House Vs. Senate: Competing Plans For Texas School Vouchers

In the ongoing debate over educational reform in Texas, two legislative proposals—House Bill 3 (HB3) and Senate Bill 2 (SB2)—have emerged as focal points. Both aim to introduce education savings accounts (ESAs), a form of school voucher program, yet they diverge significantly in their approach to funding, prioritization of applicants, and accommodations for students with disabilities. 

These differences set the stage for a legislative showdown as lawmakers work to reconcile these proposals into a cohesive plan.

Funding Mechanisms

One of the most notable distinctions between HB3 and SB2 lies in how they propose to allocate funds to students. HB3 ties the per-student benefits to public education funding, offering families an amount equal to 85% of what public schools receive per student. This approach ensures that the funding fluctuates with changes in public education budgets. In contrast, SB2 proposes a fixed amount of $10,000 per student, regardless of changes in public school funding.

Rep. Brad Buckley, a Salado Republican and the bill’s author, said the House’s funding approach is designed to ease concerns about education savings accounts draining public school resources, as first reported by The Texas Tribune.

“It was important to have that connection—we never wanted ESAs to receive more funding than public schools,” said Buckley, who chairs the House Public Education Committee.

Under HB3, the funds can be utilized for a variety of education-related expenses. Qualifying expenses include:

• Tuition and Fees: Payments for private school tuition and associated fees.
• Educational Therapies and Services: Costs for therapies or services that are not covered by government benefits or private insurance, supporting children with specific educational needs.
• Academic Assessments: Fees related to academic assessments that help gauge a student’s learning progress.
• Public School Services: Fees for classes or educational services offered by public schools that do not contribute to the school’s average daily attendance.

Prioritization of Applicants

Both bills aim to prioritize students with disabilities and those from low-income families, but they differ in execution. HB3 employs a detailed ranking system, giving precedence to students with disabilities and families with lower incomes. It categorizes families based on income levels relative to the federal poverty line, ensuring that those with the greatest financial need receive priority. SB2, however, reserves spots primarily for students with disabilities and those from households earning up to 500% of the federal poverty level, without a detailed ranking system.

The House bill prioritizes families for education savings accounts in the following order:

1. Students with disabilities from families earning up to 500% of the federal poverty level (around $156,000 for a family of four).
2. Families earning up to 200% of the poverty level (approximately $62,400 for a family of four).
3. Families earning between 200% and 500% of the poverty level.
4. Families earning above 500% of the poverty level.

Rep. James Talarico criticized the decision to exclude an income cap from the education savings account proposal, arguing it could funnel taxpayer dollars to wealthy families already able to afford private school. He pointed out that in other states, voucher programs have primarily benefited higher-income families whose children were already in private education.

“We asked Chairman Buckley to include an income cap to prevent millionaires and billionaires from draining public funds,” Talarico said at a news conference. “That provision is missing from the bill. We’re ready to fight these measures in committee and on the floor, exposing this scam for what it is.”

Accommodations for Students with Disabilities

HB3 and SB2 also differ in their provisions for students with disabilities. HB3 allows for potentially up to $30,000 per year for these students, reflecting the additional resources required for special education services. SB2, on the other hand, offers an additional $1,500 on top of the baseline $10,000 for students with disabilities. Furthermore, HB3 includes a provision for private school parents to request public school evaluations for special education eligibility, mandating that these evaluations occur within 45 days—a requirement not present in SB2.

The introduction of these bills comes after previous attempts to establish ESAs failed two years ago. With both chambers now presenting their proposals, pro-voucher lawmakers are tasked with ironing out differences to deliver a final draft to Governor Greg Abbott, a staunch advocate for school choice.

The House’s approach, dubbed the “Texas two-step plan” by House Speaker Dustin Burrows, aims to balance increased public school funding with the introduction of ESAs, a strategy that has sparked debate among educators and policymakers.

“Families deserve options, schools deserve resources,” Burrows told reporters Thursday. “One without the other leaves Texas short.”