How Texas Is Transforming Education
The education landscape in Texas is undergoing a massive transformation, with changes set to impact students from K-12 to college.
The state will soon implement a $1 billion school voucher program—one of the largest in the country—that will use public dollars to fund private school tuition, which critics have warned will direct resources away from public schools and exclude those with disabilities and low-income households.
Earlier this month, lawmakers approved Senate Bill 37, which will give governing boards appointed by the governor new powers to control the curriculum at public higher education institutions and eliminate some degree programs. The legislation marks the latest effort to increase political control of public higher education institutions in Texas, where a ban on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives took effect in January last year.
Also this month, a federal judge blocked a Texas law that had given college students without legal residency access to reduced in-state tuition.
"This was maybe the most consequential session for public education in the history of Texas, or certainly one of the most consequential sessions," Vivek Datla, regional education policy fellow at the Intercultural Development Research Association, told Newsweek.
The voucher program that Governor Greg Abbott signed into law last month will allow Texas families from the 2026 school year to receive $10,000 per year to help pay for students' private school tuition. Children with disabilities can qualify for up to $30,000 a year.
Advocates champion vouchers as a way to put parents in control of their children's education, with Abbott saying that it will ensure that Texas families "whose children can no longer be served by the public school assigned to them, have the choice to take their money and find the school that is right for them."
But opponents argue that it will drain money from public school and mainly benefit children from wealthier families since voucher payments rarely cover the full cost of sending children to private schools.
They also say that unlike public schools, which must accept all students, private schools can be selective about which students they admit, meaning the most vulnerable students are likely to be excluded from taking advantage of the program.
Critics have also slammed Texas lawmakers for approving the voucher program while failing to act on a separate bill that would invest $7.7 billion in public education over the next two years. Earlier in the year, lawmakers had pledged that passage of a school voucher bill and public school funding legislation would happen in tandem.
"Schools have been dealing with a lack of investment for over six years," Jaime Puente, the director of Economic Opportunity for Every Texan, told Newsweek. "School districts across the state are currently dealing with closures, they're dealing with reduced services.
"That lack of investment has been exacerbated and will be exacerbated by the introduction of a third system of education that is entirely unequal, through the voucher program."
Senate Bill 37 shifts some responsibilities traditionally held by professors to political appointees on university governing boards at public colleges and universities. The governing boards will be tasked with reviewing general education curriculum requirements to ensure that courses are necessary to prepare students for civic and professional life, equip them for participation in the workforce and worth the cost. The boards will also have the authority to eliminate courses with low enrolment.
The legislation also creates a state ombudsman's office, which will have the power to investigate complaints against institutions and threaten funding if they don't comply with the law. It was approved by the Texas Legislature earlier in June and Abbott has until June 22 to sign it into law.
Republican state Representative Matt Shaheen, who co-sponsored the legislation, said the aim was to "provide consistency with respect to our curriculum and the degrees we're offering our students."
But the legislation "represents a huge, huge shift in the way that universities are governed and how curriculum decisions and general academic policies will be made" in universities, Datla said.
"By shifting curricular authority away from faculty and towards these politically appointed boards, students could lose access to diverse, rigorous and thought-provoking courses," he said.
Limiting what can be taught "undermines students' ability to think critically" and "ultimately receive a truly comprehensive education," he said. "Their academic experiences may increasingly reflect political or economic agendas rather than scholarly or student-centered priorities."
Cameron Samuels, the executive director of Students Engaged in Advancing Texas who will start a graduate program at the University of Texas next year, told Newsweek that Senate Bill 37 will make students question whether it will worth pursuing higher education in Texas.
"Texas is home. It's a place I care about. It's a place I want to thrive in," Samuels said. But legislation Senate Bill 37 "deters people from wanting a Texas education."
Others have warned that the legislation could lead to a "brain drain" of students, faculty and researchers—along with their grant funding—from Texas institutions.
The Texas American Federation of Teachers reported earlier this month that among the union's membership alone, 40 faculty members have reported leaving Texas because of "legislative attacks."
"Hundreds of faculty and students testified to the expected catastrophic impacts of this legislation, from the exodus of top teaching talent to the waning of Texas higher educational institutions' prestige," Zeph Capo, president of the Texas AFT, has said.
This bill "represents a fundamental shift in the very things that made our universities attractive," Datla said. "And there's a lot of fear from professors and a lot of fear from students about whether or not they want to continue their work or continue their education here."
On June 4, U.S. District Judge Reed O'Connor struck down the Texas Dream Act, which for more than two decades had given college students without legal residency—"Dreamers"—access to reduced in-state tuition.
The ruling came days after the end of the Texas legislative session, during which a repeal bill pushed by group of Republicans was considered but ultimately did not come up for a vote.
The Department of Justice sued to block the policy and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a motion agreeing that it should not be enforced, clearing the way for O'Connor to issue an injunction.
"Ending this discriminatory and un-American provision is a major victory for Texas," Paxton said following the judge's ruling.
The policy was initially passed by sweeping majorities in the state Legislature in 2001 and signed into law by then-Governor Rick Perry, a Republican. But it soon came under fire as debates over illegal immigration ramped up.
Still, legislative efforts to repeal the law have repeatedly failed. In the legislative session that ended in early June, a bill to repeal the law did not even get a vote.
Supporters of the policy say the ruling will lock many students out of higher education and ultimately harm the state's economy. Research from the American Immigration Council estimates that Texas will lose roughly $461 million annually if the Texas Dream Act is repealed.
The Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which on Wednesday filed a motion to intervene in the lawsuit, says that the repeal of the law would prohibit many students from continuing their education. In some cases, tuition costs could increase from $50 per semester credit hour to $455. Texas has about 57,000 undocumented students enrolled in its public universities and colleges, according to the Presidents' Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, a nonpartisan nonprofit of university leaders focused on immigration policy.
These students "are part of Texas' future workforce, contributing over $80 million annually to our higher education system and poised to fill critical roles in key sectors like healthcare, education, and technology," said J.R. Gonzales of the Texas Association of Mexican American Chambers of Commerce, one of more than 80 organizations that have urged Paxton to reverse course. "Removing their access to affordable education will reduce college enrollment, shrink our talent pool, and weaken our state's long-term competitiveness."
Datla noted that even the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature did not have the political will to repeal the law.
"They understood the economic benefits of the Dream Act," he said. "And yet closed-door negotiations happened to strike that law down...that's bad for the many students who wish to pursue their dreams here, and bad for our state economy as a whole."
Puente also noted that many of the students that benefited from the law are now public school teachers in Texas.
"We know that these students and these people, not only do they produce economically and they are able to buy homes and create businesses and things like that, but in a very real sense, they are subsidizing our public education system with their labor," he said.
Datla said that the Texas Legislature could in its next session seek to further control what is taught in universities, noting that a provision that restricted how professors could teach about certain subjects, including race and identity, had been removed from Senate Bill 37.
"There's definitely a strong potential that in the next legislative session, we see a reemergence of that, not only that attempt to control structures, but continuing of attempts to control content," he said.
The changes in the education landscape efforts to "socially engineer who we are as a state," Puente said.
"It's being done in a way that singles out and targets particular people, whether its teachers in K-12...or defenseless high school students who are just trying to get a college degree. All of this is being done in a very particular and targeted way to eliminate the kinds of dissent that would prevent these actions from happening."
Related Articles
Texas Lawmakers Warned of 'Credible Threat' After Minnesota AssassinationHusband Away on Deployment Unprepared for What Ring Cam Captures Wife DoingShelter Dog Looks At Woman With 'So Much Trust', Unaware What Visit MeansWoman Detained on Honeymoon Faces Deportation Despite Being Stateless
2025 NEWSWEEK DIGITAL LLC.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


CBS News
an hour ago
- CBS News
Gov. Greg Abbott says Texas DPS on high alert after State Capitol threat
After the credible threat at the Texas Capitol this weekend and the assassinations of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott said those things can never be allowed to happen in Texas. Abbott said the Texas Department of Public Safety is on heightened alert after a man was arrested following a threat to a lawmaker who was going to appear at a No Kings rally at the Capitol Saturday. According to DPS, a concerned citizen reported that a man was on his way to the protest Saturday, planning to harm state lawmakers. The Texas State Capitol and grounds were evacuated at 1 p.m. Texas DPS said that the evacuation was out of an abundance of caution. Texas DPS said that as the investigation was underway, the suspect was found driving on SH-71 in Fayette County. Around 1:30 p.m., troopers stopped the suspect vehicle for speeding. During the traffic stop, the suspect, who DPS has not identified at this time, told the trooper he had a handgun in the vehicle. He was arrested on a misdemeanor traffic charge and taken into custody for further questioning about the threat. The gun was also seized. "There was a person on the Capitol grounds with a gun who seemingly had the intent to do harm to a legislator. No more defined than that," Abbott said Monday. "If you're on the Capitol grounds with a gun conveying that type of message, that's a credible threat. That has to be taken seriously. You obviously saw what happened in Minnesota. We need to all make sure nothing ever like that happens in the state of Texas." At this time, no charges related to the alleged threat against state lawmakers have been filed, according to DPS, and the investigation is ongoing. "Death threats are sadly a part of serving in public life today," Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a post on X. While such threats are not often discussed, Patrick said the state handles many each month. He noted that most come from individuals who "go too far in their emails or calls," and that they frequently retract their statements when confronted, insisting they didn't intend harm. Still, he stressed that "all have to be taken seriously." Patrick highlighted the need to differentiate between acceptable discourse and unlawful threats. "There's a difference between free speech complaints, which we welcome, and making death threats," Patrick said in his statement. "The latter can be a crime."


Newsweek
3 hours ago
- Newsweek
Tucker Carlson and Steve Bannon Lead MAGA Resistance to Iran War
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. As President Donald Trump is caught in a tug-of-war over the U.S. potentially wading into the escalating conflict between Israel and Iran, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson and ex-White House chief strategist Steve Bannon have taken center stage as the face of MAGA's resistance to U.S. involvement in the conflict. Carlson on Monday continued his tirade against some foreign policy hawks in President Donald Trump's orbit, accusing them of pushing for the United States to get involved in Israel's military campaign against Iran. Bannon, meanwhile, said "we have to stop" the U.S. from playing any role in the conflict. Newsweek reached out to Fox News for comment via email on Monday. The Context Carlson and Bannon have long advocated against U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts, particularly in the Middle East. Their views have put them at odds with people like Fox News hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, who took a victory lap after Israel launched a number of strikes against Iran last week, igniting the most serious escalation to date in their long-running conflict. Both countries have lobbed missiles at one another since Israel first attacked Iran early Friday, local time, with Iran bearing the brunt of the cost in the days since. Israeli airstrikes have decapitated Iran's military and intelligence leadership and targeted critical nuclear sites and scientists, killing more than 224 people since Friday. Israeli officials have said that 24 people in Israel have been killed and at least 500 were injured as a result of Iran's retaliatory strikes. Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson appear on Bannon's "War Room" podcast. Steve Bannon and Tucker Carlson appear on Bannon's "War Room" podcast. War Room What To Know Both Carlson and Bannon have warned against the U.S. getting involved in the Iran conflict, with Bannon saying last week that Israel wants the U.S. to "go on offense" against Tehran and Carlson calling Levin and Hannity "warmongers." Carlson doubled down on Monday, telling Bannon: "The point is, if you think that saying, 'Hey, let's focus on my country, where I was born, where my family's been for hundreds of years, that was the promise of the last election, please do it,' if you think that's hate, you know, you've really lost perspective, I guess, is what I would say." The former Fox News host went on to point out a number of domestic policy issues in the U.S. that he would prefer the Trump administration focus on, including immigration and the fentanyl crisis. "It's like, all of that is now ignored because a leader of a country who does not have majority support in that country ... wants a course of action that includes the United States and I just disagree," Carlson said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "Anyway, I think it's going to happen. Who cares what I think." "You think we're going to join in the offensive combat [operation]?" Bannon asked. "Yes, I do," Carlson said. "I do." "Well, we have to—we can't—we have to stop that," Bannon said. Monday's interview comes as Trump is in Canada for the Group of Seven summit. While there, he sidestepped a question from a reporter who asked what it would take for the U.S. to get involved in the Israel-Iran conflict. "I don't want to talk about that," Trump said while standing next to Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. His comments came one day after he told ABC News that "it's possible" the U.S. could get involved: "We're not involved in it. It's possible we could get involved. But we are not, at this moment, involved." Carlson, meanwhile, went after Levin directly on Monday, saying that when "Mark Levin gets on TV, it's like listening to your ex-wife scream about alimony payments. It's like, not appealing. So they wouldn't put him on TV. And then Sean [Hannity] pushed and they gave him some kind of weekend show that nobody watched." Hannity and Levin have become prime targets for Carlson in recent days, particularly after the two men celebrated Israel's strikes last week on Hannity's show. Carlson also excoriated Levin in the days leading up to the strike, after the Mark Levin Show host called Steve Witkoff, Trump's Middle East envoy, a "fifth column isolationist" and mocked Witkoff efforts to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran. Carlson Describes Fox News as 'Propaganda' Network Carlson on Monday accused his former employer, Fox News, of "turning up the propaganda hose" to feed its viewers a particular narrative. "What they're doing is what they always do, which is just turning up the propaganda hose to full blast and just trying to, you know, knock elderly Fox viewers off their feet and make them submit to where you want them to," the former prime-time Fox host told Bannon. Monday's interview came after both men drew a clear line in the sand over the U.S. getting pulled into Israel's war with Iran. "If you're going to go alone, you can take care of your deal or not. You don't need us. Decide to go alone. Decide to reject it—'No, we don't need you. We're going to go it alone,'" Bannon said on his podcast last week, referring to Israel. "And their go it alone lasts about six hours. Not only do they want defense, they want us to go on offense." "If you're going to do it, do it. Go for it," he repeated. "You make your own decision. You decided: 'We got to do it. We've got to do it now. [Iran's] got 15 nuclear weapons.' Then go for it." "But then why do we have to come and air defense?" Bannon added. "And please don't use, 'Oh, because we have things in Tel Aviv.' Then get them the hell out of Tel Aviv. And if you're an American citizen over there, give them a shot. Get out or stick. If you stick, that's fine. This is how we get sucked in." Carlson also railed against suggestions that the U.S. step into the conflict, writing on X, formerly Twitter, last week: "The real divide isn't between people who support Israel and people who support Iran or the Palestinians. The real divide is between those who casually encourage violence, and those who seek to prevent it — between warmongers and peacemakers." He added: "Who are the warmongers? They would include anyone who's calling Donald Trump today to demand air strikes and other direct US military involvement in a war with Iran." Bannon referenced Carlson's social media post while arguing against U.S. involvement in the Iran conflict, saying on his podcast last week: "Tucker Carlson's got a tweet up. I will not repeat the names on this show at this time. I have not verified that." On Monday, Carlson told Bannon he believes the Iran-Israel conflict will turn into a "full-scale war" that will draw in many other countries, adding that it's "too easy" for the U.S. to get pulled in. "We have too many assets in that region, we're too dependent on the energy from that region ... there are so many things that could go wrong," he said.


Newsweek
4 hours ago
- Newsweek
Jack Ciattarelli Within Striking Distance of Mikie Sherrill in N.J.—Poll
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. An internal GOP poll showed Republican Jack Ciattarelli within striking distance of Democratic Representative Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey's gubernatorial race. Newsweek reached out to the Ciattarelli and Sherrill campaigns for comment via email. Why It Matters Ciattarelli and Sherrill emerged as their party's nominees in last week's primary election, setting them up for a November matchup in the Garden State. The off-year gubernatorial race will be a key test for both parties. Sherrill will face questions about whether she can win back voters who shifted toward Republicans in last year's presidential race, such as young and Latino voters. Ciattarelli will be working to build off of President Donald Trump's progress in the state, which he lost by six points against Vice President Kamala Harris in November. New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli speaks during an election watch party in Bridgewater, New Jersey, on November 2, 2021. Representative Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, speaks during a press conference in Washington on September... New Jersey Republican gubernatorial candidate Jack Ciattarelli speaks during an election watch party in Bridgewater, New Jersey, on November 2, 2021. Representative Mikie Sherrill, a Democrat, speaks during a press conference in Washington on September 28, 2021. More;What To Know An internal poll from the Ciattarelli campaign, conducted by National Research and reported by The New Jersey Globe, showed Sherrill with a narrow lead. Forty-five percent of respondents said they planned to back Sherrill to 42 percent for Ciattarelli, according to the poll of 600 likely voters on June 11-12. The poll had a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. A SurveyUSA poll, conducted on behalf of a left-leaning group Education Reform Now Advocacy, showed Sherrill with a larger lead. In that survey, 51 percent of respondents said they planned to vote for Sherrill compared to 38 percent for Ciattarelli. It polled 785 New Jersey adults on May 28-30 and had a margin of error of plus or minus 6.1 percentage points. The SurveyUSA poll also found that Ciattarelli and Sherrill had similar favorability ratings among New Jersey voters, and that a slightly higher percentage of the state's voters are familiar with Ciattarelli, who was the GOP gubernatorial nominee in 2021. Ciattarelli was viewed favorably by 40 percent of voters, while Sherrill was viewed favorably by 41 percent of voters. Twenty-five percent were unfamiliar with Ciattarelli, while 30 percent were unfamiliar with Sherrill. The Ciattarelli campaign told Newsweek on Monday:"Make no mistake that this is a 'CHANGE' election and Ciattarelli is the CHANGE candidate. A majority of New Jersey voters (54 percent) believe that the state is heading in the wrong direction, while only 33 percent believe things in New Jersey are going in the right direction. Notably, Ciattarelli leads Sherrill by a whopping 72 percent to 14 percent margin among those wrong-track voters, and an even stronger 87 percent to 6 percent among voters who want a governor who will 'shake up Trenton.'" Dan Cassino, professor of government and politics at Fairleigh Dickinson University, told Newsweek earlier in June that while Sherrill is well known in her district, she will need to work to improve her name recognition across the state. Campaigns typically release internal polling for a number of reasons, such as to show their candidates' potential strength to national fundraisers, and these sorts of surveys are generally not considered as reliable as independent polling. Still, the polls may provide an early look at the state of the race. Both candidates are vying to replace term-limited Governor Phil Murphy, a Democrat. Republicans have not won a New Jersey gubernatorial race since 2013 and haven't carried it on the presidential level since 1988. But Republicans see a chance to make more inroads with voters after Trump narrowed his margin in the state by 10 points. He lost it by six points in 2024, down from a 16-point loss in 2020 and 14 in 2016. What People Are Saying Micah Rasmussen, director of the Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, previously told Newsweek: "It is certainly possible that New Jersey could elect a Republican governor in November. Governor Murphy was the first Democrat to be reelected in more than 40 years, and in that same span, three Republican governors were elected and reelected." Kyle Kindik of Sabato's Crystal Ball, in a June 11 report: "The main reasons to favor Sherrill are that she has been a good electoral performer in the House—although she was not strongly pushed in her four general election races—and that she is a Democrat running in what is still a Democratic-leaning state in what should be at least a modestly Democratic-leaning environment with Donald Trump in the White House. That said, she is also running for a third straight Democratic gubernatorial term, so Ciattarelli can make an argument for change at the state level." Alex Ball, Sherrill's campaign manager, told Newsweek in May: "New Jersey saw in the debate why Mikie Sherrill continues to lead in every poll: her lifelong commitment to service, strong record getting big things done and her ability to beat Trump Republicans at every turn. Republicans are afraid to go up against Mikie in November because she knows how to win and then deliver for New Jerseyans." What Happens Next Ciattarelli and Sherrill will spend the coming months making their cases to New Jersey voters about why they are the strongest candidates to lead the state. The Cook Political Report classifies the race as leaning Democrat—meaning it is "considered competitive" but Democrats have "an advantage."