Applications for Arkansas’ school voucher program are now open, the state’s education department announced Tuesday.

This marks the fourth year of the program and the second year it’s been open to all Arkansas K-12 students after being phased in with increasing eligibility.

Created under an expansive , the Educational Freedom Account program permits state funding to be used for , such as private school tuition, homeschool curriculum, laptops, tutoring and educational therapies. Participating students could receive up to during the 2025-2026 school year. That will increase to $7,208 for the 2026-2027 academic year, according to education department spokesperson Kaelin Clay.

Student applications have historically opened in March or , except for the program’s first year when delayed implementation. As was the case , applications will be reviewed for funding priority within a series of three-week windows that ends June 1.

Applications are not processed strictly on a first-come, first-served basis, according to the . Instead, they’re prioritized based on categories during each three-week window.

The highest priority categories are returning EFA students, students with specialized needs and students attending a school with a “D” or “F” rating under the state’s .

More than 44,000 students are participating in the program this year, and could choose from nearly 170 private schools and over 2,500 approved vendors, according to . Applications for schools interested in participating in the program opened in February, Clay said.

“Every student has unique strengths and challenges, which is why offering multiple education pathways is essential,” Education Secretary Jacob Oliva said in the release. “By supporting the Education Freedom Account program, we are empowering parents to choose the learning environment that best fits their child’s needs, and the number of families enrolled proves the program’s success.”

Democrats and some rural Republican lawmakers have voiced concern about the growing cost of the program, which represents the largest increase to the governor’s for the fiscal year that begins July 1.

The proposed budget includes more than $309 million for the program, $122 million more than last year’s budget. The amount matches what was ultimately spent on the program this year.

The budget also calls for setting aside another $70 million from surplus funding for anticipated program growth.

More information about the program and applications are available on the education department’s .

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Andrew DeMillo for questions: info@arkansasadvocate.com.

Texas families can begin applying for private school vouchers Wednesday, the most significant step yet in a state program set to launch next school year.

Texans have until March 17 to apply for the program, which allows families to receive taxpayer dollars to send children to private school or educate them at home.

If the number of applicants exceeds the $1 billion lawmakers set aside for the program, the state will prioritize students based on family income and whether they have a disability — though neither guarantee access.

The program, overseen by the comptroller, , will launch at the beginning of the 2026-27 school year.

As of Wednesday night, more than 35,000 families submitted applications, according to the comptroller’s office.

The state can spend no more than $1 billion on the program during the current two-year budget cycle, which ends Aug. 31, 2027. It is unclear how much the program’s costs could rise — lawmakers will make that determination in future legislative sessions — but state budget experts the tab could escalate to roughly $4.8 billion by 2030.

Here’s what to know about the applications.

Most Texas families with school-age children can apply.

That includes students already attending private school or in home schooling. Families with children in a public school must plan to unenroll them if they want to participate. Parents must also submit proof of their child’s U.S. citizenship or evidence the child lawfully resides in the country.

If public demand for the program exceeds available funding, the state will prioritize the following applicants:

• Students with disabilities in families with an annual income at or below 500% of the federal poverty level, which includes a four-person household earning less than roughly $165,000 a year.
• Families at or below 200% of the poverty level, which includes any four-person household earning less than roughly $66,000.
• Families between 200% and 500% of the poverty level.
• Families at or above 500% of the poverty level; these families can receive up to $200 million of the program’s total budget.

The priority system does not guarantee access to the program, as students must still find a private school to accept them. No state or federal laws require private schools to make learning accommodations for students with disabilities.

In with large-scale voucher programs, participation has skewed toward more affluent and white families with children already in private school.

Families must have several documents prepared.

That Social Security numbers for the parent and child; an IRS Form 1040 for 2024 or 2025; and a Texas identification card or utility bill, lease agreement, mortgage statement or voter registration certificate if the state cannot verify a Texas ID number.

Families can also prove their child’s U.S. citizenship or lawful resident status by submitting documents like birth certificates or certificates of naturalization or citizenship.

For , children must be at least 3 years old and meet at least one of the state criteria for public pre-K. That criteria includes being eligible to participate in the free or reduced-price lunch program, being unable to speak or understand English, or being in foster care. Families with children in foster care must submit proof, such as a court order, adoption documents or a placement order.

Some families could receive up to $30,000 each year.

Most participating families with children in private schools will receive about $10,500 annually. Home-schoolers can receive up to $2,000 per year. Children with disabilities can receive up to $30,000 — an amount based on what it would cost to educate that child in a public school.

To apply for the voucher program, families can submit a Social Security determination letter or a physician’s note as proof their child has a disability.

But to qualify for the higher tier of funding, families must submit an Individualized Education Program, a legal document specifying that a child needs special education services. If families do not have that documentation, they can request it from their local public school. Public schools must complete those requests within 45 days of a parent consenting to the evaluation.

Families will receive the money through education savings accounts. Managed by the , the digital accounts will let families pay tuition and make education-related expenses, like private tutoring, transportation and school meals.

Students must also find private schools to accept them.

During the application process, families must signal their intent to enroll their child in a private school.

But they do not have to officially have their children enrolled until June 1, nearly three months after the application period closes. If parents cannot find a school by the initial deadline, the state will give them until July 15. Private schools will then confirm enrollment between June 15 and July 31.

Private schools, on a rolling basis, can apply to join the program if they have operated a campus for at least two years and received accreditation. They must also administer a nationally recognized exam of their choosing in grades 3-12. The schools are not required to administer the same standardized tests issued to public school kids each year — currently the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness, or STAAR.

More than have opted in thus far, with most located in the Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth areas.

Texas Attorney General stating his belief that the comptroller can block certain schools from participating in the program if they’re “illegally tied to terrorists or foreign adversaries.”

The opinion came after Acting Comptroller from Paxton, saying schools associated with the accreditation company Cognia had hosted events organized by the Council on American-Islamic Relations, a Muslim civil rights group that Gov. recently designated a terrorist organization.

CAIR has over the label, calling it defamatory and false. The U.S. State Department has the organization a terrorist group.

As by the Houston Chronicle, hundreds of Cognia schools have been shut out of the program, including those that primarily serve Muslim students, Christian students and children with disabilities. The comptroller’s office has said it is now inviting groups of Cognia schools that it considers in compliance with the law to participate.

Families will start receiving notifications in April.

Those notifications will let parents know they will receive funding — contingent upon enrolling their children in a private school by either the June 1 or July 15 deadline.

The first portion of state funding will become available in families’ education savings accounts between July 1 and mid-August.

This first appeared on .

Missouri lawmakers are considering expanding the state’s private school voucher program with proposals to open eligibility and remove demands on private schools who accept voucher funds.

But the program, which has spent a majority of the $50 million it received in state funding this fiscal year, may lack room to grow with Gov. Mike Kehoe proposing only a small bump for MOScholars alongside a .

MOScholars uses state money, funded directly in the state budget and indirectly through tax-credit donations, to subsidize K-12 education outside a student’s local public school. The program is . But some homeschool families use the funds to buy supplies, and a couple students have used the funds to enroll in neighboring public schools.

The program is in its fourth year and provides scholarships to over 6,000 students, thanks in large part to .

State Treasurer Vivek Malek, whose office oversees MOScholars, wants to keep the momentum going this upcoming fiscal year. His in its budget request for the program, seeking to provide funding for 13,000 students next school year.

Kehoe, who lauded the program’s success in his State of the State speech Tuesday, budgeted $60 million in state funds to MOScholars.

“This program is working,” he said, “and Missouri families are counting on it.”

Malek’s office has already spent nearly $40 million on scholarships this fiscal year, according to the Missouri Accountability Portal. Most students with MOScholars funding return the next year, so without funding above and beyond last year’s appropriation, the program will not be able to offer scholarships to many new students.

Despite this funding challenge, the Senate Education Committee appears poised to prioritize MOScholars expansion.

State Sen. Rick Brattin, a Republican from Harrisonville, chairs the committee and has spoken in strong support of MOScholars. His children attend Summit Christian Academy, a school that in its first three years.

Among the first bills Brattin selected for a hearing Tuesday was a , a Republican from Cape Fair, to open eligibility to students already enrolled in private schools.

In the bill’s fiscal note, the treasurer’s office warns the legislation would “significantly increase the amount of funding needed for the program.”

Currently, eligibility for MOScholars is multi-pronged.

Students with an individualized education plan, which public schools administer to students with disabilities requiring accommodations, can apply without restrictions on family income. Students who qualify for free or reduced price lunch are eligible as long as they have attended public school for at least one semester in the past year or are entering kindergarten or first grade. Siblings of MOScholars recipients are also eligible.

Heather Smith, a mother from Cass County, told the committee the expansion would help families like hers. She told them about her son, who struggled in the local public school but “thrived” with the smaller classroom size at Summit Christian Academy.

“The financial strain has been absolutely crushing to our family,” she said.

This school year, her family couldn’t afford the private school tuition. But since her son has been out of public school for over a year, he doesn’t qualify for MOScholars.

“(School) should absolutely be a parent’s choice,” Smith said. “And that choice should not bring a family so far underwater financially that there is little to no way out.”

The bill also seeks to expand eligibility to students with disabilities diagnosed by a medical provider, but it does not define disability nor specify what types of conditions would be covered.

In addition to expanding program eligibility, Hudson’s bill would require judges to allow organizations representing parents to intervene in cases challenging the MOScholars statute. Currently, EdChoice, a nonprofit organization that advocates for school vouchers and similar programs, in a to fund MOScholars.

Hudson’s bill also seeks to bar administrative rules that would place requirements on schools accepting MOScholars students.

The Missouri House is not set to move MOScholars bills early in the legislative session, with its education committee concentrating on matters affecting public schools.

Moberly Republican state Rep. Ed Lewis, the committee chairman and a former public school teacher, said in the committee’s first meeting Wednesday that he is focusing on teacher certification and retention, literacy and transparency and accountability in public education.

The committee will consider bills outside of these topics, he said, adding: “We want to make sure that we focus on those things this session to try to move education in Missouri forward.”

Some bills seek to reign in MOScholars, adding requirements for private schools to be eligible to receive program funds.

A filed by state Sen. Barbara Washington, a Democrat from Kansas City, would require charter schools and private schools accepting MOScholars funds to follow accreditation and accountability measures set by the state, among other requirements.

Similarly, a by state Rep. Mark Boyko, a Democrat from Kirkwood, private schools with MOScholars students would be required to follow safety requirements, like teaching CPR in high schools and screening for dyslexia.

“If a school is being supported with state dollars, then I think it’s important that the state takes responsibility for the safety of those students, just like they would a public school student,” Boyko told The Independent.

He filed the bill last year, but it did not get a hearing. If MOScholars legislation makes it to the full House, Boyko said, he is open to adding his legislation as an amendment.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network 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.

Well before Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed a bill last month to make New Hampshire education freedom accounts available to all income levels, school choice supporters were preparing to get the word out.

On June 10, Ayotte signed Senate bill 295, and a multi-prong awareness campaign kicked into gear.

The conservative advocacy group Americans For Prosperity NH dispatched social media ads informing New Hampshire residents that the previous income cap on the voucher-like program had been eliminated.

Supportive state senators like Victoria Sullivan, the Manchester Republican who authored the bill, began directing interested constituents to the sign-up portal for the program, which allows New Hampshire residents to receive state funds toward public and private school expenses.

And the Children’s Scholarship Fund, the nonprofit organization that administers the education freedom accounts, blasted emails to every parent, school and provider currently participating in the program to tell them about the change.

The awareness campaigns worked. Within a week of Ayotte signing the bill, the Children’s Scholarship Fund had seen 2,000 additional people apply, .

“I got inundated with emails,” Sullivan said in an interview with the Bulletin. “It just became impossible to actually respond to everybody individually. So I used X and my Facebook page to give people the information as to where they could go to fill out the application.”

And as of July 2, about 9,000 families have either completed or started an application for an education freedom account, Kate Baker Demers, the executive director of the fund, said last week. Not all of those families will finish and turn in those applications, Baker Demers said. But the numbers suggest the program could exceed lawmakers’ estimates of 7,500 students in the program next school year.

For newly eligible families, there was incentive to move quickly. While the law removes the income limits for the program, which previously sat at 350% of the federal poverty level, lawmakers included an annual cap on enrollees to mitigate some of the anticipated costs. That cap applied to families making more than 350%; the sooner those families submitted an application, the sooner they could guarantee themselves a spot.

Supporters of the program say the large surge in interest validates the Legislature’s push to make the program open to all income levels.

Democrat decries funding to wealthy

But Democrats, who have opposed the education freedom account program from the beginning, say the preliminary numbers show that the program is already likely to exceed its budget. Democrats vociferously opposed Sullivan’s bill during the session, arguing that people in higher income brackets should not receive state support for private schools.

“The voucher scam proponents really underestimated the impact on purpose, I think, deliberately to deceive legislators to vote for the bill and to deceive Granite Staters,” said Rep. David Luneau, a Hopkinton Democrat.

As part of making the program universal, lawmakers imposed a 10,000 student cap in the program’s first year, though a number of categories of students are not subject to that cap. It is unclear whether the state will hit that cap this year, though Baker Demers is dubious. She has predicted 8,500 voucher recipients in the coming school year once all applications are submitted and approved.

Supporters of the program say the large number of applications this summer are a reflection of the high number of families who wanted to use education freedom accounts but were just barely outside of the income limits.

Sullivan said many parents of children with disabilities, who have been dissatisfied with the individualized education plans at their public school, have expressed excitement at the opportunity to explore alternative options with some state funding.

“I knew there were a lot of families that were just outside of the income cap last time, but there have been a lot of families with kids in special education that are not having their needs met in the public school that have reached out to me about it,” she said. “So that part was surprising to me.”

And Sarah Scott, field director of Americans For Prosperity NH, said the removal of the income limit could also be a boon for single parents.

“Single parents often have rough lives and the kids have struggled,” she said. “…A lot of those families weren’t eligible because when you look at 350% of the federal poverty line for a family of two ($74,025), it’s very low.”

More outreach planned

While the outreach in the last month has been relatively successful, proponents say many eligible families still likely do not know about the program. Scott said the online ads, for which the organization has paid about $10,000 so far, are designed to reach families who may not follow state politics closely enough to know about the change.

“I think that prior to June 10, most of the families that were aware of the program were the people that are following what’s going on in their town in local politics,” she said. “Now I think we’re definitely seeing more and more of those families that are so wrapped up in, you know, driving their kids to afternoon sports, taking them to tutoring or you know Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts.”

Sullivan added that though she is a believer in the education freedom accounts, which her children have received, private school or homeschooling may not be the right choice for many families.

“I don’t think it’s a program for every family,” she said. “A lot of families are happy with their public schools, and I wouldn’t want to be pushing people into an education that wasn’t right for them.”

The total tally of education freedom account students in the 2025 to 2026 school year will not be known for months. Families are allowed to apply throughout the year, but the bulk of applications happen before mid July. The Department of Education releases a report based on those numbers in November.

Luneau says he and other Democrats will continue to campaign against the education freedom accounts to turn voters against the idea of giving state funds to wealthy families. How wealthy those families are will not be clear. The families who say they are above the 350% poverty level do not need to submit income verification, or state their income at all.

And Luneau says he would also like more accountability over where the money is going and how the program vendors are approved.

“This is a program that very quickly is going to be over $100 million a year, over a billion bucks — billion with a capital B — over a 10-year period,” Luneau said. “And that’s a billion dollars that isn’t going to be helping cities and towns or reducing property taxes. Essentially it’s a billion dollars that is going to be sitting on top of everyone’s property taxes.”

Baker Demers and Scott counter that demand for the program will likely level out, and they say the state will be able to sustain the funding levels.

“I think that in the first couple of weeks, there’s always a lot of talk about it,” she said. “…But over the course of the next year, I think a lot of the families that really want to take advantage of it will be aware of it and will already have taken the steps to do that.”

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com.

In submitting her updated budget proposal in March, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs lamented the rising costs of the state’s school vouchers program that directs public dollars to pay private school tuition.

Characterizing vouchers as an “,” Hobbs said the state could spend more than $1 billion subsidizing private education in the upcoming fiscal year. The Democratic governor said those expenses could crowd out other budget priorities, including disability programs and pay raises for firefighters and state troopers.

It’s a dilemma that some budget experts fear will become more common nationwide as the costs of school choice measures mount across the states, reaching billions of dollars each year.

“School vouchers are increasingly eating up state budgets in a way that I don’t think is sustainable long term,” said Whitney Tucker, director of state fiscal policy research at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a think tank that advocates for left-leaning tax policies.

Vouchers and scholarship programs, which use taxpayer money to cover private school tuition, are part of the wider school choice movement that also includes charter schools and other alternatives to public schools.

Opponents have long warned about vouchers draining resources from public education as students move from public schools to private ones. But research into several programs has shown many voucher recipients already were enrolled in private schools. That means universal vouchers could drive up costs by creating two parallel education systems — both funded by taxpayers.

In Arizona, state officials reported most private school students receiving vouchers in the first two years of the expanded program were not previously enrolled in public schools. In fiscal year 2024, more than half the state’s 75,000 voucher recipients were previously enrolled in private schools or were being homeschooled.

“Vouchers don’t shift costs — they add costs,” Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University who studies the issue, recently told Stateline. “Most voucher recipients were already in private schools, meaning states are paying for education they previously didn’t have to fund.”

Voucher proponents, though, say those figures . Arizona, like other states with recent expansions, previously had more modest voucher programs. So some kids who were already enrolled in private schools could have already been receiving state subsidies.

In addition to increasing competition, supporters say the programs can actually save taxpayer dollars by delivering education at a lower overall cost than traditional public schools.

One thing is certain: With a record number of students receiving subsidies to attend private schools, vouchers are quickly creating budget concerns for some state leaders.

The rising costs of school choice measures come after years of deep cuts to income taxes in many states, leaving them with less money to spend. An end of pandemic-era aid and potential looming cuts to federal support also have created widespread uncertainty about state budgets.

“We’re seeing a number of things that are creating a sort of perfect storm from a fiscal perspective in the states,” said Tucker, of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Last year, Arizona leaders waded through an estimated $1.3 billion budget shortfall. Budget experts said the voucher program was responsible for of that deficit.

A new universal voucher program in Texas is expected to cost $1 billion over its next two-year budget cycle — a figure that could balloon to nearly $5 billion by 2030, according to a legislative fiscal note.

Earlier this year, Wyoming Republican Gov. Mark Gordon signed a bill expanding the state’s voucher program. But last week, he acknowledged his own “substantial concerns” about the state’s ability to fund vouchers and its public education obligations under the constitution.

“I think the legislature’s got a very tall task to understand how they’re going to be able to fund all of these things,” he in an interview with WyoFile.

Voucher proponents, who have been active at the state level for years, are gaining new momentum with support from President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans.

In January, federal agencies to allow states, tribes and military families to access federal money for private K-12 education through education savings accounts, voucher programs or tax credits.

Last week, Republicans on the House Ways and Means Committee voted in favor of making available over the next four years for a federal school voucher program. Part of broader work on a bill to extend Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, the measure would need a simple majority in the House and the Senate to pass.

Martin Lueken, the director of the Fiscal Research and Education Center at EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice measures, argues can actually deliver savings to taxpayers.

Lueken said vouchers are not to blame for state budget woes. He said public school systems for years have increased spending faster than inflation. And he noted that school choice measures make up a small share of overall state spending — nationally about 0.3% of total state expenditures in states with school choice, he said.

“Public schooling remains one of the largest line items in state budgets,” he said in an interview. “They are still the dominant provider of K-12 education, and certainly looking at the education pie, they still receive the lion’s share.

“It’s not a choice problem. I would say that it’s a problem with the status quo and the public school system,” he said.

Washington, D.C., and 35 states offer some school choice programs, according to EdChoice. That includes 18 states with voucher programs so expansive that virtually all students can participate regardless of income.

But Lueken said framing vouchers as a new entitlement program is misleading. That’s because all students, even the wealthiest, have always been entitled to a public education — whether they’ve chosen to attend free public schools or private ones that charge tuition.

“At the end of the day, the thing that matters most above dollars are students and families,” he said. “Research is clear that competition works. Public schools have responded in very positive ways when they are faced with increased competitive pressure from choice programs.”

Public school advocates say funding both private and public schools is untenable.

In Wisconsin, Republican lawmakers are considering a that would alter the funding structure for vouchers, potentially putting more strain on the state’s general fund.

The state spent about $629 million on its four voucher programs during the 2024-2025 school year, according to the Wisconsin Association of School Business Officials, which represents employees in school district finance, human resources and leadership.

The association warns proposed legislation could exacerbate problems with the “unaffordable parallel school systems” in place now by shifting more private schooling costs from parents of those students to state taxpayers at large.

Such expansion “could create the conditions for even greater funding challenges for Wisconsin’s traditional public schools and the state budget as a whole,” the association’s research director in a paper on the issue.

In Arizona, Hobbs originally sought to the universal voucher program — a nonstarter in the Republican-controlled legislature. She has since proposed by placing income limits that would disqualify the state’s wealthiest families.

That idea also faced Republican opposition.

Legislators are now pushing to enshrine access to vouchers in the state constitution.

Marisol Garcia, president of the Arizona Education Association, the state’s 20,000-member teachers union, noted that vouchers and public education funds are both sourced from the general fund.

“So it almost immediately started to impact public services,” she said of the universal voucher program.

While the union says vouchers have led to cutbacks of important resources such as counselors in public schools, Garcia said the sweeping program also affects the state’s ability to fund other services like housing, transportation and health care.

“Every budget cycle becomes where can we cut in order to essentially feed this out-of-control program?” she said.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

CONCORD — After voting to cut off debate on the latest Education Freedom Account expansion bill, the House Republican majority approved a bill that would do away with an income cap beginning July 1.

Under the bill, there would be a 10,000 student cap on the program that has grown in four years from 1,635 students to about 5,400 students and in cost from $8 million to over $30 million.

Currently there is an income cap of 350 percent of the federal poverty level — or $112,525 for a family of four — on the program that would be eliminated next school year under Senate Bill 295, which the House passed Thursday.

House Bill 115, which is now before the Senate, would eliminate the cap beginning with the 2026-2027 school year, and would have a cap of 400 percent next school year, or $128,600 for a family of four.

Deputy Majority Leader Joe Sweeney, R-Salem, moved the previous question as the bill came to the floor which cuts off debate on the issue.

The House has debated the issue at length this session and in the past, he said.

But Rep. Laura Telerski, D-Nashua, opposed the motion saying the issue of school vouchers is extremely important to the public and voters want to hear what their representatives have to say about it, and urged her colleagues to vote against “the silencing of the debate.”

But the House voted 185-155 to cut off debate before it began.

Under the bill, if enrollment in the program reaches 90 percent of the student limit, the cap would be increased by 25 percent or to 12,500 the following school year.

The bill also sets up a priority system if the cap is reached before the expansion.

The priorities would be:

1. Student currently enrolled in the program,

2. Sibling of an enrolled student,

3. Student with disabilities, and

4. Student with family income less than 350 percent of the federal poverty guidelines.

Rep. David Luneau, D-Hopkinton, tried to amend the bill to require a performance audit currently being done by the Legislative Budget Assistant’s Office, be completed and the organization administering the program have “a clean bill of health” before there could be any expansion of the program.

He noted a sample audit several years ago found that 12 out of 50 applications were approved in error by the Children’s Scholarship Fund that administers the program.

The amendment would force the company to comply with “The laws and rules we have passed in this body and to take what we are doing seriously,” Luneau said.

But House Education Funding Chair Rep. Rick Ladd, R-Haverhill, called the amendment another trap and delaying tactic to implementing the EFA program, noting no date has been set for the audit’s release.

And he said most performance audits are 120 pages with many findings that would have to be resolved before the program could be expanded.

The amendment was defeated on a 199-165 vote.

Rep. Hope Damon, D-Croydon, urged her colleagues to defeat the bill.

“(We should not be) expanding the EFA voucher program to a cost of $100 million when we lack adequate revenues to fund essential needs of New Hampshire citizens, such as Medicaid, the state employee retirement system, affordable housing, and corrections safe staffing,” Damon said. “We should fund our impressive university system that benefits our economy rather than paying stipends to wealthy families. And most importantly the public statewide has overwhelmingly and repeatedly opposed this Free State marketing scheme.”

But Ladd said the program is not a voucher program or a voucher scam and not a recruiting tool for people moving into New Hampshire, but for parents justified in wanting alternatives if their child is struggling, or being bullied or not being challenged in a “one-size-fits-all situation.”
The bill was initially approved on a 188-176 vote and was sent to the House Finance Committee for review before coming back for a final vote.

House Bill 115 has had a public hearing before the Senate Education Committee but has yet to come before the Senate for a vote.

The House also approved Senate Bill 292 which would establish a floor under state aid for special education costs that exceed three-and-a-half times the average per pupil cost the previous year. School districts have been receiving prorated state reimbursement for those costs under what was the catastrophic aid program that have been about 50 percent of their expenditures.

The bill would require that school districts receive at least 80 percent of their special education costs that reach the catastrophic level.

The bill was referred to House Finance for review before a final vote is taken on the bill.

Garry Rayno may be reached at garry.rayno@yahoo.com.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.

was originally reported by Nadra Nittle of .

“A direct assault on the Texas public education system.”

That’s how social justice groups like the Texas Freedom Network are describing the passage of a bill that would create a $1 billion school voucher program in the state. The Texas House passed Senate Bill 2 early Thursday, with support from Gov. Greg Abbott, who has championed school vouchers. These taxpayer-funded subsidies divert money away from public schools, allowing families to use them to cover their children’s tuition at private or religious schools.

“This is part of a coordinated strategy to dismantle public education statewide and nationally, since and told them that they had to vote yes on this voucher scheme,” said Emily Witt, spokesperson for the Texas Freedom Network, a grassroots organization of religious and community leaders. “Republicans have done a very coordinated job of framing this as something that it’s not. It’s certainly not ‘choice.’ It’s going to really devastate a lot of public schools and rural communities here in Texas.”

The voucher bill’s passage has been characterized as a win for both Abbott and Trump. Abbott tried unsuccessfully to get voucher legislation passed in 2023. Trump, in January, issued an directing the education secretary to explore ways to route federal funding to states and families interested in school choice initiatives, which give students the option to attend their preferred public, private, charter or religious school. Critics of vouchers, a controversial way to facilitate school choice, worry that they take away valuable resources from public schools. They also argue that private schools may exclude students with disabilities or who are LGBTQ+ or have LGBTQ+ parents. Students from low-income or rural areas may also struggle to access private school, as may those from certain ethnic groups or religious backgrounds. The voucher program does not guarantee students admission to private schools.

The approval of a voucher program in the nation’s second most populous state could create a ripple effect across the United States, where the voucher movement has gained momentum in recent years in places like Arizona, Arkansas, Florida and Wisconsin — . The Texas bill next goes to the state Senate, where lawmakers in each chamber are expected to work out the disparities in their voucher plans such as how much money participants should get and which participants should be prioritized.

“It is absurd for Gov. Abbott and his pro-voucher allies to claim that a diversion of $1 billion in tax funds to private schools over the next budget cycle will not hurt our underfunded public schools, where the vast majority of our students will remain,” Ovidia Molina, president of education labor organization the Texas State Teachers Association, said in a statement. “That voucher drain will increase to $3 billion by 2028 and more than $4 billion by 2030 if this voucher bill becomes law, the Legislative Budget Board projects.”

In Texas, most students attend public schools, with an . Rural communities overwhelmingly attend public schools because of the dearth of private schools in such areas. Accordingly, voters in the country have typically opposed school vouchers, perceived as vehicles to help families in cities send their kids to private school. Even with the school voucher program, experts do not expect private schools to be inundated with new students from public schools.

“Most kids are still going to have to be served by public schools,” Witt said. “We do know that in other states where vouchers have passed, that most of the kids using those vouchers already were in private schools.”

While vouchers have been promoted as a way to help low-income families choose a quality education for their children, the subsidies often aren’t large enough to cover the tuition and fees associated with a private school education. The school voucher program the Texas House just approved is generous, as it will give families who qualify . The average K-12 private school tuition in Texas is over , with tuition for schools that and elite institutions reaching as high as $40,000. Parents would need to make up the difference for tuition costs that vouchers don’t cover, a move critics of the subsidies say is out of reach for disadvantaged families.

“So it’s still going to benefit mostly wealthy families,” Witt said. “Let’s say that it does cover the cost of tuition. It’s not going to cover extracurriculars. It’s not going to cover transportation. Private schools are not required to offer free transportation to and from school like public schools are, and they also don’t have to accept every child.”

Religious institutions, she said, could turn away students who don’t belong to the faith affiliated with the school. A private school could accept a student with a disability only to discharge them later if the school doesn’t have the resources to educate that child or is no longer interested in doing so.

“They could essentially reject a child that they feel just doesn’t meet the culture of their school,” Witt continued. “That could be because a child comes from a low-income family. It could be because they’re not White. It could be because they’re LGBTQ or their parents are LGBTQ or not married.”

Private schools also don’t have to use standardized tests, like the State of Texas Assessments of Academic Readiness (STAAR), used in public schools to track student progress. The GOP-run Texas House, she said, rejected an amendment that would have required private schools to use standardized testing to measure student outcomes just as public schools do.

“I don’t know how we’ll see if this program works and how it benefits kids, especially kids with disabilities,” she said.

House Republicans tabled 44 amendments to the legislation, including one that would have led to a referendum on school vouchers in November, effectively blocking voters from deciding the issue.

The bill is an additional blow as public schools slash programs and raise class sizes under a budget crunch, Molina said in her statement.

“Texas already spends more than $5,000 less per student than the national average, ranking Texas 46^th among the states and the District of Columbia,” she said. “The school finance bill also approved by the House will not come close to ending the state’s financial neglect of public education. The House’s $395 increase in the basic allotment, which hasn’t been increased in six years, will provide only a third of what is needed to cover districts’ losses from inflation alone.”

Supporters of the voucher program may not be happy with it a year from now, Witt predicts. In 2022, Arizona passed its universal school voucher program. It covers expenses related to private school tuition, homeschooling and related academic needs, but now the program faces a backlash as the costs associated with it have led to questions about oversight and funding for public schools.

“Republicans have sold people a lie,” Witt said. “They’ve said repeatedly that it won’t harm public schools, and there’s just no way that it won’t. And I do think that’s their goal. I genuinely think that their goal is to eliminate public education, and this is the first step there. A year from now, people are going to see that the neighborhood schools in their communities are shuttering or having to cut resources for students, and they’re going to be really upset. And I think that there’s going to be hell to pay at the ballot box.”

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 .

Gov. Mark Gordon lauded a controversial universal school voucher bill Tuesday morning before signing it into law hours later.

 will represent a significant expansion of school choice in the state, offering families $7,000 per child annually  for K-12 non-public-school costs like tuition or tutoring. The scholarship will also offer money for pre-K costs, but only to income-qualified families who are at or below 250% of the federal poverty level.

The legislation has sparked a deluge of constituent feedback, according to lawmakers, both from supporters of school choice and from critics who call the measure an unconstitutional bill that will erode the quality of public education in the state. 

Gordon had himself  last year, citing constitutional concerns. However, he lauded this version as a “remarkable achievement for Wyoming.” 

“I’m very excited that we’re not only going to be able to expand K-12 choices to be accompanied by careful oversight and … ensure that all families have access to the best educational options,” Gordon said, “but as we pursue these opportunities, I want to make sure that we uphold the strength of Wyoming’s public schools.” 

Bill journey

The law will transform and expand an existing state education savings account program that gives public money to income-qualified families to help them pay for pre-K programs, homeschooling costs or private school tuition. The education savings account program was passed last year and began accepting applicants in January. 

House Bill 199 sponsor Rep. Ocean Andrew, R-Laramie, called the 2024 ESA program much too narrow. His new bill proposed to offer up to $7,000 per student regardless of a family’s economic needs. Along with making the program universal, in its original form, the bill dropped: the preschool component, a requirement that participating students take statewide assessments or similar nationwide tests and a requirement that providers be certified by the Department of Education. 

The bill has been transformed substantially as it travelled through the Legislature; some 26 amendments were brought, including 11 that passed. Along with changing the name from the Wyoming Freedom Scholarship Act, the final version reinstated the assessment requirements, the provider certification and the inclusion of pre-K, though families have to show income need to qualify for that portion. 

It spurred much debate as it traveled through the body, triggering discussion on the state of public education in Wyoming, the constitutionality of the program and the importance of early childhood education. Many lawmakers asked what the rush is, given that Wyoming’s existing ESA program is only two months old.

Those who say the new law is unconstitutional cite Article 7, Section 8 of the Wyoming Constitution, which reads: “Nor shall any portion of any public school fund ever be used to support or assist any private school, or any school, academy, seminary, college or other institution of learning controlled by any church or sectarian organization or religious denomination whatsoever.”

When Gordon partially vetoed the education savings account bill last year, he pointed specifically to constitutional concerns when he narrowed eligibility to families at or below 150% of the federal poverty level. That referenced the constitutional language that prohibits the state from giving money to individuals “except for the necessary support of the poor.”

On Tuesday, he said he’s taken the last year to consider the issue, “and I realize that that will be sort of handled by our courts” if the question is asked. “In the meantime, I think it’s important to remember that we have all been working to try to expand school choice, and this gives that opportunity for parents.”

This comes less than a week after a judge ruled in favor of the Wyoming Education Association and eight school districts in a court case that’s anticipated to have major implications for the state. Laramie County District Court Judge Peter Froelicher the state’s public schools and ordered the state to fix that.

Praise and worry 

House Bill 199 drew loads of attention — both from local advocacy groups vowing to fight it and from out-of-state groups . President Donald Trump even weighed in when he gave kudos to Senate President Bo Biteman for helping to advance the legislation.

“This would be an incredible Victory for Wyoming students and families,” Trump wrote on Truth Social while the measure was still awaiting Senate votes. “Every Member of the Wyoming Senate should vote for HB 199. I will be watching!”

In Wyoming, the hard-right House Freedom Caucus celebrated the signing of the bill, crediting Rep. Andrew for its success. “Finally, we can say that in Wyoming, we support students, not systems,” a Wyoming Freedom Caucus Facebook post read. 

Many in the detractor camp, meanwhile, decried Gordon’s action. 

“Particularly in light of the extraordinary opposition to the voucher program by the majority of Wyoming’s residents, we are disappointed by Gov. Gordon’s decision to sign HB199 into law,” the Wyoming Education Association said in a statement. The association also questioned the decision’s wisdom following so closely on the heels of the strongly worded ruling. 

“The district court’s ruling from only days ago confirmed that the state is not funding public education to the level as it is required, and the choice to take taxpayer dollars to support a voucher program is a curiously poor decision,” the WEA said. 

The organization warned that similar laws in other states have proven these types of programs to be vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse and ineffective in improving student performance.

“Unconstitutional universal voucher programs serve as a taxpayer-funded welfare handout to wealthy families whose communities have access to such schools and whose students already attend private schools,” the WEA said. 

During his press conference Tuesday, Gordon characterized the ESA bill passed last year as a generic program. 

“I know it’s a big national agenda item,” he said of school choice. “But it’s important to remember that this is Wyoming’s way of doing it. This was created and crafted by people here in Wyoming, not somebody from out of state … and it really meets the needs specifically of Wyoming.”

Reporter Maggie Mullen contributed to this article.