed in the Texas House.

Other dynamics were also at work, including endorsements by former President Donald Trump, who has equated school choice with civil rights, and Texas Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton, who sought to settle scores against House members for initiating an unsuccessful effort to oust him through impeachment.

Big money

An avalanche of campaign dollars from both inside and outside the state helped propel Abbott’s offensive, according to OpenSecrets, a nonprofit research organization that tracks political spending.

Billionaire Jeff Yass, a megadonor investor based in Pennsylvania and one of the nation’s leading school choice advocates,  the governor’s campaign more than $6 million, which Abbott officials described as the “largest single donation in Texas history.”

Abbott, who is not up for reelection until 2026, was one of the biggest spenders in the undertaking, drawing $6.4 million from his campaign fund to help finance opposition expenditures against incumbents on his hit list.

The AFC Victory Fund, a super PAC the American Federation for Children created in September, directed its resources into 20 Republican primary races in Texas, opposing 13 Republican incumbents, supporting six others and financing a 20th candidate for an open seat, according to Scott Jensen, a former Wisconsin House speaker who is now a senior adviser to the American Federation for Children.

For many of the targeted legislators, the political attack was insurmountable. “We gave it everything we had, but you can’t overcome being outspent over 4-to-1,” said Republican state Rep. Travis Clardy, who lost to Joanne Shofner, former president of the Nacogdoches County Republican Women.

“We spent more money in this campaign than all my other campaigns combined,” said Clardy, a Nacogdoches attorney who first won election in 2012. “But the money aligned against us and the power and political clout behind it were too much.”

Among other things, targeted incumbents said, the AFC Victory Fund financed a bombardment of mailings and ads that often went beyond school choice to focus on other issues, such as being lax on border security. One mailing was fashioned like a wanted poster.

Republican state Rep. Drew Darby, who prevailed over his challenger and doesn’t have a Democratic opponent, said the tactics were out of bounds and called Abbott’s involvement in his race “sad” for the state. “That’s a situation I’ve never seen in my political career,” said Darby.

Jensen said the AFC Victory Fund spent almost $4 million in Texas and plans to spend $15 million nationally on state school choice campaigns during the 2024 election cycle.

“Welcome to politics,” Jensen said of the criticism from targeted lawmakers. “These guys are long-term incumbents. I’m sorry if they haven’t been in a tough race for a while, but everything we said was accurate. And I don’t think any of it was misleading or unfair.”

At least 70% of the AFC Victory Fund’s communications, he said, focused on school choice.

In the Robert Lee Independent School District in West Texas, which has one campus and about 250 students, Superintendent Aaron Hood fears the potential impact on his district.

As with other districts, inflation has put a whammy on operating expenses, leaving Robert Lee with a budget deficit for the second year in a row. And because state funding is based on average daily attendance, if any students were to transfer to a private school under a school choice plan, Robert Lee would face a drop in state funds. (The nearest private school is 30 miles away, in San Angelo.)

For now, Hood says, it’s a bit too early to assess the potential impact of the primary results. But if Abbott prevails in the next round of electoral combat, he said, “then I would say that choice is coming to Texas.”

Jimmy Cloutier of OpenSecrets provided data on campaign contributions and expenditures for this article.

This story was originally published by , which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org. Follow Stateline on  and .

Indiana’s K-12 schools are spending more than state leaders expected on student textbooks — and some are still sending bills to students’ families — prompting lawmakers to request additional information about what’s being expensed.

The questioning comes a year after the General Assembly dedicated $160 million in the current state budget to eliminate textbook and curriculum fees for Hoosier families, starting with the 2023-24 academic year.

Based on the funds available in May 2023, the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) estimated the per student reimbursement amount to schools would be approximately $151.88. Based on spending in the current academic year, however, the actual per student reimbursement amount came out to $158.21.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for ĂŰĚŇÓ°ĘÓ Newsletter

Still, IDOE data obtained by the Indiana Capital Chronicle shows the state reimbursed 395 traditional K-12 districts and charter schools a total of about $159 million for the current academic year — about a million dollars below what was appropriated.

What’s not clear, though, is the amount each school actually spent on textbooks and other materials overall, or how much individual districts requested in reimbursements from the state.

Indiana Secretary of Education Katie Jenner said IDOE “gave some schools more than they asked for,” while other schools “significantly increased their asks.”

After seeing those reimbursement numbers, Jenner emphasized that state officials want to “better understand what we are spending on,” and whether schools should make more efficient decisions” on curricular materials moving forward.

She said, too, there needs to be more investigation around other fees — like for certain college-level course materials and school management software like Skyward.

“All around, we need a better understanding of what we’re charging for,” Jenner said, adding that a deeper analysis into longitudinal curricular materials spending data is also underway. “How are we best determining what to charge our families … and make sure we’re very aware of any additional fees beyond what the state is reimbursing.”

As such, Indiana Gov. Eric Holcomb included in his 2024 agenda a statewide review of curricular materials expenses, following the state’s 2023 commitment to cover textbook fees in K-12 schools.

Language in so far requires all public schools to participate in an annual statewide survey concerning school fees charged to students or parents. Local officials would have to complete the survey to be eligible to receive a distribution from the statewide curricular materials fund.

“I think that it’s a legitimate concern. … It’s so important to be very transparent about costs, especially. You’ve got to be transparent about quality, and you’ve got to be transparent about access, but costs need to be reported,” the governor said. “And so this is what (the state education department) is working on — making sure that they’re working with schools, and then reporting out , so parents know when it comes to the curriculum that they’re not paying twice.”

Indiana tax dollars footing the bill

Until the current school year, Indiana was one of seven states that still allowed districts to charge parents of K-12 students for textbooks.

In recent academic years, annual textbook fees for a single Hoosier student averaged from $80 to $200. The amount billed varied significantly, however, depending on a student’s grade level and what district they attended.

Fees at some schools escalated into the hundreds of dollars per student as course materials transitioned from traditional books to technology-centered resources like iPads and Chromebook tablets, for example. On top of that, many families continue to dish out additional dollars for school supplies, calculators, sports fees and band rentals.

Holcomb’s 2023 agenda called on the legislature to prohibit families from being on the hook for curricular fees and instead require public schools to provide those materials to all students at no cost. Taxpayer dollars already covered the cost of textbooks for students who qualify for free and reduced-price meals.

Lawmakers signed on, appropriating $160 million for the initiative’s inaugural year, based on an estimate of $150 per student for the state’s 1 million pupils.

Under the new process, schools send their curricular expenses to the IDOE. Officials there then take the total and divide it by the number of students statewide. That gives an amount per student that is multiplied by how many students each district has. Then, that amount was sent in one lump sum to individual school districts in December.

While the new law was championed by state officials, school districts have since been left trying to figure out what they have to cover and what they don’t — especially when it comes to advanced classes and career development courses.

Multiple district administrators told the Capital Chronicle that families have long been charged those added fees, and billing for such continues to be within the realm of the law.

As part of its 2024 agenda, the Indiana State Teachers Association in the second year of the biennium to “fully fund” the cost of textbooks and curricular materials.

Keith Gambill, ISTA’s president, said the union is aware of “several” school districts that are already concerned about their ability to pay for textbooks in the upcoming 2024-25 school year. Gambill said more data needs to be collected before ISTA can recommend an exact dollar for curricular fees.

“If schools are forced to either make changes in staffing or other programming in order to fully fund the textbooks, then we’re not getting the best for our students,” he said. “It shouldn’t be upon them — and not born on the backs of school employees — to make that happen.”

Gambill said while charter and voucher schools benefited from significant funding boosts in the 2023 session, traditional public schools still lack “appropriate” appropriations.

Is spending up?

The is somewhat vague, saying public schools must “provide curricular materials to students at no cost,” but that parents can be charged “a reasonable fee for lost or significantly damaged curricular materials.”

Last year, IDOE about what counts as “curriculum materials.”

The department those as “books; hardware that will be consumed, accessed, or used by a single student during a semester or school year; computer software; and digital content.”

That includes one-to-one laptops or tablets given to students in some districts. Materials for advanced placement, dual credit, and career technical education courses — but not dual enrollment courses — also count as curricular materials, according to IDOE.

But schools are still allowed to charge families non-curricular fees and for other odds and ends, and for lost or damaged items. Parents in some districts are additionally offered the option to pay for insurance that covers technology used by their students. School districts cannot require parents to pay for that insurance, however.

Even so, IDOE’s guidance instructs districts to consult their own legal council about their ability to charge “other fees.”

Before the 2024 legislative session began, school board officials from around the state sought clarification from lawmakers on what fees can and can’t be charged. Specifically, local leaders wanted to ensure that schools are allowed to charge fees for items that fall outside the definition of curricular materials and supplement the instruction of a particular course.

One policy recommendation sought to define such supplies and materials as laboratory supplies, textbooks required in a dual credit course, items used and kept by the student, musical instruments, and uniforms for co-curricular activities, among other things.

Sen. Linda Rogers, R-Granger, included relevant language in her , permitting schools to assess and collect “a reasonable fee for supplies and materials” that “are not curricular materials” and “supplement the instruction in a particular course of study.”

That provision , though. It’s not certain if it will be added back in that measure or any others.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Indiana Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Niki Kelly for questions: info@indianacapitalchronicle.com. Follow Indiana Capital Chronicle on and .