Two legislative proposals (House Bill 3 (HB3) and Senate Bill 2 (SB2)) emerged as focuses in the ongoing debate on education reform in Texas. Both aim to implement educational savings accounts (ESAs), a form of school voucher programs, but they are significantly more likely to raise funds, prioritize applicants, and approach accommodation for students with disabilities. Distributed to.
These differences serve as the stage for legislative showdowns as lawmakers work to harmonize these proposals with cohesive plans.
Funding mechanism
One of the most notable distinctions between HB3 and SB2 is the way in which it is proposed to allocate funds to students. HB3 links per student profits to public education funding, providing families with an equivalent amount of 85% of what public schools receive per student. This approach ensures that funds fluctuate with changes in public education budgets. In contrast, SB2 is proposing a fixed amount of $10,000 per student, regardless of changes in public school funding.
Rep. Brad Buckley, a Republican Salado and author of the bill, said the House’s funding approach to alleviating concerns about education savings accounts that emit public school resources, as the Texas Tribune first reported, It said it was designed.
“It was important to have that connection. We didn’t want the ESA to receive more funds than public schools,” said Buckley, chair of the House Public Education Committee.
At HB3, funds can be used for a variety of education-related expenses. The qualification fees are as follows:
Tuition and Fees: Payment of tuition and related fees for private schools. Educational Therapy and Services: Support children with specific educational needs, costs of treatments or services not covered by government benefits or private insurance. Academic assessment: Fees related to academic assessments that help measure student learning progress. Public School Services: Fees for classes or educational services offered by public schools that do not contribute to the average daily attendance of the school.
Prioritizing Applicants
Both bills aim to prioritize students with disabilities and students from low-income families, but their implementation is different. HB3 employs a detailed ranking system, prioritizing students with disabilities and families with low incomes. Classify families based on income levels compared to the federal poverty line, ensuring that people with the greatest financial needs are given priority. However, SB2 reserves spots primarily for students with disabilities and students in households who earn up to 500% of federal poverty levels without a detailed ranking system.
The House bill places priority on families in the following order for education savings accounts:
Disabled students from families who have achieved 500% of federal poverty levels (approximately $156,000 for a family of four). A family that earns up to 200% of the poverty level (approximately $62,400 for a family of four). Families earn 200% to 500% of the poverty level. Families exceeding 500% of the poverty level.
Rep. James Tarico criticized the decision to exclude the income cap from the educational savings account proposal, claiming that taxpayer dollars could be poured into wealthy families who could already afford private schools. He noted that in other states voucher programs primarily benefit high-income families whose children are already in private education.
“We asked Chair Buckley to include an income cap to prevent billionaires and billionaires from ejecting public funds,” Tarico said at a press conference. “That provision is missing from the bill. The committee and the floor are ready to fight these measures, revealing this fraud.”
Accommodation for students with disabilities
HB3 and SB2 also have different regulations for students with disabilities. HB3 is potentially possible for these students up to $30,000 per year, reflecting the additional resources needed for special education services. Meanwhile, SB2 offers an additional $1,500 for students with disabilities, along with a baseline of $10,000. Additionally, HB3 includes provisions requiring private school parents to assess public schools regarding eligibility for special education, requiring that these assessments occur within 45 days. This is a requirement that does not exist in SB2.
The introduction of these bills comes after previous attempts to establish an ESA two years ago failed. With both Chambers presenting proposals, Pro-Voucher lawmakers are tasked with resolving the differences to get the final draft to Governor Greg Abbott, a solid advocate for school selection.
The House approach, dubbed the “Texas Two-Stage Plan,” by House Speaker Dustin Burrows, aims to balance public school funding with ESA adoption. This is a strategy that sparked debate between educators and policymakers.
“Families deserve options, schools deserve resources,” Burrows told reporters Thursday. “The other person without the other will shorten Texas.”
