Sign up for The Brief, The Texas Tribune’s daily newsletter that keeps readers up to speed on the most essential Texas news.
The Texas Senate’s main school voucher proposal this special session, which was given approval in the Texas Senate on Thursday, closely resembles two of the biggest such programs in the country.
Like in Arizona and Florida, Senate Bill 1 would create a voucher-like program known as education savings accounts. It would give families access to taxpayer money to pay for their children’s private schooling, be open to most students in the state and prioritize disabled and poor students if there are more applicants than funds available.
Taking notes from the mistakes of those programs, the bill’s creators incorporated certain aspects. With the aim of preventing fraud and the misappropriation of funds, which has been a persistent issue in Arizona, the Texas proposal refrains from granting parents direct access to the cash. Moreover, it mandates the comptroller’s office to conduct audits of participants’ accounts.
In other areas, Texas repeated ideas that garnered criticism in other states. Critics across the country point out that private schools receiving state funds through existing voucher programs aren’t required to show that students are succeeding academically, like public schools are. And like in other states, voucher supporters in Texas say that’s by design. Sen. Brandon Creighton, a Republican from Conroe and SB 1’s author, has argued that the market will weed out underperforming private schools.
Those voucher programs in other states also sparked vigorous debates, came with the same promises and faced similar concerns, providing a window into the impact they might have in Texas once enacted. The Arizona program, for instance, confirmed critics’ concerns that it would require increasingly larger amounts of funding as it grew — just like opponents in Texas fear. But it hasn’t led to a mass exodus of students from public schools.
This is how education savings accounts have fared in states outside of our own.
Arizona and Florida
Education savings accounts started propping up around 2012 and currently serve more than 90,000 students across the country, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit organization that advocates for these policies.
Nationwide, there are 13 education savings account programs available, and in addition to that, 31 states along with Washington, D.C. have voucher programs enabling children to utilize taxpayer funds or tax-credit donations towards private education.
Currently, Arizona and Florida possess the most substantial and comprehensive education savings account programs nationwide, granting eligibility to nearly every child.
According to EdChoice, Arizona has been a trailblazer in education savings accounts. Initially, in 2011, the program was only available to students with disabilities. However, this year, Arizona has significantly expanded the program, making it accessible to nearly every child in the state.
Over the course of 12 years, the program witnessed a significant surge in enrollment, expanding from approximately 150 students to exceeding 60,000. The Arizona Department of Education anticipates requiring $900 million by June to accommodate an estimated 100,000 students in the program. What was once a modest initiative is now projected to escalate to nearly $1 billion.
Meanwhile, the state’s public school funding per student continues to rank at the bottom when compared to the rest of the country.
Carrie Sampson, an assistant professor of educational leadership and innovation at Arizona State University, contended that the program’s funding could have been better utilized by directing it towards increasing financial support for the state’s public schools.
Earlier this year, Florida’s education savings accounts were also expanded to include virtually every child. More than 170,000 new students — most already enrolled in private schools — have been admitted to the program, making it the biggest in the country.
In 2014, Florida initiated a program targeting students with disabilities. Subsequently, in 2019, the state introduced an additional education savings accounts program, this time with a focus on assisting low-income families.
Analysis and data show that this school year about $1.5 billion will be diverted from Florida public schools to private schools as students leave.
Plenty of families have lauded education savings accounts in both states for giving them access to other educational opportunities. But the programs have also attracted criticism for their loose financial oversight and for not requiring private schools to report student test scores or meet the same academic standards as public schools.
Arizona parents have spent hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars on fraudulent and questionable purchases, including buying chicken coops, trampolines and tickets to SeaWorld. The problems stemmed from the practice of sending program funds to participants through debit cards issued by the state, said Tom Horne, the Arizona superintendent of public instruction.
Horne, a member of the Republican party, stated that the program has eliminated the use of debit cards in order to prevent the misuse of funds. Presently, parents are required to access a website where they can explore a list of pre-approved vendors and select the necessary services. This process enables the state to authorize the purchases.
He stated that our aim is to ensure the program is completely compliant with the law, and the funds can solely be utilized for educational objectives. This way, we can demonstrate its success not only for Arizona but also for the entire nation, as others view us as a model to follow.
In Florida, flat screen TVs, paddleboards and entry to Disney are approved educational expenses. Critics there say that’s not how taxpayer money should be used; defenders of the program say education has evolved and those can be justified expenses.
Those opposed to education savings accounts also express concerns about the beneficiaries of the funds. Similar to Texas, Arizona introduced the program with the intention of providing low-income families an opportunity to explore alternative education options for their children, thereby alleviating their perceived limitations within the public education system. However, upon expansion of the program, it was discovered that 75% of those participating were not previously enrolled in public school. This indicates that they were either already engaged in homeschooling, attending private schools, or had never been a part of the traditional school system.
The Grand Canyon Institute, a non-partisan think tank, echoed those findings and estimated that 45% of applicants were among the wealthiest quartile of students in the state.
Horne acknowledged that a significant portion of the funds were allocated to families who were already enrolled in private schools and sought financial assistance from taxpayers. However, he anticipates that the distribution of funds will level out over time as more families who are not currently attending private schools begin to apply.
And while program supporters promote them as a tool to help students with disabilities get a better education, only 17% of education savings accounts in Arizona have gone to students with disabilities, according to the Arizona education department.
Demographic and income information for individuals enrolled in the program is not available in Arizona.
Texas
SB 1 aims to provide Texas families with broad access to $8,000 in taxpayer funds, enabling them to cover various educational expenses such as private school fees, uniforms, textbooks, tutoring, and transportation, among other items.
If the bill is approved with its existing eligibility requirements and budget, Texas has the potential to become the third-largest provider of education savings accounts in the nation, catering to approximately 60,000 students.
Creighton stated in a statement that educating the future generation of Texans is a crucial duty. He believes that granting parents the power to choose their child’s school will promote healthy competition and innovation. This, in turn, will guarantee that every student in Texas can discover an educational path that caters to their specific needs.
SB 1 aims to tackle the issues encountered by the Arizona and Florida programs.
The program would be funded by $500 million from the state’s general revenue fund over the course of two years. The responsibility of establishing and managing the savings accounts, as well as preventing fraud and misuse of funds, would fall under the jurisdiction of the state comptroller’s office. Additionally, they would hire a contractor to assist with the application process and approve vendors and participating private schools.
Furthermore, the legislation would mandate that the comptroller prepares an annual report encompassing various aspects. These would encompass the total count of students enrolled in the program, the volume of applications received or placed on the waiting list, feedback received from program users, evaluation of the available capacity in public and private schools, and the number of program graduates deemed prepared for college, military service, or a professional career.
The legislation would adopt many similar practices as those already implemented in Florida and Arizona.
If the number of applications exceeds the available funding, SB 1 implements a prioritization system for the program. This system aims to give preference to underprivileged groups. According to the bill, no more than 40% of spots will be reserved for students who receive free or reduced lunch, no more than 30% for families earning between 185% and 500% of the federal poverty line, no more than 20% for students with disabilities, and 10% for all other applicants who attended public, private, or home-school in the last school year.
The prioritization system has garnered criticism though. Sen. José Menéndez, D-San Antonio, said the “no more than” language implies there will be a cap on how much funding goes to underprivileged applicants, instead of prioritizing them.
Similar to programs in other states, the bill does not mandate that private school students take a state-administered academic achievement exam. Critics of the education savings account proposal in the Texas Legislature argue that such a requirement should be in place for consideration.
According to Creighton, the program’s funding will not divert money from public schools, which is a common concern with school voucher programs. This is because the funding for the program comes from general revenue, rather than the Foundation School Program, which is the primary source of funding for K-12 public schools in the state.
However, as per the financial analysis of the bill, school districts are expected to receive reduced funding due to students opting for education savings accounts and enrolling in non-public schools. In Texas, school districts are funded based on student attendance.
Research
For decades, conservative, free-market groups have been advocating for school vouchers, which refer to government programs such as education savings accounts. These programs enable taxpayer money to be allocated towards private schooling for children.
Plenty of research has been produced on these programs. Creighton himself has cited research from EdChoice that shows vouchers have a mostly positive impact on student scores.
However, studies on vouchers often stir up controversy due to variations in research methods, sample sizes, and demographics. It is worth noting that research on this topic has been financed by donors who both support and oppose voucher programs.
After examining independent research and consulting with long-term experts in voucher program studies, The Texas Tribune found that, overall, these programs tend to have a negative impact on students’ test scores, particularly in the field of mathematics. This trend has been observed in states such as Indiana and Louisiana.
Some research from the Journal of Economic Literature suggests that there is a case that, as competition from voucher programs ramped up, test scores in public schools slightly improved. But there isn’t enough evidence to suggest vouchers are the main reason for improved outcomes.
According to Patrick Wolf, a renowned professor of education policy at the University of Arkansas and a supporter of vouchers, he has discovered that test scores of students in voucher programs show varying results, but generally lean towards a slight improvement.
However, in 2016, Wolf and his colleagues made a discovery that after Louisiana extended its restricted voucher program to include all students, there were significant adverse impacts on the math scores of students enrolled in the program. Initially, Louisiana had only provided vouchers to students attending underperforming public schools.
Wolf found that the decline in academic achievement was linked to Louisiana’s stringent regulations on private schools, such as the mandatory state assessment. His research revealed that esteemed private schools were unwilling to comply with the proposed state oversight, causing them to withdraw from the program.
Wolf said that the results are contingent upon the design of the policy and the context in which it is implemented.
Wolf is of the opinion that voucher programs can be effective if they are initially implemented on a small scale and then expanded gradually, while also establishing robust mechanisms to prevent any potential misuse of funds to the best extent possible.
Wolf stated that he believes most states are not ready to immediately implement a universal school choice program.
According to Joshua Cowen, an education policy professor at Michigan State University with over ten years of research on school choice programs, the decline in test scores among students in voucher programs can be attributed, in part, to the presence of subpar private schools. He suggests that certain establishments merely exist to receive tax funds, while the majority of excellent private schools are financially burdening for parents, limiting their choices considerably.
“These institutions are not characterized by the elite college, prep atmosphere,” Cowen said. “Rather, they can be considered as sub-par providers.”
Between 1991 and 2015, in Wisconsin, the birthplace of the nation’s oldest voucher program, a study discovered that 41% of private voucher schools in Milwaukee had shut down.
In Cowen’s opinion, Texas legislators should refrain from implementing voucher-like programs as he remains skeptical about the lack of credible data supporting their positive impact on student test scores.
Disclosure: EdChoice and SeaWorld have been financial supporters of The Texas Tribune, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization that is funded in part by donations from members, foundations and corporate sponsors. Financial supporters play no role in the Tribune’s journalism. Find a complete list of them here.
