View this post on the web at [link removed]

Afternoon content on this site is typically reserved for our paid subscribers. This important column is available to all, but there is a video commentary below the paywall for those who have upgraded.
A Missed Moment Other States Do Not Waste
Governor Gavin Newsom is approaching a decision that will show who education policy in California truly serves. In Sacramento political circles, there is a familiar saying: If something makes sense elsewhere, California will find a reason not to do it. That outlook is about to be tested again, and if history is any guide, the political power of the California Teachers Association will kill good policy once more.
President Trump’s federal tax credit scholarship program, included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, gives governors a way to expand school choice without using state education funds. Public school budgets would not lose a dollar, yet California’s political leadership is still expected to decline participation.
The contrast with other states is striking. Twenty four states have already said yes, stretching from the Deep South to the Mountain West: Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. The number of states allowing their taxpayers to participate is growing daily.
Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo described the program as a historic milestone for parental freedom and economic opportunity. That description captures the policy's real-world effect. It is also important to note that support is not limited to Republicans. Colorado’s Democratic Governor Jared Polis looked at the same program and said, “I would be crazy not to.” In his state, helping families gain access to better educational options through private donations is not an ideological fight. It is a practical step to help students succeed.
In California, however, where families deal with high housing costs and uneven school performance, the possibility that the governor would sign an opt-in remains remote.
What This Program Actually Does
Set aside the political rhetoric and focus on the mechanics. The federal tax credit scholarship allows taxpayers to receive a dollar-for-dollar credit on their federal tax bill, up to 1,700 dollars per taxpayer each year, if they donate to a scholarship-granting organization that helps families pay for educational options.
This credit does not reduce federal education spending. It changes how certain tax dollars are directed. Families qualify if they earn less than 300 percent of the area median income. In high-cost states such as California, which includes many middle-income households. In Los Angeles, for example, the threshold is roughly $319,800 for a family of four. Because donors receive a full tax credit, they are not absorbing a financial loss. The result is a growing pool of private scholarship funds that families can use without reducing public school budgets.
Recent guidance from the Internal Revenue Service clarified that states may join the program through executive action rather than new legislation. In many states, that means the governor or another authorized official can make the decision directly. The process was designed to be straightforward so that states must make a clear choice about whether to expand opportunity or leave families without access to these funds.
California’s Public Opinion and What It Shows
Anyone who assumes Californians reject school choice should look at the polling. A 2025 survey conducted for Democrats for Education Reform [ [link removed] ] found that 59 percent of voters support California opting into the federal scholarship tax credit program. Support extended across regions and demographic groups.
Democrats for Education Reform supports school choice, but the questions in this survey were framed in a direct and policy-focused manner. Respondents were told how the program works, how it is funded, and who would benefit. The results did not depend on slogans or partisan cues.
Support was even stronger among communities that policymakers often say they want to help most. The survey reported 76 percent support among Black voters, 68 percent among Latino voters, and 66 percent among parents. These are families who frequently feel the strain of limited school options. Their openness to this program reflects lived experience rather than ideology.
Support remained after voters were informed that the program relies on private donations tied to a federal tax credit rather than cuts to state education funding. Californians are responding to a concrete proposal that could offer families more flexibility without draining public schools. In short, voters are ahead of the political class in Sacramento.
The Real Reason California Will Not Opt In
The obstacle is political rather than educational or financial. California Democrats, who run this state, are unlikely move forward because of the California Teachers Association. The union’s official policy opposes any education funding system, including vouchers, scholarships, or tuition tax credits, that directs resources outside the traditional public school system. That is a clear rejection of the mechanism at the center of this federal program.
The California Teachers Association does more than express an opinion. It is one of the most powerful political organizations in the state. With spending in the countless millions and a constant, dominant presence in candidate campaigns, ballot measures, and lobbying, it has few equals in Sacramento or even nationwide. Democratic officeholders understand that opposing the union can mean losing endorsements, financial backing, and facing well-funded opposition. Most recently, they chipped in millions to Governor Newsom’s Yes on 50 ballot measure committee.
As a result, when a federal program appears that could give families more educational options without cutting school budgets, the discussion in Sacramento often shifts away from students and toward political consequences. The central question becomes how the union will respond.
Why Other Governors Are Not Hesitating
Governors in the twenty-four participating states reached a different conclusion. They saw an opportunity to give families additional choices and decided to move forward.
In states that already have school choice programs, the pattern is familiar. Families find educational settings that better meet their needs. Scholarship funds grow as donors respond to the tax incentive. Traditional school systems feel competitive pressure to improve. Education is not a perfect market, but the introduction of choice creates flexibility in a system that often resists change.
That reasoning explains why governors across the country are willing to participate. It also highlights the contrast with California’s leadership.
So, Does It Matter?
This issue goes beyond Sacramento. Gavin Newsom is often mentioned as a potential presidential candidate who may one day argue that the California approach should guide national policy.
This decision offers a clear example of what that approach means. Will it allow families to take advantage of a voluntary, privately funded program that expands educational opportunity at no cost to the state? Or will it defer to a powerful union that views alternatives as a threat?
If California declines to participate while more states move forward, the message will be clear. In this version of progressive governance, the preferences of organized interests still outweigh the needs of parents who want better options for their children. Observers across the country will notice.
Below the paywall is an exclusive video commentary by Jon Fleischman that complements this column. Maybe, just maybe, he takes the gloves off on the California Teachers Association...

Unsubscribe [link removed]?