The Texas Senate Education Committee has taken a significant step forward by voting to advance school voucher legislation that will be presented for a full vote in the Senate. This decision follows a lengthy public testimony session where concerns were raised about whether the proposed legislation would genuinely prioritize low-income families and children with disabilities.
The committee, led by a 9-2 Republican majority, moved the bill forward just days before Governor Greg Abbott’s upcoming State of the State address scheduled for Sunday. Abbott is anticipated to highlight the school voucher initiative as a key legislative goal and is expected to classify it as an “emergency item.” This designation would fast-track the proposal, enabling lawmakers to push it through during the first 60 days of the current legislative session, which commenced earlier this month.
Lt. Governor Dan Patrick remarked during an event on Tuesday that the Senate could pass the bill as soon as the following Wednesday, contingent upon Abbott’s declaration of the emergency status. The House of Representatives has yet to introduce its priority voucher bill, but Abbott remains optimistic about garnering sufficient support to see the measure through to passage this year.
During discussions among Texas senators and invited guests at the Capitol, the focus largely revolved around the effectiveness of the proposed voucher program in aiding low-income families and children with disabilities. Senate Bill 2, presented by Republican Senator Brandon Creighton from Conroe, aims to establish an education savings account program that would allocate $10,000 annually per student to assist with tuition at accredited private schools, as well as cover additional expenses like textbooks, transportation, and therapy. For children with disabilities, the legislation stipulates a funding amount of $11,500 per year, while home-schooling families that participate would receive at least $2,000 per student.
The program would allow any child eligible for, or currently enrolled in, public school—including those in pre-K programs—to apply. Furthermore, families with children already attending private institutions would also have the opportunity to participate. A lottery system would be employed to prioritize students from low-income households and those with disabilities if the demand for savings accounts surpasses the available funding.
However, Democrats on the Texas Senate Education Committee expressed skepticism during the hearing, questioning whether the bill would truly benefit underserved students. The lengthy discussion, which lasted around eight hours and included testimony from over 100 individuals, showcased proponents of the voucher system alongside many skeptics who raised concerns about its potential repercussions for local communities.
Two Democratic lawmakers expressed their disapproval of the bill, primarily criticizing the high income threshold that designates a family as “low-income” at 500% of the federal poverty level. This figure substantially exceeds the 130% threshold used by both federal and state governments to classify students as “economically disadvantaged” and eligible for free lunch programs.
In the last legislative session, a similar Senate voucher bill would have prioritized families earning at or below 500% of the poverty line if demand exceeded available funding, but it restricted only 30% of spots to those families, favoring students eligible for free or reduced-price lunch.
If the current proposal were to be enacted as written, a two-person household earning about $105,750 a year would meet the criteria for being classified as low-income. The bill aims to allocate 80% of the program’s available positions for households earning up to that annual income, in addition to students with disabilities.
Moreover, the legislation mandates that organizations assisting with program administration inform parents that private schools are not required to adhere to the same federal and state regulations regarding special education, such as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). This federal statute has historically provided essential protections for families, encouraging thorough evaluations and ensuring that students with disabilities receive necessary educational services.
During the hearing, Senator José Menéndez expressed his concerns regarding the bill’s high income threshold, suggesting that it lacks a clear prioritization of the most underserved families. He also sought clarification about the potential for private schools to deny admission based on a student’s disability. Similarly, Senator Royce West voiced apprehensions about the bill’s broad definition of low-income households, highlighting the historical context of voucher programs in the South and noting that many beneficiaries of such programs tend to come from wealthier backgrounds already able to afford private education.
In response, Creighton argued that evaluating only recent demographic data on similar voucher programs might not accurately reflect their impact, especially since some have been in existence for many years. He justified the 500% income threshold as a means to include essential community members raising families.
Creighton emphasized that the intention behind the bill’s extensive income eligibility criteria is to make education savings accounts accessible to a diverse range of families, particularly those facing challenges in public schools. He acknowledged parental concerns that have driven many to seek alternative educational options, including instances of bullying.
Concerning the possibility of private schools rejecting students with disabilities, Creighton indicated that admissions decisions must align with the offerings of the respective school. He clarified the distinction between reasonable rejections and discriminatory practices, warning that the latter could carry significant implications for schools that seek tax-exempt status.
Senator Mayes Middleton expressed his belief that parents would not enroll their children with disabilities in private institutions that do not accommodate their needs, and he predicted that the bill would foster the establishment of more private schools with a focus on special education.
Creighton affirmed this outlook, emphasizing his optimism about the potential growth of educational opportunities for children with varied learning needs.
