Neither of the two “school choice” bills making their way through the halls of the Texas Legislature would do much to solve the state’s education issues.
We do believe there is room in our state for a program that helps break a cycle that has kept too many low-income kids stuck in failing schools that can’t deliver a quality education. Generations have been shut out of opportunities for a better future.
If lawmakers were considering a program to address that problem, we would likely support it. But they aren’t. Instead, the Legislature is gearing up to pass an expansive program that’s far more likely to serve as a tax break for people who already have strong education options.
The Texas Senate has already approved such a program, and the House has proposed a similar bill, albeit with a few key differences. It seems as sure as ever that Texas will get the voucher program, referred to as education savings accounts, Gov. Greg Abbott has long promised.
Here’s how that will work if present proposals move forward.
Both the House and the Senate have set aside $1 billion in fiscal year 2027 for the program, contingent on ESAs passing. The state comptroller would hire up to five private contractors to administer the program. Those contractors would be responsible for processing applications, helping to handle ESA money, verifying proper use of funds, and other functions.
So who would be eligible for an ESA? True to the “universal school choice” moniker, any student who is eligible to enroll in a Texas public school would be. But there won’t be space for all Texan children, who number more than 5 million between public and private schools.
Officials estimate that in its first year, the program would serve around 100,000 students. But what happens in the likely event that there are more applications than available slots? It depends which chamber of the Legislature you ask.
The Senate bill would set aside up to 80% of available slots for disabled or “low-income” students who attended public school the year prior.
Senate lawmakers very generously define “low income” as up to five times the federal poverty level. For a family of four, that’s roughly $160,000 in annual household income.
The remaining spaces would be distributed by lottery regardless of income.
Now that’s pretty universal, and it’s a big part of why we can’t support this bill. A serious education savings account program would be more targeted toward people who most need the help and who could most benefit from more choice.
The House proposal gets a little bit closer to that. It would prioritize most students with disabilities, followed by students from a family with an annual household income at or below two times the federal poverty line. That’s roughly $64,000 per year for a family of four.
Next would be students from families who are between two and five times the federal poverty line, followed by students who are from families at or above five times the poverty line.
That’s better than the Senate plan that, to us, adds up to a tax break for people already able to afford private school. But neither proposal takes into account whether the student applying comes from a failing school district. Both should.
Wondering how much each student would receive in each ESA? The House and Senate diverge here, too.
The Senate proposal would allow up to $10,000 per private school student, $11,500 per special-needs student at a private school, $2,000 per homeschool student and $2,500 per special-needs homeschool student.
The House proposal uses a formula to determine the ESA amounts. Each student would receive a percentage of combined state and local per-pupil funding. Special-needs students would receive the same amount plus an additional sum based on their individual needs.
Since the final numbers aren’t available yet, it’s unclear how much money per ESA that would be, said Mandy Drogin of the conservative Texas Public Policy Foundation. Lawmakers have previously said, however, that the average ESA amount in 2026 would probably be about $10,000, this newspaper reported. Since special education ESAs are individualized, it’s impossible to say how much each student would get, but the House bill sets a $30,000 cap.
How will the state know how much money a special-needs student will get under the House proposal? The bill would require public schools to conduct a special-needs evaluation of a child when a parent requests one. That would add unfunded administrative costs to already overburdened schools.
How can parents spend ESA money? Approved uses are broad, including school tuition, textbooks, educational therapy, uniforms and others. Parents would be able to make purchases through a kind of online marketplace that offers various approved services and items, Drogin said. Participants would never keep any of the ESA money in their personal accounts.
Both bills have transparency and oversight measures built in, including auditing. That’s good, because keeping up is going to be difficult.
But what’s lacking here is a real plan to address the real problem: low-income kids stuck in failing schools. This plan is going to affect about 2% of Texas’ K-12 children in the first year. Of those, how many will be children who would have gone to private school anyway? Quite a few, we expect.
That’s nothing more than an income transfer to better-off families.
Nothing about this adds up to expanded choice. It won’t improve outcomes for enough people who need a better opportunity. And that’s a real shame when Texas could have had a school choice plan that actually changed lives.
We welcome your thoughts in a letter to the editor. See the guidelines and submit your letter here. If you have problems with the form, you can submit via email at letters@dallasnews.com
