State Superintendent Chris Reykdal recently issued a statement condemning the school choice tax credit provision in the One Big Beautiful Bill. His language—calling it a “reckless school privatization scheme”—is not an accurate reflection of the policy as passed.
In fact, Reykdal’s statement includes emotionally charged claims such as:
“The slow dismantling of public education while only truly supporting wealthy families that can already afford private school is as anti-democratic as it gets.”
and
“Privatization works against integrated, diverse, and culturally rich schools that teach students to learn together in a complex society where not everyone thinks, looks, believes, or prays like you.”
These assertions may reflect ideological opposition, but they do not align with the legislative reality.
Here are the facts:
- The provision creates a federal tax credit for individuals and corporations who donate to nonprofit scholarship organizations.
- These organizations exist at the state level and provide tuition assistance to families seeking alternatives to public school—including private, religious, and specialized institutions.
- States must opt in to participate. There is no federal mandate, and governors must authorize state-level implementation.
- The credit does not directly fund schools—public, private, or otherwise. It incentivizes private giving.
- There is no automatic defunding of public schools. Public school funding formulas remain unchanged unless states make separate policy decisions.
- The program is not limited to wealthy families. Most state-based scholarship programs include income thresholds or prioritization for low- and middle-income families.
Reykdal’s statement conflates optional tax incentives with forced privatization and implies direct federal funding of private institutions—which is not how the program works. His framing may reflect ideological opposition, but it does not reflect the legislative reality.
Whether one supports or opposes school choice, public discourse should be grounded in fact. Reykdal’s inflammatory rhetoric misrepresents the policy and fuels public confusion rather than informed debate. Instead of spreading misinformation, he should be focused on reversing the academic decline Washington students have experienced under his leadership at OSPI.
Support Conservative Ladies of Washington
We’re fighting for truth, transparency, and accountability. Your donation helps us mobilize citizens, challenge misinformation, and amplify voices that matter. Please consider making a one-time donation or becoming a monthly supporter. Thank you for your support!
