House Public Education Chairman Brad Buckley (R–Salado) released House Bill (HB) 3, the House’s priority voucher legislation, on Feb. 20. The goal of HB 3 is the same as the goal of the Senate’s priority voucher bill, Senate Bill (SB) 2—delivering a “universal” voucher program Gov. Greg Abbott (R) can tout as a win after a relentless two-year campaign. Although the basic functions, operational structure, and lack of accountability in the two bills are very similar, the programs are not identical. With SB 2 by Chairman Brandon Creighton (R–Conroe) passing the Senate, and HB 3 up for a hearing before the House Public Education Committee Tuesday, let’s look at the differences.  

Participant prioritization in the two bills 

Both bills contain language meant to make them appear to be aimed at “low-income” families. In reality, the term “low income” is a misnomer. Additionally, the Senate bill’s provisions ensure that at least 20% of the vouchers are set aside for high-income families, and as much as 100% could go to those families.  

Under SB 2, if more than 100,000 students apply in year one, the first cohort of students admitted will be students who attended a public school the prior year and are either “low income” (defined in the bill as under 500% of the federal poverty guidelines, or $156,000 for a family of four) or are students who have been identified as special education students, up to 80,000 students (80% of the total available spots). (This is assuming Abbott doesn’t use his ability to move money within the state budget, outside of legislative appropriations, to fund the program beyond the $1 billion found in the Legislature’s appropriations bills. Abbott has used this ability, known as transfer authority, to redirect billions of tax dollars outside of the legislative appropriations process over the past few years.)  

The other 20% of spots in the Senate bill are to be assigned by a lottery of all remaining applicants —i.e., “universal” eligibility. From the experiences of other states that have already implemented voucher programs, we know few current public school students opt in to vouchers. In most states with universal programs, between 75% to 90% percent of the voucher participants did not transfer from a public school. There is no reason to think Texas’ experience will be different, so far fewer than 80,000 enrollees are likely to be prior public school students. Even fewer may meet the income or special education criteria (private schools charge tuition, putting them out of reach for most families, and they also do not generally provide the robust special education services public schools are required under state and federal law to provide). To the degree that fewer public school students apply, more private school students may be provided with a voucher. 

HB 3 has a more tiered prioritization system than SB 2. Each prioritized tier of applicants may take up to 100% of the available vouchers before the next tier is considered for participation.  A student could qualify for HB 3 under the following criteria: 

• Siblings of current participants; then 
• Children with disabilities in households that are at or below 500% of federal poverty guidelines; then 
• Children in households at or below 200% of federal poverty guidelines; then 
• Children in households between 200%–500% of federal poverty guidelines; and finally 
• Children in households above 500% of federal poverty guidelines. 

Assuming more than 100,000 students from the first three income-based tiers apply cumulatively, no children from the highest income-based tier would be admitted. It’s worth noting that unlike SB 2, which limits priority students to those coming from public schools, HB 3 makes no such distinction. One hundred percent of the students in each of HB 3’s priority tiers could be current private school students who have never attended a public school.  

Voucher amounts under each bill 

SB 2 would provide a $10,000 voucher per eligible student per year through an “educational savings account” (ESA), with an extra $1,500 for students with special needs. Homeschoolers would receive a $2,000 voucher, with an additional $500 for homeschool students with special needs.  

Under HB 3, the amounts to be given per student through an ESA voucher are not as clear. The bill allows for a voucher equal to 85% of the estimated statewide average of state and local funding per student in average daily attendance (ADA) for the school year, with the average determined by the TEA commissioner. This means the amount offered to students could vary per year and would be indexed to the per-student amount provided to public schools. Currently that amount is estimated to be slightly over $10,000. Students with disabilities would receive the full amount the public school would otherwise receive to provide needed services under the students’ individualized education plans (IEPs) plans, not to exceed $30,000. As in SB 2, homeschool students would be eligible for a $2,000 voucher.  

Additionally, HB 3 would require that public schools provide initial evaluations for any student with special needs, as well as create an IEP for that student should a parent request one, regardless of the student’s public school enrollment status. The bill does not provide funding for districts to provide these services to unenrolled students. These evaluations cost, on average, more than $1,000 each. Both bills have a notice that states private schools are not required to provide services to special needs students that are federally mandated under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) as private schools are not subject to federal education laws.   

Allowable expenditures 

The bills are similar regarding allowable expenses with one notable exception. SB 2 would prohibit use of program funds, other than those designated for homeschooling, for online courses or out-of-state programs, while HB 3 would allow such expenditures.  

How to contact your legislator 

Whether it is on SB 2 or HB 3, we encourage you to use Advocacy Central to contact your legislators and let them know what you think about diverting billions from state coffers to create a taxpayer-funded private school subsidy in the form of an ESA voucher.