The Texas House gave initial approval early Thursday to a bill that would create a $1 billion private school voucher program, crossing a historic milestone and bringing Gov. ’s top legislative priority closer than ever to reaching his desk.

The lower chamber signed off on its voucher proposal, , on an 85-63 vote. Every present Democrat voted against the bill. They were joined by two Republicans — far short of the bipartisan coalitions that in previous legislative sessions consistently blocked proposals to let Texans use taxpayer money to pay for their children’s private schooling.

“This is an extraordinary victory for the thousands of parents who have advocated for more choices when it comes to the education of their children,” Abbott said in a statement, vowing that he would “swiftly sign this bill into law” when it reached his desk.

The vote came more than 10 hours after the chamber gave preliminary approval to its sweeping $7.7 billion school funding package, which would give local districts more money per student and raise teacher salaries., which passed on a 144-4 vote, also aims to improve the quality of special education services by allocating funding based on the of children with disabilities.

Democrats argued the funding boost barely scratches the surface of what districts need to come back from budget deficits or to cover growing costs after years of inflation, but they ultimately supported the bill after a few hours of debate.

The more dramatic showdown came over the voucher bill, which Democrats tried to thwart with an amendment that would have put school vouchers up for a statewide vote in November. But the last-ditch maneuver attracted support from only one Republican — Rep. of Beaumont, the former House speaker — spelling the demise of Democrats’ one major play to derail the bill.

The landmark voucher vote marks the first time since 1957 that the Texas House has approved legislation making state money available for families to use on their children’s private schooling. The outcome validated Abbott’s crusade to build a pro-voucher House majority during last year’s primary by targeting Republicans who tanked his previous proposal in 2023. Now, all that is left is for Republicans in both chambers to iron out the differences between their voucher plans, leaving Abbott and his allies on the brink of victory.

The House’s plan would put $1 billion to create education savings accounts, a form of vouchers that families could use to pay for private school tuition and other school-related expenses, like textbooks, transportation and therapy. The bill would tie the voucher program’s per-student dollars to public education funding so the amount available to each participating student would increase when public schools receive more money and dip when public education funding declines.

If public demand exceeds the program’s capacity, students with disabilities and families defined by House lawmakers as low income would be prioritized — though they would not be guaranteed admission to any private school.

Democrats expressed disappointment over the House’s approval of vouchers, saying the outcome represented big money interests prevailing over those of everyday Texans.

“This bill is everything that is wrong with politics,” said Rep. Gina Hinojosa, D-Austin.

After Thursday’s vote, the House will still need to cast a final vote to approve both the voucher and school spending bills, largely a formality. The measures would then head to the Senate. At that point, members from both chambers would work to reconcile the differences in their voucher proposals in a closed-door conference committee. The biggest differences center on how much money participating students should receive, which applicants should take priority and how the program should accommodate students with disabilities.

The House debate on vouchers started Wednesday afternoon and ended early Thursday. Lawmakers changed a provision in the bill that would have limited funding for people without disabilities or from wealthier households — defined as a family of four making about $156,000 or greater — to only 20% of the program’s total budget until after the 2026-27 school year. The 20% cap would now apply to each year of the potential voucher program.

The bill now also requires private schools to have existed for at least two years before joining the program; grants the state auditor more power to review the activities of organizations contracted to administer the program; and requires the state’s annual report on the program to include dropout, expulsion and graduation data on participating students with disabilities — broken down by grade, age, sex and race or ethnicity.

Wednesday’s debate over SB 2 covered many of the talking points for and against vouchers echoed throughout the legislative session.

Republicans sought to assure their colleagues that the bill would prioritize low-income children and students with disabilities. Democrats noted that the legislation imposes no admission requirements on private schools, meaning they can deny any student, even those the state wants first in line for the program.

whose children were have primarily benefited from the large-scale voucher programs enacted in other states.

Democrats filed dozens of amendments they believed would make the Texas legislation more equitable for underserved students, but they were all dismissed. One of the rejected proposals came from Rep. Harold V. Dutton Jr., D-Houston, who sought to offer higher voucher amounts to students on the lower rungs of the income ladder. He argued that some families could not afford to send their children to a private school even with $10,000 in state support.

The average Texas private school costs , according to Private School Review.

“If you’re in a 12-foot hole and somebody sends you a 10-foot rope,” Dutton said, “that’s not much of an option.”

Rep. , the Republican chair of the House Public Education Committee, also received questions Wednesday over a provision recently added to SB 2 that would bar undocumented Texans from participating in the proposed voucher program.

SB 2 would prevent any student whose parent cannot prove that the child is a U.S. citizen or that the child lawfully resides in the country from participating in the program. Several lawmakers raised questions about what state entity would be responsible for checking the children’s citizenship, how the legislation would protect the privacy of applicants and whether it would accommodate students who may find it difficult to access certain documents.

Buckley clarified that organizations helping the state administer the voucher program would oversee applications and that the process would include protections “for all personal information.” If applicants are unable to provide proper documentation, Buckley said, they would not participate in the program. The legislation does not specify exactly which documents families would need to provide.

The Texas Senate also previously considered barring undocumented Texans from participating in the voucher program if the U.S. Supreme Court overturns those students’ constitutional right to a public education, but the change never made it into that chamber’s legislation.

Legal questions remain about the citizenship restriction in SB 2. Every student in the U.S. is entitled to a public education regardless of their immigration status, and the potential voucher program would rely on public dollars.

​The House also gave initial approval to its priority school funding legislation. Two years ago, public schools missed out on nearly $8 billion, which Abbott had made conditional on the approval of vouchers.

This year’s public education spending bill would increase schools’ base funding by $395 — from $6,160 to $6,555. That amount, known as the basic allotment, would automatically go up every two years by tying it to property value growth. Forty percent of the allotment would go to non-administrative staff salaries, with higher pay increases reserved for teachers with more than a decade of classroom experience.

In addition, the bill would limit schools’ use of educators who lack formal classroom training, core classes. It would change the current settings-based model for by providing schools money based on the individual needs of students with disabilities. Two students placed in the same classroom but who require different levels of support receive the same dollars under the current settings-based model.

Republicans, during hours of debate, celebrated the bill as a worthwhile investment in public education. Democrats also voiced support for the legislation but argued that it barely scratches the surface of what districts need. Many school districts are currently grappling with challenges ranging from budget deficits and teacher shortages to campus closures.

Rep. James Talarico, D-Austin, pressed Buckley, the bill’s author, on whether the measure’s $8 billion would be enough to solve Texas schools’ struggles, which have been fueled by stagnant funding and inflation.

Buckley did not directly acknowledge that his bill would fall short of addressing all the financial pressures facing districts. He instead focused on the multibillion-dollar funding boost the Legislature hopes to provide this session, which includes money through HB 2 and other legislation under consideration.

“I just want to emphasize, members, you have an opportunity today to cast a vote for the largest investment in public education in the history of our state, and so we will continue this process as this body returns session after session to make sure the resources are there for our schools,” Buckley said.

Members of the public viewing the debate from the House gallery erupted in laughter and applause in support of Talarico’s questioning. Talarico and those in the gallery did not appear content with Buckley’s answers.

“I’m going to take that as a no until I get a yes,” Talarico said.

The House eliminated an earlier provision of the bill that would have gotten rid of a 2023 “hold harmless” provision, which provides financial relief to school districts that lose funding due to cuts to state property taxes, a major source of revenue for public schools.

Lawmakers sparred over other aspects of the legislation — from whether the Legislature should continue to invest heavily in, which offers support to underserved students at risk of dropping out of school, to how the state should hold charter schools accountable for mismanagement.

Upon final passage, HB 2 will go to the Senate for further consideration. That chamber has already passed a number of similar proposals — though top lawmakers there have expressed opposition to increasing schools’ base funding this session.

The basic allotment offers districts flexibility to address their campuses’ unique needs, including staff salaries, utilities and maintenance. The Senate has instead advocated for more targeted funding in areas like teacher pay, school security and special education.​

This article originally appeared in at . The Texas Tribune is a member-supported, nonpartisan newsroom informing and engaging Texans on state politics and policy. Learn more at .

Missouri lawmakers greeted a proposed $300 million increase to the formula that funds the state’s public schools with questions Wednesday, with some believing the figure seemed appropriate and others wondering if a change to the state’s accountability system drove estimates too high.

The Department of Elementary and Secondary Education unveiled its proposed budget for fiscal year 2025 during the State Board of Education meeting on Tuesday. If lawmakers approve the budget for programs, like literacy coaches, and fully fund the foundation formula, it will bring a $235 million increase in the education budget.

The department calculated a new state adequacy target, a multiplier in the formula that funds schools. The target is determined by looking at per-pupil spending of districts scoring above 90% in the Missouri School Improvement Program, an assessment composed of standardized test scores, attendance and other metrics.

The new state adequacy target should be $7,145, Deputy Education Commissioner Kari Monsees told lawmakers Wednesday, up from $6,375. The target has been frozen for five years.

This new multiplier will be phased in over two years, leading to a $120 million increase in general state aid in the first year and $300 million in year two.

“That’s a reasonable amount,” Rep. Ed Lewis, R-Moberly, told The Independent, adding that the state adequacy target has been fairly flat for over a decade.

“Now, it’s going to jump. It’s a significant amount, but it’s also a number that’s doable,” he said.

Lewis, a former teacher, is among lawmakers who have attempted to get more funding to public education.

He is unsure if the full legislative body will have the appetite to fully fund the formula with the new recalculation.

“There are people who think that education is getting too much money,” Lewis said. “If we can talk about choice, we can talk about financing, we can talk about accountability, those three problems and put them all together, we can build a coalition that changes the trajectory of education.”

Rep. Doug Richey, R-Excelsior Springs, questioned if the new state accountability system, MSIP6, artificially inflated the target calculated by the state’s education department. He asked how many districts score above 90% now, compared to the MSIP5.

Just over half of Missouri’s school districts scored above 90% in the previous scoring system. Now, only 40 out of 554 school districts and charters make the cut, and their per-pupil spending determines the state adequacy target.

Richey wondered if this impacted the new increased calculation.

“We’re not seeing an actual increase in expenditures, necessarily,” he said during the joint committee on education meeting. “Just a culling, if you will, of some of the lower-spending districts that are no longer at that level.”

Monsees said there are safeguards that keep DESE from using outliers in their calculation. The state adequacy target is calculated using the high-performing district’s old expenditure data and any state aid added since the current formula was established.

He said the group of 40, rather than 300, is a more accurate sample of the state’s high-achieving districts.

“When we had over 300 districts scoring over 90%, it wasn’t very discerning,” Monsees said.

He anticipates districts needing the boost in the adequacy target because pandemic-era assistance programs are ending before fiscal year 2025.

Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) funds from the federal government and a state allowance that gives school districts aid based on their pre-pandemic attendance rates end at the completion of the current fiscal year.

“Many school districts are gonna see a significant drop in that weighted average daily attendance, part of which is going to be offset or more by the increase in the state adequacy target,” Monsees told lawmakers Wednesday.

He said districts’ enrollment decreased 3% in the fall of 2020 but have regained 1%. Attendance is part of the funding calculation, so a lower student population will decrease the amount of aid the state owes districts in fiscal year 2025.

The foundation formula provides the state aid to local school districts, but DESE is also planning to ask for a number of appropriations. Its proposed budget for fiscal year 2025 is $235 million higher than the current appropriation.

The state’s wish list includes nearly $2 million for early childhood special education, over $5 million for literacy tutors, $3.7 million for math coaches and over $6.6 million for the public placements fund, which reimburses school districts educating foster children.

Monsees told The Independent that DESE plans to make recommendations for changes to the foundation formula before the next legislative session begins in January. The state is looking at a weighted funding system that gives school districts money for student populations including disabled students and those that qualify for free and reduced lunch.

said the weights were “not based on any empirical analysis.”

Lawmakers filed bills and amendments during the legislative session this year to amend these weights but were unable to get the proposals to the governor.

is part of States Newsroom, a network of news bureaus supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Missouri Independent maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jason Hancock for questions: info@missouriindependent.com. Follow Missouri Independent on and .