​Does The Washington Post truly mistake correlation for causation?
 
The Post recently offered a heart-rending profile of tearful teachers celebrating bittersweet memories as the John R. Davis Elementary School in Phoenix shut its doors for good. This sad moment was presented as an example of how school closures are “a response to enrollment declines as the state [Arizona] offers unprecedented taxpayer funding for alternatives to public school.”
 
In this recent feature piece, The Post linked the closure of one-third of schools in the Roosevelt Elementary School District in Phoenix, like Davis Elementary, to declining attendance caused by school choice. The piece specifically blamed the participation of students in the state’s school voucher program under its Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs) for shuttered public schools.
 
Thankfully, Brittany Bernstein of National Review dug into this story and found that of the 8,500 students who have left the district, only 102 went to a private school under the ESA. Where did the other 8,398 flee to?
 
“The rest have enrolled in public schools not operated by Roosevelt,” Bernstein writes. “It’s not hard to figure out why parents are pulling their kids out of Roosevelt schools en masse: Just 10 percent of students in the district scored proficient in math and just 17 percent scored proficient in reading on the 2024 state tests.”
 
As we’ve reported before, far from degrading public schools, school choice improves them. Randomized control trials of voucher programs found moderate evidence of improvement in academic achievement from private school vouchers – a welcome result given America’s persistently mediocre place in international school rankings. Moreover, out of 28 studies that explored the causal relationship between school choice and the performance of public schools, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems.
 
It is evidence-based results like these that show that competition benefits schools and elevates the student experience. That is why 18 states have embraced some form of universal school choice. The momentum behind this policy juggernaut is coming from parents who want to choose schools equal to their ambitions for their children, and respectful of the values they want to express across the generations. That is why Protect The 1st sees school choice as a quintessential First Amendment issue.
 
It is easy to see why parents love school choice. It is harder to understand why so much of the legacy media clings to old narratives based on shoddy evidence.

We’ve chronicled many attempts by state authorities to try to force religiously oriented private schools to knock the religion out of their curricula. Maine, for example, persists in defying the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that the state cannot exclude religious schools from a state-funded tuition program for simply being religious.

The expanding school choice movement is predicated on the belief that giving parents the choice of their school – whether a school with a religious character, or purely secular school dedicated to STEM or the arts – respects the pluralism of our society.

But parent-plaintiffs in North Carolina are flipping that script. They are suing a private school because their children were expelled after the parents led a protest over its supposedly “woke” curriculum.

Now the Roman Catholic Church, which has long gone to court to defend its right to maintain its traditional teachings, is going to court to support the right of this private school to maintain its non-traditional curriculum.

Here's a brief review of the case, which will be heard by the North Carolina Supreme Court in October:

• Unhappy with a leftward ideological shift after a new headmaster was installed at Charlotte Latin School, a private college preparatory academy, two parents started a protest movement at the school, engaging administrators and the board.

 

• Citing its “Partnership with Parents” agreement and determining that it had become impossible to have a productive working relationship with the parents in light of perceived attacks on the school’s mission, Charlotte Latin nullified the education contracts of the couple’s two children and severed ties.

 

• The parents sued the school, garnering support from 14 state and federal lawmakers, all North Carolina Republicans.

 

• The state’s Appeals Court ruled against the plaintiffs twice, first unanimously and then in a 2-1 split, affirming the trial judge’s original ruling. The parents had previously tried to bypass the Appeals Court but that move was rejected by the state Supreme Court because the petition deadline was missed.

 

• Meanwhile, the N.C. Association of Independent Schools and the Southern Association of Independent Schools filed an amicus brief with the Appeals Court on behalf of the school, writing:

 
“Private and independent schools should be permitted to shape their values and culture as they see fit. If some parents do not like the direction that they perceive a school to take, they should vote with their feet and seek a new school.”
 

• Last week, in anticipation of the state Supreme Court’s upcoming hearing, both associations filed an additional amicus brief. The Catholic Diocese of Charlotte did as well.

The diocesan brief is particularly noteworthy, going straight to heart of the matter in holding that private schools also have association rights under the First Amendment. The Diocese told the court:

“These contractual provisions are essential tools that allow religious schools to carry out their faith-based educational missions,” and enforcing them, “avoids entangling courts in religious questions and protects the constitutional autonomy of private religious schools under the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.”

We couldn’t agree more. If parents are unhappy with the ideology of their children’s private school, then it’s time to find a new school (there are 96 others in the N.C. Association of Independent Schools beyond Charlotte Latin). But if we allow litigation to shape the curricula of private schools, there will be no end to the control of curricula.
​
The genius of the First Amendment is that it guarantees choice in a free market of ideas. Matching families to schools, not legal coercion, is what the school choice movement is about.

We’ve frequently noted the popularity of school choice among the vast majority of Democratic voters, and asked when blue state governors will sign up for a national movement that is sweeping the states. Eighteen states now have some form of universal school choice. Most are red states, though some on that map are purple.
 
Now Corey DeAngelis, long-time advocate for school choice, challenges Gov. Josh Shapiro (D-PA) and Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) to take the plunge. Both men supported school choice in their 2022 gubernatorial campaigns. Both had their hands tied by state legislatures in which the influence of the change-nothing leadership of the teachers’ union blocked school choice. DeAngelis writes in The Wall Street Journal:
 
“The federal tax-credit program bypasses this problem entirely, empowering these governors to expand school choice unilaterally. By opting in, they can deliver scholarships to help their constituents afford private school tuition – opportunities Messrs. Shapiro and Pritzker valued for their own children. And it takes no additional spending out of the state budget …

“Democratic governors who might wish to opt out face a political dilemma. Because the federal program allows donations from all states, residents of Pennsylvania and Illinois can still contribute to scholarship organizations and receive a dollar-for-dollar tax credit, even if their governors opt out of allowing residents to receive the scholarships. If Messrs. Shapiro and Pritzker opt out, they’ll not only deny their states’ families access to scholarships for private schools, but also send their residents’ tax dollars to other states like Texas or Florida while getting nothing in return. But if they opt in, they could inspire other blue-state governors to follow, expanding a nationwide movement for school choice.”

Strong bipartisan support among voters for school choice suggests that opting-in to donations would be a show of leadership by these governors, both of whom are believed to harbor presidential ambitions for 2028.

School choice is simply too popular among the American people to be treated as a partisan issue. Studies show that school choice, far from degrading public schools, provides competition that improves their performance. Millions of parents also support it for the same reason we do as a non-partisan First Amendment organization: By allowing parents to choose the best school for their children, they can express their values across generations, whether in faith-based schools, or secular schools devoted to the arts or sciences.
​
What’s not to like?

In recent years, we’ve chronicled the rising tide of states – 18 now, with recent legislative victories in Texas and New Hampshire – that have embraced universal school choice.

But what about parents who live the other 32 states? Thanks to decisive action in Congress (yes, you read that correctly), the ability of parents to choose high-quality private schools, whether religiously based schools, STEM-oriented or arts-centered, will gradually increase.

Congress – with the leadership of Rep. Adrian Smith, chairman of the subcommittee of jurisdiction on Ways & Means in the House, and Sen. Bill Cassidy in the Senate – passed the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) just before the July 4th holiday. This bill made available a 100-percent federal income tax credit of $1,700 for donors. This credit is available to donors in all 50 states to support scholarship-granting organizations that allow parents to send their children to a high-quality private school.

There are several aspects of this new law that will transform the American educational landscape from the national level, as governors are doing in the states.

• This tax credit is permanent. It would take a future act of Congress to undo it, something that once granted would be politically difficult to achieve.

 

• It will only take future amendments to the law to increase the tax credit and to broaden the base of donors to include businesses and other well-resourced groups.

 

• The law does limit scholarships to students who live in states in which the governor or designated agency under state law decides to opt-in to the program. But nothing keeps donors living in an “opt-out” state from donating to scholarship organizations around the country.

 

• Even in states in which politicians have been hostile to school choice it will be difficult for governors to turn down free money from the federal government to support private schools options in-state.

We again quote a recent Chicago Tribune editorial, where politicians have long been resistant to competition in education:

“Opponents of school choice believe that education is a zero-sum game, and that private schools are a threat to the public system. We believe the opposite – that a thriving private and charter system and a strong traditional public system create an educational ecosystem that can serve everyone’s needs. There are things private schools can do that public ones can’t, and the same is very much true in reverse.

“School choice remains popular in Illinois, with a clear majority of residents supporting the concept.”

With polls showing overwhelming support for school choice among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents, expect to see intense pressure from parents to allow these scholarships in every state.

Another big win came with the passage and signing into law of the Student Empowerment Act, which expands 529 plans – a tax-advantaged investment account designed to encourage saving for future education expenses, such as college or K-12 tuition – to help families save for public, private, religious, and homeschool students and families.

• This bill – passed with the leadership of Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Kevin Hern – will allow parents to transfer any unused funds in a 529 account from leftover college expenses to, for example, the private religious elementary school of grandchildren.

These two measures, coupled with the rising tide of states that have embraced universal school choice, show that the school choice movement – and its support for First Amendment values – is not only here to stay, but to grow as well.

• Both the ECCA and the Student Empowerment Act give religious schools the same access to these programs as any other kind of private school.

​
With victories in the states and in Washington D.C., the national success of the school choice movement now appears to only be a matter of time.

Protect The 1st applauded the Senate’s passage of landmark school choice legislation with tax credits as part of the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill.”
 
“A seemingly small provision in the budget reconciliation bill passed by the Senate will uplift American school children and promote the future health of our nation,” said Bob Goodlatte, former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee and Senior Policy Advisor for Protect The 1st. “With support from the House, for the first time in American history the right of parents to choose the best school for their children will be supported by a federal tax credit.
 
“This day is a great achievement by Sen. Majority Leader John Thune, Senate Finance Chairman Mike Crapo, supported by the longtime leadership of Sen. Bill Cassidy and Sen. Tim Scott,” Goodlatte said. “Their leadership, along with Sen. Ted Cruz, made the day.”
 
Gene Schaerr, Protect The 1st general counsel, said: “The measure is the mustard seed that is sure to grow into a sheltering tree. With 19 states having passed some form of universal school choice, this national bill will facilitate private school scholarships that will elevate the lives of American students and their families for decades to come.
 
“These scholarships will allow children from low-income households to have access to quality education previously reserved for well-to-do families,” Schaerr said. “And it will allow families to exercise their First Amendment rights by selecting the quality religious or secular school of their choice.”
 
Goodlatte added: “The House, having passed this once, now has the happy duty of advancing the measure in its current form and getting it to President Trump’s desk.”

A new Club for Growth-sponsored poll conducted by McLaughlin & Associates confirms what other polls have shown – that supermajorities of Americans in both parties support school choice.
 
McLaughlin’s findings, resulting from a survey of 1,000 likely voters taken between June 9-11, show that 82 percent of voters agree that “every parent in America should be empowered to send their child to the public, private, charter, or faith-based school of their choice.”
 
And while that sentiment is somewhat higher among Republicans at 87 percent, some 79 percent of Democrats and Independents agree.
 
Likewise, strong majorities support the principles of the Educational Choice for Children Act, which recently passed the House and is now before the Senate Finance Committee. Seventy-three percent of both Republicans and Democrats back “providing federal tax credits to individuals and businesses that make charitable contributions to non-profit education scholarship funds that provide financial assistance to K-12 students for tuition and other educational expenses.”
 
The McLaughlin poll is at least the third of its kind in recent years to verify that around or above two-thirds of voters support school choice. A 2022 poll from the American Federation for Children found the same – as did another from RealClear Opinion Research.
 
What explains such high levels of support for school choice, especially given the polarization of Americans on so many other issues? Parents are fed up with the failures of the American public school system. A full 50 percent of McLaughlin respondents (parents with children in K-12) said that they have moved or have considered moving their child to a different school. And nearly three-quarters (72 percent) said that they would be likely to send their child to a non-public or church-run educational institution if afforded the opportunity.
 
Politically speaking, school choice is a winning issue – one that goes to the heart of the First Amendment. There is no greater expression of First Amendment values than how a parent chooses to educate their child. And, increasingly, it’s looking like more and more parents will be able to make that choice.
 
New Hampshire recently became the latest state to offer universal private school choice, the 19th state to do so. Which state will be next? And when will Democratic governors and state legislators begin to embrace an issue that is overwhelmingly popular with Democratic voters?

The Senate Finance Committee just released its text for the budget reconciliation bill, a.k.a. the One, Big, Beautiful Bill. The text (see p. 168) builds upon the provisions the House passed a few weeks ago for a national federal scholarship, the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA).

The Senate language creates $4 billion a year in permanent tax credits that grant 100 percent, non-refundable credits against individual income taxes for donations to qualified scholarship granting organizations. These scholarships would be available for student families to pay for private-school tuition, books, and teaching materials for home schooling expenses, and educational therapies for children with disabilities.

“Credit goes to all the energetic supporters of this bill in the Senate Finance Committee, including Finance Chairman Mike Crapo and the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Bill Cassidy and Sen. Tim Scott,” said Bob Goodlatte, Senior Policy Advisor to Protect The 1st and former Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “Of course, the Senate and the House will need to work out a few differences. Then the way should be clear to get it to the president’s desk.
​
“Those who support this bill will be aligning themselves with the supermajorities of Americans of both parties who want families to have options in the quality and character of their children’s education,” Goodlatte said. “Abundant evidence shows that competition in education is proven to improve the quality of public schools, and it is certainly in the best interests of America’s schoolchildren.”

Protect The 1st has followed the long, sorrowful saga of the Illinois Invest in Kids scholarship program, a lifeline for very low-income families to escape failing and dangerous public schools with scholarships to quality private schools.

This 75 percent tax credit served kids whose families were below 300 percent of the poverty level. When the public teachers union flexed its muscle, however, Gov. J.B. Pritzker (D-IL) and state lawmakers bowed to the union’s raw political power and let the program die.

The Chicago Tribune writes: “Now these kids have reason to hope.”

What is that hope? The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), which passed the House and is now a part of the reconciliation bill before the Senate. The ECCA would provide $5 billion a year in tax credits for donations to scholarship-granting organizations for disadvantaged students nationwide to attend quality private schools.

The Tribune writes:

“Opponents of school choice believe that education is a zero-sum game, and that private schools are a threat to the public system. We believe the opposite – that a thriving private and charter system and a strong traditional public system create an educational ecosystem that can serve everyone’s needs. There are things private schools can do that public ones can’t, and the same is very much true in reverse.

“School choice remains popular in Illinois, with a clear majority of residents supporting the concept. More importantly, choice introduces accountability into a system that, for decades, has faced little real competition. When parents have options, schools must respond – whether by improving curriculum, addressing student behavior issues more effectively, or offering stronger support for struggling learners.”

The Tribune concludes:

“Springfield has moved on from the thousands of low-income students it left behind a year and a half ago. Now, the ECCA is their best shot. We hope that the Senate passes a version of the reconciliation bill that includes this program.”

​Sen. Tim Scott’s latest legislative effort – the High-Quality Charter Schools Act – should be welcomed by anyone who values liberty, educational opportunity, and the full expression of our First Amendment rights. The South Carolina Republican is introducing a 75 percent federal tax credit for charitable donations to nonprofit charter school organizations with proven excellence. The aim is clear – to break down the financial barriers that prevent communities from opening the schools their children need.
 
“No matter their background, race or zip-code, every child deserves access to a good school,” Sen. Scott said in his introduction of this bill. “Millions of families – including thousands across South Carolina – choose charter schools for the high-quality education they provide.” He said that this bill will strengthen the best educational opportunities for families that need it the most.
 
For Protect The 1st, this bill isn’t just sound policy. It is a way to fulfill the promise of the First Amendment. Parents have a right, grounded in part in that Amendment, to guide their children’s education in ways that reflect their values and beliefs across generations. School choice empowers families to act on that right, whether through religious schools, charter schools, or other educational models.
 
The First Amendment protects both free speech and religious liberty. School choice legislation like this honors both. It enables families to seek out educational environments – secular or religious – that align with their convictions, without government interference.
 
We’ve seen this principle in action with the Educational Choice for Children Act. That measure, now part of the reconciliation package before the Senate, would offer similar tax credits for donations to organizations that fund scholarships for private and religious schools. It’s about using private donations to give families more options and students better chances. In Sen. Scott’s bill and the ECCA, money comes from voluntary donations, not state tax dollars.
 
Moreover, contrary to arguments by critics, there is abundant evidence showing that competition from school choice actually improves public schools. Out of 28 studies that explored the causal relationship between school choice and the performance of public schools, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems. “In terms of social-scientific validity, that’s a slam dunk,” writes Alexander William Salter, economist at Texas Tech University. When families have options, everyone wins.
 
Sen. Scott’s focus on charter schools adds another dimension, supporting schools that often serve low-income and minority students. It offers alternatives where the public system has failed. Sen. Scott’s bill respects American pluralism and helps close the gap between educational ideals and the lived reality of American families. Perhaps most important, it gives parents greater control over the destiny of their children. It does this by supporting institutions – charter, religious, and independent – that reflect America’s diversity while enabling the fullest exercise of the First Amendment.

​Under the leadership of Chairman Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the House Ways and Means Committee approved the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) on Wednesday as part of the tax package in President Trump’s “big, beautiful” reconciliation bill. This measure provides $20 billion in tax credits over the next four years to non-profit Scholarship Granting Organizations to pay private school tuition and educational materials for children throughout the United States.
 
“This is hopeful news for millions of American students and their parents,” said Bob Goodlatte, former Congressman and Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, and Senior Policy Advisor to Protect The 1st. “Giving parents the ability to choose the best school for their children is a powerful expression of the First Amendment across the generations. Whether parents choose a private school that specializes in the sciences and technology, or the arts, or a religious school, they are free to make the best choice for their children.
 
“Our gratitude goes to Chairman Smith and all of his colleagues who stood behind the ECCA,” Goodlatte said. “We are also grateful to the followers of Protect The 1st who answered our call to let House Members know how important this legislation is to the families and children of America.
 
“We urge more Members to get behind the passage of this bill by the full House and the Senate, and its delivery to the president’s desk.”

​With Gov. Greg Abbott’s signature on Saturday, Texas became the 16th state to embrace universal school choice.

“Gone are the days that families are limited to only the school assigned by government,” Gov. Abbott said. “The day has arrived that empowers parents to choose the school that’s best for their child.”

We only would add that thanks to the leadership of Gov. Abbott, universal school choice gives parents the ability to fully express the First Amendment by carrying their values across the generations.

That freedom will include the ability of parents to choose schools with an emphasis on STEM, on the arts, or religious-based schools.

Texas is allocating an initial budget of $1 billion to provide more than $10,000 per year for each child to pay for private school tuition. Children with disabilities will receive an additional $30,000 for extra care. Parents who homeschool their children can receive up to $2,000 a year for materials and resources. Parents will be able to access these funds though education savings accounts.

Only a few years ago, no state had universal school choice, making choice a pipe dream for most American families. With mega-states like Florida and Texas – and large states from Arizona to Tennessee and North Carolina – now embracing school choice, it is clear that school choice has moved from the periphery to the center of American life.

Where will this movement go from here? We see two fruitful avenues for further progress.

The first are states controlled by Democrats. There is no mistaking that the school choice debate has been a red-blue issue, stoutly rejected by Democratic leaders from Sacramento to Springfield. We are hopeful that as universal school choice states post positive educational results, blue-state governors will begin to rethink their reflexive opposition. Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania has been notably open to considering some form of school choice for the Keystone State.

The second avenue for progress is for the House to pass the Educational Choice for Children Act, and to ensure that it remains in the reconciliation package. This bill would create a substantial resource, through tax credits, for the private sector to support private school options with donations.
​
With a third of the states now embracing school choice, it is time to consider the unfolding of this movement as a matter of national policy.

​Protect The 1st has long advocated school choice, from secular schools that concentrate on STEM and the arts, to religiously based schools, as an important way for parents to express their First Amendment rights across generations.

Michael J. Broyde, Emory University law professor, writes in The Wall Street Journal that the Supreme Court has held in precedents ranging from Espinoza v. Montana Department of Education (2020) to Carson v. Makin (2022) that if a state funds private education, it cannot exclude religious schools.

Broyde wrote:

“Critics will worry that directly funding religious schools compromises the separation of church and state. But as the Supreme Court has clarified, public money can follow the student – even into religious settings – as long as the funding program is neutral with respect to religion, and the choice of school is made independently by parents.”
​
The inclusion of religious schools, like Oklahoma’s St. Isidore Virtual Catholic School, is an important way to promote a thriving, pluralistic, First Amendment society.

​A bill moving through the Illinois legislature has sparked fierce opposition from parents, educators, and civil liberties advocates across the state. Known as the “Homeschool Act,” House Bill 2827 would require families to register their homeschool with local districts, hand over teaching materials upon demand, and face criminal charges for paperwork violations. Critics say it’s not about oversight – it’s about control.
 
Registration isn’t just a formality. It would empower the state to monitor, investigate, and potentially prosecute families who choose to educate at home. Under HB 2827, if parents don’t file the required form within ten days, their children are labeled truant, and the parents could face jail time. That registration triggers new powers for school districts and truancy officers: they could demand educational portfolios, interrogate children without parental presence, and determine whether the family’s curriculum, potentially including religious content, is acceptable. It invites a regime of constant oversight, not based on any wrongdoing, but simply because a family chose to homeschool.
 
Lawmakers like Rep. La Shawn Ford, a Democrat, are sounding alarms. He called the bill a “pipeline to the criminal justice system for parents.” Others warn it would overwhelm child welfare agencies without helping at-risk children.
 
Backers point to cases of abuse in homeschool settings, but those tragedies were already known to state authorities. This bill doesn’t solve system failures. It punishes law-abiding families instead.
 
The opposition isn’t coming from one political camp. Tens of thousands of witness slips were filed. Between 5,000 and 8,000 people showed up at the state capitol. Homeschooling advocates point out that today’s homeschoolers come from across the political and socioeconomic spectrum, black, white, Republican, Democrat, low-income, and post-COVID converts. The message is simple: Our freedom is not up for negotiation.
 
Perhaps it’s no surprise that 33 counties in Illinois have voted to explore breaking away from the state. Proposals like HB 2827 only deepen the divide between urban lawmakers and rural families who feel increasingly sidelined and targeted.
 
HB 2827 is a line in the sand. Either lawmakers reject this overreach, or they invite a broader erosion of parental rights and educational freedom. The First Amendment demands more than lip service. This bill must be stopped.

On Thursday, in a rare sign of political health, the House managed to squeak out a budget resolution, 216-214. Producing this blueprint was a monumental lift for the Republicans’ razor-thin majority, but they achieved it just the same. Big challenges remain. In coming weeks, the majority in Congress must now agree on balancing the budgetary costs of President Trump’s proposed tax cuts against spending in defense, border control, and other major priorities.
 
Amid these gigantic programs, there is a smaller one that must not hit the cutting room floor – the well-being of children and the future of American education. Congress should make sure that two relatively small items, the Educational Choice for Children Act and the Student Empowerment Act, are kept in the coming budget reconciliation bill.
 
Urgent action is needed to address the nation’s near-catastrophic, not-very-good report card on education. The National Assessment of Educational Progress tests American students every two years. It found that the average reading scores for fourth- and eighth-grade students fell by 2 points since 2022. Math proficiency for fourth graders fell by three percent from 2019. For American eighth graders, it fell by a whopping 9 percent. There are bright spots, with improvement for students in the top tier of performance. Overall, American education saw a continuation of a decline that preceded the pandemic.
 
Clearly, traditional public-school systems in many parts of the United States need help. America’s educational mediocrity has been a crisis since the 1980s, although mediocrity might be an improvement over current performance in some school districts. A large body of research shows that educational choice can help improve the performance of public schools, as well as students overall. We’ve previously reported that economics professor William Alexander Salter of Texas Tech University has demonstrated that on the question of the impact of school choice: “Out of 28 studies that explore this question, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems. In terms of social-scientific validity, that’s a slam dunk.”

• The Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA) would improve both public and private schools in this way, providing tax credits for charitable donations to expand choices in quality education. Introduced by Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE), Rep. Burgess Owen (R-UT) and Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA), the ECCA permits tax-free private donations to help students, especially low-income ones, to take advantage of quality private education, including both secular and religious schools.

The ECCA offers $10 billion in tax credits to be divided among the states, surely an amount that can fit into this budget. Speaking to the need for this bill, Sen. Cassidy said: “More freedom empowers parents and allows American children to thrive in school.”
​

• The Student Empowerment Act, sponsored by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and Rep. Kevin Hern (R-OK) would expand school choice by increasing the availability of 529 Education Savings Plans to include not only K-12 elementary and secondary school tuition, but also many K-12 educational expenses for public, private, and homeschool students.

“The Student Empowerment Act is commonsense legislation that will expand access to 529 savings accounts and empower American families to best meet their children’s learning needs,” Sen. Cruz said.
 
Both programs would respect American pluralism, allowing parents to make choices for their children and to express their values across generations by choosing secular or religious schools consistent with broader First Amendment protections. Amid hundreds of billions of dollars spent on other programs, these two bills are small but impactful. Kept in the budget for the president to sign, the ECCA and Student Empowerment Act will generate benefits that will resonate for the rest of the century.

​Today, the Lone Star State is poised to embrace universal school choice. Is that a good idea?
 
With debate in Austin now underway, Texas legislators – who serve the nation’s second most populous state – might look to the third most populous state for answers to that question.
 
In 2023 Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed House Bill HB1, which established universal school choice. Today, Florida has more than 524,000 children participating in Florida’s school choice scholarship program for private school or home schooling. Florida also supports the expansion of charter schools, now enrolling more than 400,000 Florida youth.
 
Protect The 1st supports the school choice movement’s rapid expansion rolling across the states. We do so because we believe this policy gives parents something precious – the ability to choose schools that allow them to express their values across generations. Thus choice enhances the ultimate protection of free expression, as guaranteed by the First Amendment. We also hope it will return American school children to a solid appreciation of American history and civics – lessons lacking today in many public schools – that are essential to a healthy First Amendment society.
 
But none of this matters if – as we’ve asked before – school choice doesn’t work. Does it actually improve educational outcomes?
 
Gov. DeSantis writes in Wednesday’s Wall Street Journal that charter school students, a population that is majority low-income, perform above their peers in traditional school districts. The return of core principles in teaching math, science, history, and reading has allowed the Sunshine State to see marked improvement in test scores, so much so that The U.S. News & World Report ranks Florida first in the nation in education among the states for the past two years.
 
That’s something to emulate as well as celebrate. Tennessee and Wyoming recently joined the universal school choice club. With the addition of Texas, the school choice movement should be well on its way to becoming a nationwide policy.

​Protect The 1st champions school choice on First Amendment grounds. We support it as a way for parents to choose schools that reflect their values, and to extend those values across generations. It is sweeping the nation, with Wyoming becoming the latest state to embrace universal school choice.
 
But some have nagging doubts – in budgetary and educational terms, does school choice actually work?
 
With the recent reintroduction of the federal Educational Choice for Children Act in the 119th Congress – and with Texas on the verge of becoming the latest state to embrace universal school choice – this seems like a good time as any to point out that school choice improves educational outcomes in both public and private schools.
 
Critics of school choice worry that school choice programs will bleed public schools and drain state treasuries. This has not been the experience of Arizona, which has had universal educational school choice for several years now. The Arizona Department of Education reported late last year that it had a $4 million funding surplus. This happened despite larger enrollments than the experts predicted.
 
Arizona is not unique. Martin Lueken, director of Fiscal Research and Education Choice at EdChoice, surveyed fiscal data since 2018, analyzing 40 private educational choice programs in 19 states plus the District of Columbia. He found that schools save money when students depart for a private option, funded by education savings programs, school voucher programs, and tax-credit scholarship programs.
​

• Lueken found that school choice programs, on average, saved state and local taxpayers between $1.80 and $2.85 for every dollar invested.

 

• Far from harming public schools, school choice has long been associated with higher student achievement. A study from the University of Arkansas shows “a strong and statistically significant association is clear between education freedom and both academic scores and academic gains.”

Results like these, with Texas Gov. Greg Abbott publicly itching to sign legislation now being debated in Austin, ought to put wind in the sails of a federal effort. The Educational Choice for Children Act was recently introduced in the House by Rep. Adrian Smith (R-NE) and Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT), and in the Senate by Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-LA).
 
Rep. Smith said that this bill will “empower parents with more options, acknowledging that they have the final say in what educational setting is best for their children.” Sen. Cassidy said, “more freedom empowers parents and allows American children to thrive in school.”

• After decades of declining test scores, it is time to rethink American education for states and the nation. Consider Pennsylvania, where just 33 percent of fourth graders performed at or above the National Assessment for Educational Progress proficient reading level in 2024. Low-income students are particularly disadvantaged. They had an average score that was 25 points lower than that for middle- and high-income students. Why should some students do well, and others suffer because of the state or the zip code their families happen to live in?

We know what doesn’t work – public school systems unchallenged by competition. We know what does work – competition improves outcomes. It also serves parents, as Rep. Smith put it, by giving parents the final say in choosing the best educational setting for their children.
 
Why not make school choice the law of the land?

​Tennessee just became the 13th state to adopt universal school choice. The new program creates education savings accounts granting scholarships of up to $7,300 per student, which can be used for private school tuition, textbooks, transportation, and instructional materials.
 
It’s the latest win in the ongoing school choice movement sweeping the states. Already this year, two more states seem poised to take the plunge, while a bill to expand school choice nationally has new momentum in Washington, D.C.
 
In Texas, the Senate swiftly passed a universal school choice bill, SB 2. It’s now in the House, where Speaker Dustin Burrows believes the votes are squarely in favor of passage. President Donald Trump has spoken in favor of the bill. So have Sen. Ted Cruz and a Texan named Elon Musk, who wrote on X: "If kids only have one school option and it's bad, then it's like they never had a chance at all."
 
In Wyoming, a universal school choice bill passed that state’s House and is now one step closer to becoming a reality.
 
Why is this important to a First Amendment organization? PT1st believes the right of parents to choose their children’s schools is essential to their ability to transmit their beliefs across generations – an activity that is as close to the heart of the First Amendment as anything we can imagine. And as for “social justice,” school choice allows the children of the poor to attend quality schools that primarily serve the affluent. Americans agree that these are good outcomes, which is why all demographic groups and people from both political parties give school choice overwhelming support. A poll from September found that candidates who support school choice are more likely to win at the ballot box.
 
With all that in mind, Congress should follow the lead of the states and the will of the people. Sens. Katie Britt (R-AL), Bill Cassidy, (R-LA), and Tim Scott (R-SC) have the ball rolling by reintroducing the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA), which would allow individuals and businesses to receive tax credits for donations to Scholarship Granting Organizations that provide scholarships to eligible students for attending private or religious schools, homeschooling, or other non-public educational options. ECCA is a critical step in providing lifelines to struggling parents and children everywhere.
 
Sen. Scott, a die-hard school choice advocate, calls the school choice movement “the civil rights issue of our time.” He believes, as we do, that parents should be able to freely choose a school that fits their child’s needs and select an education that upholds their values. 
 
To date, school choice has mostly been propelled by Republicans. But there are now signs the blue wall of opposition to school choice is breaking. Democrats can’t stand athwart progress for much longer – particularly if they continue to alienate minorities who want better lives for their children.
 
That’s why we’re so optimistic about what else 2025 will have in store for families.

​When Linda McMahon, President Trump’s nominee to be Education Secretary, arrives at the Senate for her upcoming confirmation hearing, she will be the prospective leader of a paradigm shift in how America’s children are taught.
 
President Trump made this clear on Thursday by directing the Secretaries of Education and Labor to review their discretionary grant programs and submit plans to “expand education freedom for America’s families and teachers.”
 
If confirmed as Secretary, McMahon will issue guidance to states on how to use federal funds for school choice. Other agencies, from the Department of Defense to the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Department of Health and Human Services will also look to repurpose block grants to “expand educational choice.”
 
This is a bold move that puts existing federal grants behind the exploding school choice movement. Twelve states have recently adopted some form of universal school choice. Texas appears poised to become the next sometime this year.
 
Now, thanks to this brisk action by the Trump Administration, existing funding will be redirected to bolster educational competition. Though the president’s actions were denounced by Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers “as a direct attack” on public schools, the evidence says otherwise. Out of 28 studies that explored the causal relationship between school choice and the performance of public schools, 25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems.
 
School choice fulfills the promise of the First Amendment by allowing parents to exercise their right to extend their values across generations. Competition brings out the best in all of us. Now federal agencies will be competing to be the best in realizing the president’s school choice vision.

​The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to hear St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School v. Drummond to determine whether it violates the Free Exercise Clause to deny state funds to an online Catholic school solely because of their religious character. This is the latest in a string of cases in which the Court has had to push back on states’ unequal treatment of religious schools. It is also an opportunity to functionally invalidate the unconstitutional Blaine Amendments that litter many state constitutions. Above all, it is a chance for parents to reaffirm their right to choose schools that align with their values.
 
The Oklahoma Supreme Court ordered the state’s Charter School Board to rescind a contract with the Archdiocese of Oklahoma City and the Diocese of Tulsa to establish St. Isidore of Seville Catholic Virtual School. According to the court, the Board’s approval of public funding for a sectarian school violated the Oklahoma Constitution, the Oklahoma Charter Schools Act, and the Establishment Clause. As we wrote at the time, the opinion is “buttoned down, logical, and eminently overturnable,” relying on “that state’s version of a Blaine Amendment, a movement that gathered momentum when American politics was infected with anti-Catholic bigotry.”
 
Blaine Amendments in 37 states prohibit public funding for schools run by religious organizations. They were passed in an era when Catholics faced wanton discrimination in a largely Protestant America. Doubts as to their unconstitutionality were raised by the Supreme Court’s ruling in Espinoza v. Montana (2020), which found that state-based scholarship programs providing public funds for students to attend private schools cannot discriminate against religious schools under the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. The Court, quite specifically, took the Blaine Amendments to the woodshed, writing that they were “born of bigotry.”  
 
Congress should end the revolving door of state defiance of clear judicial precedent by overriding the Blaine Amendments and reiterating that Espinoza and the similarly reasoned Carson v. Makin meant what they said and remain the law. The Court has plenty of reasons to overturn the Oklahoma ruling. Oklahoma Justice Dana Kuehn’s dissenting opinion spells them out:
 
“St. Isidore would not become a ‘state actor’ merely by contracting with the State to provide a choice in educational opportunities. By allowing St. Isidore to operate a virtual charter school, the State would not be establishing, aiding, or favoring any particular religious organization. To the contrary: Excluding private entities from contracting for functions, based solely on religious affiliation, would violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”
 
Further, Judge Kuehn wrote:
 
“Contracting with a private entity that has religious affiliations, by itself, does not establish a State religion, nor does it favor one religion over another. Allowing St. Isidore to operate a charter school does not give it any preference over any other qualified entity, sectarian or otherwise.”
 
The Constitution’s prohibition of an established religion does not diminish the free exercise of religion. Religious schools must be free to apply for state funding to the extent that they meet mandated standards in English, math, history, science, and other subjects. Such allowances, in turn, will give more parents the opportunity to choose schools that reflect their values, the ultimate expression of the First Amendment.
 
We agree with Gov. Kevin Stitt, who said:
 
“This stands to be one of the most significant religious and education freedom decisions in our lifetime. I believe our nation’s highest court will agree that denying St. Isidore’s charter based solely on its religious affiliation is flat-out unconstitutional.”
 
Stay tuned.

​On Tuesday, the First Circuit Court of Appeals heard opening arguments in St. Dominic v. Makin, a case that challenges Maine’s renewed attempt to circumvent the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Carson v. Makin. That 2022 opinion should have settled the question of the participation of religious schools in secular programs. It prohibited the exclusion of religious schools from Maine’s tuition assistance program “on the basis of their religious exercise.” But now, Maine has chosen, as we have said before, to go full Confederate in nullifying the authority of the U.S. Supreme Court.
 
Here's the backstory: Maine has a tuition assistance program that for many years allowed parents to use government funds to send their children to the schools of their choice – whether religious or secular. Then, in 1981, the state began excluding religious institutions based on the conclusion that allowing such use violated the Establishment Clause. In Zelman v. Simmons-Harris in 2002, the Supreme Court found that this constitutional interpretation was incorrect.
 
Maine then adopted a new strategy, continuing its exclusionary policy towards religious schools based on the sectarian “use” to which any governments funds might go. Twenty years later, the Court ruled again, concluding that “the prohibition on status-based discrimination under the Free Exercise Clause is not a permission to engage in use-based discrimination.”
 
True to form, Maine pivoted again, this time amending the Maine Human Rights Act (MHRA) to explicitly condition the receipt of state funds by religious institutions on compliance with state non-discrimination policies. The new law’s effect is to ensure that a religious school cannot accept tuition assistance if its beliefs and practices conflict with the state’s take on gender issues like traditional marriage.
 
Under the new law, a religious school cannot express preference in admissions for students of that same religion – a condition that applies to Christian, Muslim, and Jewish schools. They must hire teachers whose views or lifestyles are inconsistent with school beliefs. And they must permit countervailing speech within school walls under a new “religious expression” rule that would require an allowance for “dissenting religious views” – even if those views completely undermine the school’s mission.
 
To borrow a quote from the Becket Fund, which represents the plaintiffs, this is a “poison pill” that continues the tuition exclusion in a different guise. Moreover, it’s an obstinate and cynical ploy that displays contempt for both the high Court and for the rule of law.
 
Maine’s maneuvering has real, harmful impacts on people like appellants Keith and Valori Radonis, who want only to send their children to a school that upholds their beliefs. As we’ve written about many times over, educating your children is among the most fundamental and consequential expressions of speech. Maine’s new policy puts the state squarely between families in need and their free exercise of religion and those beliefs.
 
As Becket explains in its opening brief, the new provisions are patently and quite obviously unconstitutional. First, they violate Carson “by simply re-enacting the same exclusionary practices in a different code section.” They “entangle Maine officials in judging the internal religious practices of religious schools ...” And they “violate the Free Speech Clause because they compel religious schools to speak in ways that are contrary to their beliefs and force them to include speakers who reject the schools’ core commitments.”
 
After Maine moved its exclusion policy to a different code section, one law professor wrote a piece in the New York Times entitled, “There’s a Way to Outmaneuver the Supreme Court, and Maine Has Found It.” Now, the state finds itself back in the principal’s office on the same issue with likely the same result. The First Circuit should find for the plaintiffs, upholding the First Amendment and the rule of law.

​Texas is politically poised this year to become the last big red state to adopt a statewide public school choice program. Vince Bielski of RealClear Investigations surveyed the school choice movement in the aftermath of this development and reports that it is now ready to push into blue-state territory.
 
Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania is the Democrat most likely to break open the first cracks in the blue wall public teachers unions have erected against school choice. After being compelled to line-item veto a voucher proposal for low-income children, Gov. Shapiro called school choice “unfinished business.” Bielski reports:
 
“The fate of another voucher program [in Pennsylvania] may depend on whether a few Democrats are willing to break with House leadership and risk political payback, according to a veteran of Pennsylvania battles … ‘Governor Shapiro has a chance to deliver on his promise to expand educational opportunity for underserved children,’ said Tommy Schultz, CEO of the advocacy group American Federation for Children. ‘It will require bold leadership to bring House leadership to the table and get it done.’”
 
Opponents of school choice charge that vouchers for private schools will lead to two separate school systems, leading to the defunding of public schools. However, Bielski reports that such programs “have been restricted mainly to lower-income parents who may be dissatisfied with lax discipline and lackluster instruction – problems exacerbated by the pandemic – at their public schools. All told, private choice programs enroll only about 2% of all K-12 students.”
 
That number shows there is both room for competition to inspire improvement among public schools, and much more room for private school choice in states both red and blue.

​James G. Blaine is little remembered today, but in post-Civil War America he bestrode the American political landscape like a colossus. A U.S. Senator, Speaker of the House, Secretary of State, and Republican nominee for President, Blaine (derided by Democrats as the “continental liar from the State of Maine”) was one of those figures – like Daniel Webster or Henry Clay – who were more significant than many presidents.
 
Blaine’s legacy lives on as eponymous “Blaine Amendments” – language in state constitutions that prohibits public funding for schools run by religious organizations. These are the children of Blaine’s proposed but failed U.S. constitutional amendment crafted when many Americans panicked about Irish and Italian immigrants, corrupting America with their “Romanism.” The blatantly anti-Catholic purpose of Blaine’s proposal came at a time when most public schools had an overtly Protestant bent.
 
Blaine amendments are now in the constitutions of 37 states. They remain consequential, denying equal access to public funding for schools run by the Catholic Church and other religious organizations that meet state-mandated standards in English, science, math, and other core subjects.
 
This is problematic for South Carolina, which recently passed the Education Savings Trust Fund Act, which would have allowed low-income families to use state-provided scholarships for private school tuition. But the South Carolina Constitution prohibits using public funds for the “direct benefit” of private educational institutions. The South Carolina Supreme Court was forced to strike down this school voucher program, dealing a harsh blow to families seeking educational freedom.
 
That decision has left families scrambling to find alternatives after their financial support was cut off mid-school year. David Warner, a South Carolina father, described the ruling as “a kick in the stomach,” knowing he now has to tell his son in sixth grade he can no longer afford the school he loves.
 
Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), a vocal advocate for school choice, has called school choice the “civil rights issue of our time.” His words resonate with many South Carolina families who view school choice not just as an educational policy, but as a step toward opportunity and empowerment. For many, the local public school might not provide an environment for their children that allows for the transmission of their values. Many public schools are often not even safe.
 
The Protect The 1st Foundation in our amicus brief explained the civil rights principles at stake in this program before the South Carolina Supreme Court. Our brief told the court that the scholarship program “promotes the exercise of First Amendment-protected religious and speech rights by enabling families who could not otherwise afford to do so to choose among a wide variety of schools and find those that align with their own varied beliefs and values …
 
“It is no surprise, then,” Protect The 1st explained, “that the data show that school choice programs like the one challenged here lead to higher graduation rates, better test scores, and greater civic engagement – not only for students who receive scholarships through the program, but also for students who choose to remain in public schools.”
 
If this sounds improbable, consider the research of Alexander William Salter, an economics professor at Texas Tech University. Salter reports that out of 28 studies that explore the link between school choice and district-school outcomes, “25 found that school choice improves educational attainment in traditional school systems. In terms of social-scientific validity, that’s a slam-dunk.”
 
For now, the South Carolina court’s decision closes the door on a program that gave 5,000 students a chance to explore other educational opportunities. Yet, while the court acknowledged there is public demand for school choice, it also pointed out that any change must come from amending the state constitution.
 
South Carolina has amended its constitution 100 times since 1974, including twice in 2022. But even if the Palmetto State removes its Blaine Amendment and opens the way forward for needy children to get a quality education, there will be 36 other states in which quality schools that meet state standards are officially discriminated against.
 
Congress can resolve this matter by overriding Blaine Amendments, enshrining recent U.S. Supreme Court opinions (Espinoza v. Montana and Carson v. Makin) into national law. That ought to be issue one for Speaker Mike Johnson, the new Senate Majority Leader John Thune, and Education Secretary nominee Linda McMahon.

​The decision by the Texas State Board of Education to offer the optional Bluebonnet curriculum, rich in Christian imagery and tropes, is a kind of Rorschach test. Those more sensitive to the “no establishment” clause of the First Amendment see it as foisting one religion on an increasingly diverse population of students. Those who relish the “free exercise” clause see it as exposing all children to common cultural touchstones in what was until recently an overwhelmingly Christian nation.
 
Religion has undeniably shaped American society, from the Puritans’ foundational settlements to the Great Awakening’s moral fervor and the influence of Presbyterianism on the structure of the U.S. Constitution. In the 19th and 20th centuries, churches played key roles in the abolitionist and civil rights movements. Including the lore of these movements in history classes enriches students’ understanding of the nation’s development and diverse social fabric.
 
“In my view, these stories are on the education side and are establishing cultural literacy,” said Will Hickman, a Republican who sits on the Texas Board of Education told The Texas Tribune. He has a point. Common phrases like “pearls before swine,” “turn the other cheek,” and “salt of the earth,” are sayings of Jesus that have become cultural bywords in ordinary American conversation.
 
More difficult questions arise when religious content goes beyond lessons about history and literature. One Bluebonnet lesson about fairness, for example, includes the story of The Good Samaritan, Jesus’ parable about helping people across barriers of background and religion. That story too is an important part of American moral culture.  But some Jewish, Muslim, Sikh, and Hindu parents might see such moral parables not as helping everyone share a common culture, but as an effort by conservative Christians to keep Christianity at the center of American identity. It’s the kind of issue that deserves to be discussed among all concerned stakeholders, at the local level, with people on all sides doing their best to understand others’ concerns and to develop approaches that are as inclusive as possible and that avoid unnecessary offense to their neighbors’ sensibilities. 
 
Wherever one comes down in that debate, one inclusive, and therefore laudable, approach to religious expression is to expand school choice, which Texas is ready to embrace.
 
Following the recent election, the Texas legislature now has a majority prepared to implement a universal school voucher program for the nation’s second most populous state. Such a program would give parents the freedom to select schools that align with their values, whether they seek religious or secular instruction. Gov. Greg Abbott is championing this initiative, recognizing the growing demand for educational options.
 
The foundation for this shift was laid by the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in Carson v. Makin. The Court ruled that if a state offers funding to private secular schools, it cannot exclude religious schools. This principle ensures families can choose schools – religious or secular – that best meet their needs. In Texas, vouchers will allow children to attend quality private schools as long as they meet state standards in core subjects like science, civics, and math.
 
Religious schools, unlike public institutions, can easily integrate faith-based teachings into their curricula. Without generating internal controversy, for example, they may display and teach such things as the Ten Commandments as part of their broader mission. Far from undermining pluralism, this model respects it, allowing families to pursue education aligned with their beliefs while maintaining accountability to state standards in key subjects.
 
This seems to us the better way to respect both diversity and the maximum freedom of expression under the First Amendment, and in so doing allowing parents to share their values – religious or not – across generations.

President Trump’s appointment of Linda McMahon as U.S. Secretary of Education sends a single and unmistakable signal – this incoming administration will prioritize the expansion of school choice, and associated parental rights, across the country.
 
Opponents of McMahon’s appointment have already called her credentials into question, pointing to her tenure as CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment as too undignified for a Cabinet secretary, disqualifying for any role that does not involve pointed elbow drops or figure-four leglocks. McMahon’s defenders cite her business acumen – building WWE into a multibillion-dollar powerhouse – as a demonstration that she is a manager and a leader.
 
What the oppositional hand-wringing actually boils down to is a fundamental policy disagreement between the educational establishment and the prospective new leader of the Department of Education. McMahon is an outspoken proponent of parental school choice, having co-founded the America First Policy Institute, in part, to advocate for “putting parents and students – not bureaucrats, unions, or politicians – in charge of educating our Nation’s next generation.”
 
As Protect The 1st has often pointed out, parents’ ability to choose how to educate their children is a fundamental First Amendment right, because it determines whether and to what extent parents will be able to extend their values (including those based on religion or belief) across generations. Parents should be able to freely choose a school that fits their child’s needs and to select an education that reflects their values.
 
It's an overdue blessing, therefore, that support for school choice is on the upswing. Today, according to EdChoice, there are 75 school choice programs operating across 33 states. A full quarter of the states have embraced some form of universal school choice. And in 2023, support for school choice reached 71 percent among voters, with strong majority backing across all political parties and demographics. Conversely, a 2024 Pew Research study shows that more than one-half of Americans say that traditional, public K-12 education is heading in the wrong direction.
 
With McMahon at the helm of the Department of Education against the backdrop of a GOP-led Congress, chances are better than ever that we’ll see passage of the Educational Choice for Children Act. This measure would provide tax credits for charitable contributions to organizations offering school choice scholarships.
 
In the meantime, we’re increasingly likely to see the nation’s second-largest state, Texas, join the broadening coalition fighting for the future of our children. In 2023, 21 Republicans joined 63 Democrats to vote down education savings accounts, a top priority for Gov. Greg Abbott. In 2025, 14 of those members are not returning to Austin, giving the governor an education choice majority in both chambers of the state legislature. 
 
Again, it cannot be emphasized enough that school choice is broadly supported among voters of both parties. November’s GOP sweep likely resulted in some part from the disconnect between Democrats and their constituents over our failing public education system. Democrats, simply put, need to listen to their core constituents, upset about public schools that have failed children for decades.
 
Until Democrats wake up – and PT1st hopes they will – the task of reform is left to elected conservatives. Regardless of party, we need political leaders who understand that the quality education and values we bequeath to our children are among the most important expressions of our core beliefs. McMahon’s nomination is nothing less than a “People’s Elbow” in favor of that proposition.