"We are talking about educational opportunities for Washington children, and your fiscal argument amounts to complaining about paperwork.” The second half of Rep. Travis Couture’s letter to Superintendent Chris Reykdal turns up the heat over Reykdal’s push to keep Washington out of the federal Education Freedom Tax Credit. Couture challenges Reykdal’s administrative-cost objection, pointing to an estimate cited in Reykdal’s letter of at least 10 hours of state work annually per scholarship organization. He demands an actual cost analysis and volunteers his own time. Then comes this: “Yet, ironically you don’t seem to care about the hordes of unfunded mandates and administrative burden you’ve placed on public schools. Pick a lane, Chris.” Couture argues that rejecting participation won’t repeal the federal credit or put additional money into Washington’s public schools. It will prevent Washington students from accessing the scholarships. On the objection that the program won’t solve school district budget problems: “Duh! Of course it isn’t. The purpose of an educational scholarship is to help educate a child, not to balance a school district’s budget.” His sharpest assessment: “It takes an extraordinary amount of bureaucratic arrogance to look at a program that could help struggling families and conclude that nobody should benefit because government cannot control enough of it.” Couture closes by urging Ferguson to reject Reykdal’s recommendation and opt Washington in: “Our responsibility is to educate children, not protect institutions.” Final four pages below. 🧵2/2

MUST READ “You are the enemy of educational opportunity and results.” That’s how Washington Republican Rep. @TravisSCouture opened a blistering letter to Superintendent Chris Reykdal after Reykdal urged Gov. Bob Ferguson to reject the federal Education Freedom Tax Credit. The program, launching in January 2027, offers a federal tax credit for donations to approved nonprofits that provide K–12 educational scholarships. Those scholarships can help eligible families with private-school tuition, tutoring, and other educational expenses, including support for public-school students. Washington must opt in for local students to benefit. Otherwise, Washington donors can still claim the credit by supporting scholarships in participating states. Couture argues Reykdal is putting government control ahead of children: “The tyranny of protecting systems over children is shocking.” “Washington families do not exist to serve the education bureaucracy. The education system exists to serve Washington families.” He also takes aim at Reykdal’s objections to broad income eligibility: “You present the possibility that nearly every American child could qualify for an educational opportunity as though it were a problem. Since when did near universal access to education become something the Superintendent of Public Instruction should oppose? That’s insane.” And on parental choice: “You are protecting a failing monopoly, an antiquated system that fails kids. Your letter works for the WEA, not for students or families.” Read the first four pages below. The remaining four follow in the next post. 🧵1/2