N AT I O N A L C E N T E R F O R P O L I C Y A N A LY S I S
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas
School Districts
Backgrounder No. 170
by Lloyd Bentsen IV and Gabriel Odom
December 2013
The state of Texas divides up its nearly five million public school students among
separate, geographically defined regions called independent school districts (ISDs).
The more than 1,000 independent school districts in Texas have the authority
to establish and manage diverse educational opportunities within their set
geographical boundaries.
Each district can determine the number, size and type of schools for its
students. This important decision-making process determines the “menu” of
educational establishments for public school students. Students have a choice
of schools in their district. They can attend the school they are geographically
assigned to, transfer to another regular public school, or attend a magnet or
charter school. Texas boasts more than 500 charter schools, with a total of
180,000 students, and 286 magnet schools/programs with more than 250,000
students. While some larger districts offer a variety of options, smaller districts
also offer a limited number of regular public schools, magnet schools or
charter schools. Increased school choice benefits everyone and increases
school efficiency and teacher pay through competition.1
Public School Choice
Dallas Headquarters:
12770 Coit Road, Suite 800
Dallas, TX 75251
972.386.6272
www.ncpa.org
Washington Office:
601 Pennsylvania Avenue NW,
Suite 900, South Building
Washington, DC 20004
202.220.3082
The Friedman Foundation defines school choice as “a common sense idea
that gives all parents the power and freedom to choose their child’s education,
while encouraging healthy competition among schools and other institutions
to better serve students’ needs and priorities.”2 School choice can be limited to
public schools or expanded to include private schools. Public school choice is
the menu of public school options available to students. Private school choice
provides more options for public school students, and sometimes private
school students, to attend private schools. Currently however, Texas has only
public school choice, which includes both charter schools and magnet schools.
Allowing parents to choose the school that best fits their children’s needs
not only benefits the family, it provides advantages to teachers, the local
economy and taxpayers, as well as other students. Everyone benefits from the
increased competition stemming from expanded school choice.
Charter Schools. Texas charter schools operate as K-12 public schools,
under state supervision, separate from the independent school districts. Their
independence gives them greater autonomy and makes them more
accountable than regular public schools to parents and students, financially
and academically. While there are 215 state-approved charter schools in
Texas, 571 charter schools are actually in operation due to loopholes in the
law that allow multi-campus charter schools to operate under a single
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas School Districts
charter.3 Currently, there are 179,000
charter school students in Texas. As
of 2012, more than 101,000 students
filled waiting lists for seats in charter
schools.4
Magnet Schools. Texas K-12
public schools that have converted
or were established as schools that
specialize in a particular field of study,
profession, industry, or a combination,
are called magnet schools. This level
of specialization fits the educational
needs of a student interested in
focusing on specific areas of study, as
science and technology, leadership,
arts and engineering. Magnet schools
offer a greater degree of school choice
to Texas public school students. In
June of 2013, 269,388 students filled
the rosters of 286 magnet schools.5
And many more Texas students fill
waiting lists for magnet schools every
year, but that data has not been made
public.
Regular Public Schools. The
standard, default school in Texas
is a regular public school. These
schools are one-size-fits-all,
government-run, geographically
limited educational establishments
to which all 4.9 million Texas public
school students are assigned. Regular
public schools may achieve a rating
of exemplary, recognized, acceptable
or unacceptable, based on their
standardized test scores.
There are 7,718 regular public
schools in Texas. The population
of public high schools in Texas
has become a growing concern:
39 schools have more than 3,000
students and six schools have over
4,000. Population growth is forcing
public middle and elementary schools
to grow as well, with some middle
schools having more than 1,500
students and some elementary schools
with over 1,000. These schools would
perform far better academically if
2
school districts split them apart,
creating two schools closer to the
ideal number of students.
Studies have shown that public
high school populations should
be limited because “in large high
schools, especially those enrolling
over 2,100 students, they learn
considerably less.”6 A Carnegie
Council on Adolescent Development
report states that with respect to the
ideal size of middle schools: “The
first recommendation of a more recent
Carnegie report on high school reform
is that ‘schools must break into units
of no more than 600 students so
that teachers and students can get to
know each other.’”7 Valerie E. Lee
of the University of Michigan also
believes the size of high schools is
important: “…Achievement gains
in mathematics and reading in high
school were largest in schools with
600-900 students.”8 Of course, with
smaller schools, there would be more
of them in a district, providing more
choices to the students.9
Ranking the School Districts
Students have a very limited choice
of public schools (regular, magnet
or charter) in most independent
school districts in Texas. Most
school districts have adopted either
intra-district choice — allowing for
transfers within the district — and/
or inter-district choice, allowing
transfers from a school in one district
to schools in other districts. Some
school districts give parents a choice
of public schools for their children.
Each transfer decision is based on
the circumstances of the student’s
request for a transfer to another
class, school or district. Students
who are victims of crimes, live with
another student with disabilities or
have multiple siblings can request a
classroom or school transfer. Students
attending “low-performing schools
or dangerous schools are eligible to
transfer to another school or district
under Public Education Grant and
No Child Left Behind conditions.”10
Transfers to charter or magnet schools
work the same as transfers between
regular public schools, except charters
may target specific students (such as
special needs children) and may have
long waiting lists. Both charters and
magnet schools have limited space.
And some magnet schools put their
applicants through a rigorous testing
and application process.
This study analyzes four important
assumptions:
First Assumption: Waiting Lists
Reflect Demand. Parents place
different values on the various types
of schools, based on the quality of
education they assume their child
will receive in that institution. The
existence of waiting lists for charter
schools and magnet schools gives
credence to this assumption: If
parents believe a school is better,
there will be competition for seats at
that school. In economic terms, if the
supply of seats in a school is fixed in
the short run (for instance, over one
academic year), and the demand for
those same seats increases, then (all
else held equal) a market shortage
occurs. In most cases, market pressure
is alleviated by rationing seats and
creating waiting lists. Therefore, a
good measure for school demand
is the proportion of students on the
waiting list to students enrolled at the
school.11
In order to evaluate the extent of
public school choice in Texas, this
analysis weighted the number of
students on charter and magnet school
waiting lists as a proportion of district
enrollment. [For methodology, see
Appendix I.]
Second Assumption: Public
Schools Compete. Schools compete
for students in a variety of ways:
quality of the athletic programs,
music department, magnet programs,
teacher credentials, after-school
events, special needs programs and
many others. If more than one school
exists within a reasonable driving
distance (for instance, 10 square
miles), the different schools will
work hard to draw in new students,
as well as work to keep the students
they already have. The schools may
specialize; one school may focus on
band and academics, whereas another
may focus on athletics and special
needs. The schools may compete for
teachers; perhaps not in salaries, but
in benefits or workplace atmosphere.
The competition may drive an
increase in school spirit, as the
students may see each other as rivals
— either athletically or academically.
These kinds of differences allow
parents to choose which school they
believe is right for their children.
On the other hand, if there is
only one school for miles around,
parents must, by law, enroll their
children in that one school — or
choose either homeschooling or a
highly inconvenient commute to
another district. This lack of school
choice disproportionately affects
lower-income families, who are
unable to pay for private school or
homeschooling, and may not have the
time and transportation to commute to
another district.12
Third Assumption: Public
Schools Can Specialize. In the face
of stiff competition, schools can
specialize. Some students cannot
thrive in massive high schools, so
their parents move them across the
street to the charter school with a
more intimate learning environment.
Thus, the mega-high school teachers
have fewer dissatisfied students and
parents to deal with, so their quality
of teaching can go up — all due to
competition.
Fourth Assumption: Charter
and Magnet Schools Increase
Demand. Adding a charter or magnet
school — which are inherently
specialized — increases school
choice within a district more than
simply adding an additional public
school. The existence of long waiting
lists for magnet and charter schools
provides the evidence for this. If they
were no more valuable to parents
than traditional public schools, a
disproportionate number of students
would not be seeking entry to these
specialized programs. Additionally,
traditional public schools have had,
on average, no waiting list. In fact,
most traditional public schools have
empty seats. Therefore, charter and
magnet schools must have a higher
demand and carry a heavier weight (in
the minds of parents) than traditional
public schools.
Results of the Comparison
Based upon the data gathered,
assumptions listed and author
calculations, the level of school choice
for 1,025 ISDs in the state of Texas
was ranked based upon parents’ ability
to choose the best school for their
children from the options available.
[See Appendix II.]
■■ On average, urban and suburban
districts enjoy a higher level of
school choice than rural districts.
Thus, almost all of the districts
in the more-than-average school
choice category were urban and
suburban districts.
■■ Most of the rural districts have
less-than-average school choice.
■■ A large number of the districts
with more-than-average school
choice are in the Dallas-Fort
Worth metropolitan area.
Due to the number of schools
available within the district and
proximity of other districts, the
Edgewood Independent School
District in San Antonio also has a high
level of school choice, even though
their successful private school choice
program has been closed to new
entrants.
Of the ISDs with more-thanaverage school choice:
■■ All districts are urban and
suburban, and only one is rural.
■■ Most districts have a good
mixture of charter schools and
magnet schools/programs.
■■ However, many ISDs have only
one charter school or magnet
program.
Though there is a high level of
public school choice, the Harlandale,
Laredo, Highland Park, Spring
Branch, Edgewood and Valley View
ISDs have no charter or magnet
schools/programs.
Conclusion
The state of Texas has only limited
public school choice, which includes
magnet schools and charter schools.
State law limits the growth in charter
school authorization to 10 per year.
All private school choice legislation
introduced to the Texas legislature has
failed to become law. With no private
school choice programs and limited
public school choice, Texas offers
a very limited selection of school
options for students. Unrestricted
charter law and private school
choice would increase competition
and therefore improve school
efficiency, teacher quality and student
achievement.
Lloyd Bentsen IV is a senior research
fellow and Gabriel Odom is a
research associate at the National
Center for Policy Analysis.
3
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas School Districts
Appendix I
Student Waiting List Weighted Calculations
The school weight is:
Public schools don’t have waiting lists, so the weight for public schools is just 1. According to the TCSA, there were
154,278 charter school students and over 101,000 students on waiting lists in Texas. This means that the weight for
charter schools is
.
The magnet multiplier:
. The new calculation of schools in the district based on these
numbers. For instance, Wichita Falls ISD has 24 regular schools, 6 magnet schools, and 1 charter school. Using the
weights calculated previously, this ISD has
“schools”, even though the district only has
31.
Based upon this minor assumption, the school choice in a district as follows:
4
Appendix II
District Rankings
Districts with More-than-Average School Choice
Abilene
Academy
Alamo Heights
Aldine
Aledo
Alief
Allen
Alvarado
Alvin
Amarillo
Anna
Anthony
Aransas Pass
Argyle
Arlington
Aubrey
Austin
Axtell
Azle
Beaumont
Bells
Belton
Birdville
Bland
Bloomburg
Blue Ridge
Boles
Borger
Bosqueville
Boyd
Brazosport
Bridge City
Brownsville
Brownwood
Bruceville-Eddy
Bryan
Bullard
Burleson
Caddo Mills
Calallen
Campbell
Canutillo
Carroll
Carrollton-Farmers Branch
Castleberry
Cedar Hill
Celeste
Celina
Center Point
Central
Central Heights
Channelview
Chapel Hill (Smith)
Chapel Hill (Titus)
China Spring
City View
Clear Creek
Cleburne
Cleveland
College Station
Collinsville
Comal
Commerce
Community
Connally
Conroe
Coppell
Copperas Cove
Corpus Christi
Crandall
Crosby
Crowley
Cypress-Fairbanks
Dallas
Danbury
Deer Park
Del Valle
Denison
Denton
Desoto
Diboll
Dickinson
Donna
Driscoll
Duncanville
Eagle Mt-Saginaw
Eanes
Early
East Central
Ector
Ector County
Edcouch-Elsa
Edgewood (Bexar)
Edgewood (Van Zandt)
Edinburg
El Paso
Eustace
Evadale
Everman
Fabens
Farmersville
Ferris
Flour Bluff
Forney
Fort Bend
Fort Worth
Frenship
5
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas School Districts
Friendswood
Frisco
Fruitvale
Ft Sam Houston
Gainesville
Galena Park
Galveston
Garland
Georgetown
Gholson
Gladewater
Godley
Goodrich
Goose Creek
Granbury
Grand Prairie
Grand Saline
Grapevine-Colleyville
Greenville
Gregory-Portland
Gunter
Harlandale
Harlingen
Hays
Hidalgo
Highland Park (Dallas)
Hitchcock
Hooks
Houston
Howe
Hubbard (Bowie)
Hubbard (Hill)
Hudson
Huffman
Hull-Daisetta
Humble
Hurst-Euless-Bedford
Hutto
Ingleside
Irving
Jarrell
6
Joshua
Judson
Katy
Kaufman
Keene
Keller
Kennedale
Kerrville
Kilgore
Killeen
Kingsville
Klein
Krum
La Feria
La Joya
La Marque
La Porte
La Vega
La Vernia
La Villa
Lackland
Lago Vista
Lake Dallas
Lake Travis
Lake Worth
Lamar
Lancaster
Laredo
Leander
Leary
Leonard
Leveretts Chapel
Lewisville
Liberty Hill
Liberty-Eylau
Lindsay
Little Cypress-Mauriceville
Little Elm
London
Lone Oak
Longview
Lorena
Lovejoy
Lubbock
Lubbock-Cooper
Lufkin
Lumberton
Lytle
Mabank
Magnolia
Malakoff
Malta
Manor
Mansfield
Marion
Martins Mill
McAllen
McKinney
McLeod
Melissa
Mercedes
Mesquite
Midland
Midlothian
Midway (McLennan)
Mineola
Mineral Wells
Mission
Monte Alto
Mount Calm
Mumford
Murchison
Nacogdoches
Natalia
Navarro
Nederland
New Braunfels
New Caney
New Diana
New Waverly
North East
North Forest
Northside (Bexar)
Northwest
Olfen
Orangefield
Ore City
Overton
Palmer
Paradise
Paris
Pasadena
Pearland
Peaster
Pflugerville
Pharr-San Juan-Alamo
Pine Tree
Plano
Pleasant Grove
Ponder
Poolville
Port Arthur
Port Neches-Groves
Pottsboro
Princeton
Progreso
Prosper
Randolph Field
Red Lick
Red Oak
Redwater
Rice
Richardson
Rio Hondo
Robinson
Robstown
Rockwall
Round Rock
Royse City
Sabine
San Angelo
San Antonio
San Benito
San Elizario
San Marcos
Sanford-Fritch
Sanger
Santa Fe
Santa Maria
Santa Rosa
Savoy
Schertz-Cibolo-Universal City
Scurry-Rosser
Shallowater
Sharyland
Sheldon
Sherman
Slaton
Socorro
Somerset
South San Antonio
Southside
Southwest
Splendora
Spring
Spring Branch
Spring Hill
Springtown
Stafford
Sundown
Sunnyvale
Taylor
Temple
Terrell
Texarkana
Texas City
Tom Bean
Tomball
Tornillo
Trenton
Trinidad
Tuloso-Midway
Tyler
Union Grove
Valley View (Hidalgo)
Van Alstyne
Venus
Veribest
Victoria
Vidor
Vysehrad
Waco
Walnut Bend
Waskom
Waxahachie
Weatherford
Weslaco
West
West Orange-Cove
West Oso
West Rusk County
Westphalia
Westwood
White Oak
White Settlement
Whitehouse
Whitewright
Wichita Falls
Willis
Wimberley
Wylie (Collin)
Ysleta
Zephyr
7
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas School Districts
Districts with Average School Choice
Abbott
Abernathy
Agua Dulce
Alba-Golden
Alice
Alto
Alvord
Amherst
Angleton
Anton
Apple Springs
Aquilla
Arp
Athens
Atlanta
Avalon
Avery
Avinger
Bangs
Banquete
Barbers Hill
Bastrop
Bay City
Beckville
Beeville
Bellville
Ben Bolt-Palito Blanco
Big Sandy (Upshur)
Big Spring
Bishop
Blanket
Blooming Grove
Bloomington
Bluff Dale
Blum
Boerne
Boling
Bonham
Bovina
8
Bowie
Brazos
Bremond
Brenham
Bridgeport
Brock
Brookeland
Brownfield
Brownsboro
Buckholts
Buffalo
Buna
Burkburnett
Callisburg
Canton
Canyon
Carlisle
Carthage
Center
Centerville (Trinity)
Chico
Chireno
Chisum
Christoval
Cisco
Clifton
Clint
Columbia-Brazoria
Como-Pickton
Coolidge
Corrigan-Camden
Corsicana
Coupland
Covington
Crawford
Crockett
Cross Roads
Cuero
Cumby
Cushing
Daingerfield-Lone Star
Damon
Dayton
Decatur
Denver City
Detroit
Devers
Devine
Dew
Dodd City
Dripping Springs
Dublin
Eagle Pass
East Bernard
East Chambers
Eastland
Eden
Electra
Elgin
Elkhart
Elysian Fields
Ennis
Etoile
Eula
Excelsior
Falls City
Fannindel
Farwell
Florence
Floresville
Frankston
Frost
Ganado
Garner
Garrison
Gary
Gause
Giddings
Gilmer
Glen Rose
Goldthwaite
Gorman
Grandview
Grape Creek
Grapeland
Greenwood
Hale Center
Hallsburg
Hallsville
Hamshire-Fannett
Hardin
Hardin-Jefferson
Harleton
Harmony
Harts Bluff
Hawkins
Hawley
Hearne
Hempstead
Henderson
Hermleigh
Hico
High Island
Highland Park (Potter)
Hillsboro
Holland
Honey Grove
Hughes Springs
Huntington
Huntsville
Idalou
Industrial
Iola
Iowa Park
Ira
Italy
Itasca
Jacksonville
Joaquin
Jourdanton
Karnack
Kemp
Kenedy
Knox City-O’Brien
Kopperl
Kountze
La Gloria
Lamesa
Lapoynor
Lasara
Latexo
Leggett
Levelland
Liberty
Lindale
Lipan
Littlefield
Livingston
Lockhart
Los Fresnos
Louise
Luling
Malone
Marble Falls
Marlin
Marshall
Mart
Martinsville
Mathis
Maud
Maypearl
McDade
McGregor
Medina Valley
Meridian
Merkel
Mexia
Meyersville
Milano
Mildred
Miles
Milford
Miller Grove
Millsap
Montague
Montgomery
Moody
Morgan
Morgan Mill
Morton
Moulton
Mount Enterprise
Mount Pleasant
Mount Vernon
Navasota
Neches
Needville
New Boston
New Deal
New Summerfield
Nocona
Nordheim
Normangee
North Hopkins
North Lamar
Novice
Nursery
Odem-Edroy
Oglesby
Onalaska
Orange Grove
Paint Rock
Palestine
Pampa
Penelope
Pewitt
Pilot Point
Pittsburg
Plainview
Pleasanton
Port Aransas
Poteet
Poth
9
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas School Districts
Prairie Lea
Prairie Valley
Prairiland
Queen City
Quinlan
Quitman
Rains
Ralls
Ranger
Raymondville
Ricardo
Rice Consolidated
Richards
Riesel
Rio Grande City
Rio Vista
Rising Star
River Road
Rockdale
Rogers
Roma
Roosevelt
Roscoe Collegiate
Rosebud-Lott
Round Top-Carmine
Royal
Runge
Rusk
S and S
Salado
Saltillo
Sam Rayburn
San Felipe-Del Rio
San Perlita
Schulenburg
Seagraves
Sealy
Seguin
Shepherd
Shiner
Silsbee
Simms
Sinton
10
Sivells Bend
Smithville
Smyer
Snook
Somerville
Spurger
Stamford
Stephenville
Stockdale
Sulphur Springs
Sweeny
Sweet Home
Sweetwater
Taft
Tarkington
Tatum
Teague
Tenaha
Thorndale
Thrall
Tidehaven
Timpson
Tioga
Tolar
Trinity
Troup
Troy
Union Hill
United
Valley Mills
Valley View (Cooke)
Van
Wall
Waller
Warren
Water Valley
Weimar
Wells
West Hardin County
West Sabine
Westhoff
Wharton
Whitesboro
Whitney
Wills Point
Windthorst
Winfield
Winnsboro
Winona
Woden
Wolfe City
Wortham
Wylie (Taylor)
Yantis
Yoakum
Yorktown
Zavalla
Districts with Less-than-Average School Choice
Adrian
Albany
Alpine
Anahuac
Anderson-Shiro
Andrews
Anson
Aransas County
Archer City
Aspermont
Austwell-Tivoli
Baird
Ballinger
Balmorhea
Bandera
Bartlett
Bellevue
Benavides
Benjamin
Big sandy (Polk)
Blackwell
Blanco
Booker
Borden County
Brackett
Brady
Breckenridge
Broaddus
Bronte
Brookesmith
Brooks County
Bryson
Buena Vista
Burkeville
Burnet
Burton
Bushland
Bynum
Caldwell
Calhoun County
Calvert
Cameron
Canadian
Carrizo Springs
Cayuga
Centerville (Leon)
Channing
Charlotte
Cherokee
Chester
Childress
Chillicothe
Chilton
Clarendon
Clarksville
Claude
Clyde
Coahoma
Coldspring-Oakhurst
Coleman
Colmesneil
Colorado
Columbus
Comanche
Comfort
Comstock
Cooper
Cotton Center
Cotulla
Crane
Cranfills Gap
Crockett County
Crosbyton
Cross Plains
Crowell
Crystal City
Culberson County-Allamoore
Dalhart
Darrouzett
Dawson (Dawson)
Dawson (Navarro)
De Kalb
De Leon
Dell City
Deweyville
D’Hanis
Dilley
Dime Box
Dimmitt
Divide
Doss
Douglass
Dumas
Edna
El Campo
Era
Evant
Ezzell
Fairfield
Fayetteville
Flatonia
Floydada
Follett
Forestburg
Forsan
Fort Elliott
Fort Stockton
Franklin
Fredericksburg
Freer
Friona
Ft Davis
Ft Hancock
Gatesville
George West
Glasscock County
Gold Burg
11
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas School Districts
Goliad
Gonzales
Gordon
Grady
Graford
Graham
Grandfalls-Royalty
Grandview-Hopkins
Granger
Groesbeck
Groom
Groveton
Gruver
Gustine
Guthrie
Hallettsville
Hamilton
Hamlin
Happy
Harper
Harrold
Hart
Hartley
Haskell
Hedley
Hemphill
Henrietta
Hereford
Higgins
Highland
Holliday
Hondo
Huckabay
Hunt
Ingram
Iraan-Sheffield
Iredell
Irion County
Jacksboro
Jasper
Jayton-Girard
12
Jefferson
Jim Hogg County
Jim Ned
Johnson City
Jonesboro
Junction
Karnes City
Kelton
Kenedy County Wide
Kennard
Kerens
Kermit
Kirbyville
Klondike
Knippa
Kress
La Grange
La Pryor
Lampasas
Laneville
Lazbuddie
Leakey
Lefors
Leon
Lexington
Linden-Kildare
Lingleville
Llano
Lockney
Lohn
Lometa
Loop
Loraine
Lorenzo
Lovelady
Lueders-Avoca
Lyford
Madisonville
Marathon
Marfa
Mason
Matagorda
May
McCamey
McLean
McMullen county
Meadow
Medina
Memphis
Menard
Miami
Midway (Clay)
Monahans-Wickett-Pyote
Moran
Motley County
Muenster
Muleshoe
Mullin
Munday
Nazareth
New Home
Newcastle
Newton
Nixon-Smiley
North Zulch
Northside (Wilbarger)
Nueces Canyon
Oakwood
O’Donnell
Olney
Olton
Paducah
Paint Creek
Palacios
Palo Pinto
Panhandle
Panther Creek
Patton Springs
Pawnee
Pearsall
Pecos-Barstow-Toyah
Perrin-Whitt
Perryton
Petersburg
Petrolia
Pettus
Plains
Plemons-Stinnett-Phillips
Point Isabel
Post
Premont
Presidio
Priddy
Pringle-Morse
Quanah
Ramirez
Rankin
Reagan County
Refugio
Richland Springs
Rivercrest
Riviera
Robert Lee
Roby
Rochelle
Rocksprings
Ropes
Rotan
Roxton
Rule
Sabinal
Sabine Pass
Saint Jo
San Augustine
San Diego
San Isidro
San Saba
San Vicente
Sands
Santa Anna
Santa Gertrudis
Santo
Schleicher
Seminole
Seymour
Shamrock
Shelbyville
Sidney
Sierra Blanca
Silverton
Skidmore-Tynan
Slidell
Slocum
Snyder
Sonora
Southland
Spearman
Spring Creek
Springlake-Earth
Spur
Stanton
Star
Sterling City
Stratford
Strawn
Sudan
Sulphur Bluff
Sunray
Tahoka
Terlingua
Terrell County
Texhoma
Texline
Three Rivers
Three Way
Throckmorton
Trent
Tulia
Turkey-Quitaque
Utopia
Uvalde
Valentine
Van Vleck
Vega
Vernon
Waelder
Walcott
Walnut Springs
Webb
Wellington
Wellman-Union
Westbrook
Wheeler
White Deer
Whiteface
Whitharral
Wildorado
Wilson
Wink-Loving
Winters
Woodsboro
Woodson
Woodville
13
A Comparison of School Choice in Texas School Districts
Endnotes
John Merrifield, Lewis Warne, Lloyd
Bentsen IV, Courtney O’Sullivan and Joe
Barnett, “Private School Choice: Options for
Texas Children,” National Center for Policy
Analysis, January 2013. Available at http://
www.ncpa.org/pdfs/st345.pdf.
TEA.AskTED.Web/Forms/DownloadFile.
aspx.
1.
“Public School Choice.” Texas Association
of School Boards. 2012. Available at
http://www.txpta.org/public/upload/files/
Legislative/2012/Issue%20Brief%20on%20
School%20Choice%20in%20Texas.pdf.
11.
Texas Charter School Association. Available
at http://www.txcharterschools.org/index.php.
The Texas Education Agency supplied data
on all public and charter schools in the state of
Texas, including contact information, district
information and school enrollment. The
list of magnet schools was compiled by the
Texas Parents’ Union. Data on magnet school
waiting lists were obtained directly from each
Independent School District (ISD) containing
a magnet school. Charter school information
was obtained from the Texas Charter School
Association.
5.
12.
2.
“What is school choice?” Friedman
Foundation. Available at http://www.edchoice.
org/School-Choice/What-is-School-Choice.
aspx.
3.
“AskTED,” Texas Education Agency.
Available at http://mansfield.tea.state.tx.us/
TEA.AskTED.Web/Forms/DownloadFile.
aspx.
4.
Matt Prewett, “List of School Districts
in Texas with Magnet Schools/Programs,”
Texas Parents Union. Available at http://
txparentsunion.org/resources/tx-districts-withmagnet-schools/.
6.
“Medium Is Best School, Study Says
Researchers Say Kids Learn Less In Both
Environments Too Large And Too Small,”
The Spokesman-Review, April 11, 1996.
Available at http://www.spokesman.com/
stories/1996/apr/11/medium-is-best-schoolsize-study-says-researchers/.
7.
Douglas Ready, Valerie Lee & Kevin G.
Welner, “Educational Equity and School
Structure: School Size, Overcrowding,
and Schools-Within-Schools,” TCRecord,
2004. Available at http://nepc.colorado.edu/
files/1882.pdf.
8.
Valerie E. Lee and Susanna Loeb, “School
Size in Chicago Elementary Schools:
Effects on Teachers’ Attitudes and Students’
Achievement,” American Educational
Research Journal, Spring 2000, Vol. 37, No.1,
pages 3-31. Available at https://cepa.stanford.
edu/sites/default/files/School%20Size.pdf.
9.
“AskTED,” Texas Education Agency.
Available at http://mansfield.tea.state.tx.us/
14
10.
The independent school district in which
each charter school is located was determined
using schooldistrictfinder.com. NCPA staffer
Liz Loomis supplied Geographic Information
Systems (GIS) data on the land area of each
ISD in Texas. This data was used to calculate
the number of schools per 10 square miles
within each district.
About the NCPA
The NCPA is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization established in
1983. Its aim is to examine public policies in areas that have a
significant impact on the lives of all Americans — retirement, health
care, education, taxes, the economy, the environment — and to
propose innovative, market-driven solutions. The NCPA seeks to
unleash the power of ideas for positive change by identifying,
encouraging and aggressively marketing the best scholarly research.
Health Care Policy.
The NCPA is probably best known for
developing the concept of Health Savings
Accounts (HSAs), previously known as
Medical Savings Accounts (MSAs).
NCPA President John C. Goodman is
widely acknowledged (Wall Street
Journal, WebMD and the National
Journal) as the “Father of HSAs.” NCPA
research, public education and briefings
for members of Congress and the White
House staff helped lead Congress to
approve a pilot MSA program for small
businesses and the self-employed in 1996
and to vote in 1997 to allow Medicare
beneficiaries to have MSAs. In 2003, as
part of Medicare reform, Congress and
the President made HSAs available to all
nonseniors, potentially revolutionizing
the entire health care industry. HSAs now
are potentially available to 250 million
nonelderly Americans.
The NCPA outlined the concept of
using federal tax credits to encourage
private health insurance and helped
formulate bipartisan proposals in both the
Senate and the House. The NCPA and
BlueCross BlueShield of Texas developed a plan to use money that federal,
state and local governments now spend
on indigent health care to help the poor
purchase health insurance. The SPN
Medicaid Exchange, an initiative of the
NCPA for the State Policy Network, is
identifying and sharing the best ideas for
health care reform with researchers and
policymakers in every state.
NCPA President
John C. Goodman is called
the “Father of HSAs” by
The Wall Street Journal, WebMD
and the National Journal.
Taxes & Economic Growth.
The NCPA helped shape the pro-growth
approach to tax policy during the 1990s.
A package of tax cuts designed by the
NCPA and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 1991 became the core of the
Contract with America in 1994.
Three of the five proposals (capital gains
tax cut, Roth IRA and eliminating the
Social Security earnings penalty)
became law. A fourth proposal —
rolling back the tax on Social Security
benefits — passed the House of Representatives in summer 2002. The NCPA’s
proposal for an across-the-board tax cut
became the centerpiece of President
Bush’s tax cut proposals.
NCPA research demonstrates the
benefits of shifting the tax burden on
work and productive investment to
consumption. An NCPA study by Boston
University economist Laurence Kotlikoff
analyzed three versions of a consumption
tax: a flat tax, a value-added tax and a
national sales tax. Based on this work, Dr.
Goodman wrote a full-page editorial for
Forbes (“A Kinder, Gentler Flat Tax”)
advocating a version of the flat tax that is
both progressive and fair.
A major NCPA study, “Wealth, Inheritance
and the Estate Tax,” completely
undermines the claim by proponents of the
estate tax that it prevents the concentration
of wealth in the hands of financial
dynasties. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist
(R-TN) and Senator Jon Kyl (R-AZ)
distributed a letter to their colleagues about
the study. The NCPA recently won the
Templeton Freedom Award for its study
and report on Free Market Solutions. The
report outlines an approach called
Enterprise Programs that creates job
opportunities for those who face the
greatest challenges to employment.
Retirement Reform.
With a grant from the NCPA, economists
at Texas A&M University developed a
model to evaluate the future of Social
Security and Medicare, working under the
direction of Thomas R. Saving, who for
years was one of two private-sector
trustees of Social Security and Medicare.
The NCPA study, “Ten Steps to Baby
Boomer Retirement,” shows that as 77
million baby boomers begin to retire, the
nation’s institutions are totally unprepared.
Promises made under Social Security,
Medicare and Medicaid are inadequately
funded. State and local institutions are not
doing better — millions of government
workers are discovering that their pensions
are under-funded and local governments
are retrenching on post-retirement health
care promises.
Pension Reform.
Pension reforms signed into law include
ideas to improve 401(k)s developed and
proposed by the NCPA and the Brookings
Institution. Among the NCPA/Brookings
401(k) reforms are automatic enrollment
of employees into companies’ 401(k)
plans, automatic contribution rate
increases so that workers’ contributions
grow with their wages, and better default
investment options for workers who do
not make an investment choice.
15
About the NCPA
The NCPA’s online Social Security
calculator allows visitors to discover their
expected taxes and benefits and how
much they would have accumulated had
their taxes been invested privately.
Environment & Energy.
The NCPA’s E-Team is one of the largest
collections of energy and environmental
policy experts and scientists who believe
that sound science, economic prosperity
and protecting the environment are
compatible. The team seeks to correct
misinformation and promote sensible
solutions to energy and environment
problems. A pathbreaking 2001 NCPA
study showed that the costs of the Kyoto
agreement to reduce carbon emissions in
developed countries would far exceed
any benefits.
Educating the next generation.
The NCPA’s Debate Central is the most
comprehensive online site for free
information for 400,000 U.S. high school
debaters. In 2006, the site drew more than
one million hits per month. Debate
Central received the prestigious Templeton Freedom Prize for Student Outreach.
Promoting Ideas.
NCPA studies, ideas and experts are
quoted frequently in news stories
nationwide. Columns written by NCPA
scholars appear regularly in national
publications such as the Wall Street
Journal, the Washington Times, USA
Today and many other major-market
daily newspapers, as well as on radio
talk shows, on television public affairs
programs, and in public policy newsletters. According to media figures from
BurrellesLuce, more than 900,000 people
daily read or hear about NCPA ideas and
activities somewhere in the United States.
What Others Say About the NCPA
“The NCPA generates more analysis per
dollar than any think tank in the country.
It does an amazingly good job of going out
and finding the right things and talking about
them in intelligent ways.”
Newt Gingrich, former Speaker of the
U.S. House of Representatives
“We know what works. It’s what the NCPA
talks about: limited government, economic
freedom; things like Health Savings Accounts.
These things work, allowing people choices.
We’ve seen how this created America.”
John Stossel,
host of “Stossel,” Fox Business Network
“I don’t know of any organization in America
that produces better ideas with less money
than the NCPA.”
Phil Gramm,
former U.S. Senator
“Thank you . . . for advocating such radical
causes as balanced budgets, limited government
and tax reform, and to be able to try and bring
power back to the people.”
Tommy Thompson,
former Secretary of Health and Human Services
The NCPA is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit public policy organization. We depend entirely on the financial support of individuals, corporations and foundations that believe in private
sector solutions to public policy problems. You can contribute to our effort by mailing your donation to our Dallas headquarters at 12770 Coit Road, Suite 800, Dallas, TX 75251,
or visiting our Web site at www.ncpa.org and clicking “Support Us.”