The American Federation for Children: Advocating for School Choice in Texas
In the heart of Washington, D.C., the American Federation for Children (AFC) stands as a prominent advocate for school vouchers, a concept often referred to as “school choice.” This organization champions the idea that public funds should be used to pay for private school tuition, a contentious issue that has sparked heated debates across the nation. While Texas currently lacks a state-run voucher program, the political landscape is shifting, and the upcoming legislative session could see significant changes.
The Push for Vouchers in Texas
As the November election approaches, the AFC is ramping up its efforts to support specific Republican candidates who have shown a willingness to back Texas Governor Greg Abbott’s controversial Education Savings Accounts (ESAs). These accounts are designed to allow parents to use public funds for private education, effectively creating a voucher-like system. Recent mailers from the AFC laud candidates as “champions for children” who have “fought for Texas teachers, parents, and children,” all while deliberately omitting any mention of vouchers or party affiliation.
Matthew Wilson, a political scientist at Southern Methodist University, suggests that this strategy is intentional. “These fliers may not be aimed at Republican primary voters,” he explains. “Instead, they could be targeting persuadable Democrats and independents, which indicates a calculated approach to broaden their appeal.”
Spotlight on Rep. Angie Chen Button
Among the candidates highlighted in AFC’s promotional materials is Rep. Angie Chen Button, who represents House District 112 in Richardson. The AFC’s flyer emphasizes her support for increased teacher pay and funding for schools, framing her as a proponent of quality education. Button was one of the 63 Republicans who voted against stripping ESAs from House Bill 1, a comprehensive education bill that also sought to allocate new funding for public schools.
Despite the bill’s failure after the removal of ESAs, Button remains optimistic about the potential for vouchers. “I truly believe in giving parents choice to get the best education for their students,” she asserts, arguing that vouchers can complement the public school system rather than detract from it.
Diverging Opinions on Vouchers
The push for vouchers has not been without its critics. Dallas ISD Superintendent Stephanie Elizalde has voiced concerns that linking school funding to ESAs could jeopardize public schools, warning that such a move would divert essential resources away from them. Critics like Zeph Capo, president of the Texas chapter of the American Federation of Teachers, have condemned the AFC’s mailers for failing to disclose candidates’ support for vouchers. “Is anyone surprised that they would flat out lie in writing?” Capo remarked, questioning the motives of out-of-state influences like AFC founder Betsy DeVos and major donor Jeff Yass.
Democratic challenger Averie Bishop, who is running against Button, has also criticized the AFC’s tactics. She argues that the mailers mislead constituents about the implications of school vouchers, particularly in light of the funding challenges faced by local school districts. “In Richardson ISD, five elementary schools have already shut down due to underfunding,” she points out, emphasizing the urgency of the issue.
The Role of Third-Party Ads
The AFC’s mailers are classified as third-party advertisements, which means they cannot legally coordinate with the candidates they support. Button claims she has not seen the mailers, stating, “Usually, when the mailers start going around, we’ll have a friend send us information. Nobody’s sent me anything about this.”
Campaign finance expert Jimmy Cloutier notes that the AFC’s strategy of downplaying candidates’ pro-voucher stances is a deliberate tactic to appeal to a broader voter base. “It’s clear that their goal is to advance school vouchers or a voucher-like program in Texas,” he explains. Cloutier highlights that the AFC has already spent at least $4.5 million in Texas during this election cycle, making it the largest outside spender in the state.
Strategic Messaging and Voter Appeal
Matthew Wilson reiterates that while the AFC’s advertisements may not explicitly mention vouchers, they are not inherently dishonest. “The ads are positive and truthful about the candidates,” he notes. By focusing on candidates’ support for teacher pay raises and general education funding, the AFC aims to resonate with centrist voters who may not be deeply invested in the school choice debate.
This strategic messaging could prove beneficial for Republican candidates like Button and her colleagues, as they seek to attract a diverse electorate. “Persuadable voters are likely to respond well to the candidates’ support for education,” Wilson concludes, underscoring the importance of appealing to a broad range of constituents in the upcoming election.
As the debate over school vouchers continues to unfold in Texas, the AFC’s influence and the candidates it supports will undoubtedly play a significant role in shaping the future of education policy in the state.