by (in alphabetical order) John Garrett Clawson, Cassie Davis, Reynaldo De La Garza, Katie Floyd , Sarah Pollock

...

ESAs share several programmatic characteristics with school voucher program. The primary distinction is that vouchers can only be used for tuition, while ESAs can be used for a variety of educational expenses. Another distinction is that vouchers transfer tuition from the government to the student's chosen school, while ESA funds are controlled by parents through a government-funded debit card. Consequently, many of those that support the school voucher concept support ESA initiatives as well. Those that oppose such voucher proposals are also likely to reject ESA programs. 

How

...

ESAs Work

While no ESA program currently exists in Texas, the 2015 bill SB 1178 describes several program features that may be included in later bills.

Parents who register for the proposed program would receive a debit card with funds that may be applied to educational expenses. The office of the Texas Commissioner would be in charge of establishing and managing funds to be distributed for approved educational-related expenses for eligible students. The allotted amount would equal 80-100% of the annual funding per student in that student’s district. Refer to the Amount Per Student section below for financial eligibility.To sign up, parents would agree to debit card would be funded with 80% of the amount that would have been allocated to the student in the school district he/she would have otherwise attended. Students with disabilities or “educational disadvantages” would receive the full amount (100%) that would have been allocated to the school district that they would have otherwise attended. A third party would assess applications to determine the level of funding for which each student was eligible. The amount allocated per student is similar to the amount allocated by ESA programs in other states. For example Arizona allocates 90% of the amount that would have gone to a public school for a given student (FN SB 1363, 2013), Nevada allocates up to 90% (SB 302, 2015), Tennessee allocates 100% (SB 431, 2015), and Florida and Mississippi allocate fixed amounts ($9,000 and $6,500) that are comparable to those states' per student public education spending (Florida SB 850, 2014; Mississippi SB 2695, 2015; the Misssippi amount is legislated to increase with per pupil public school spending).

To sign up for the program proposed in Texas, parents would agree (SB 1178, 2015):

• The inclusion of to participate in a curriculum that covers reading, grammar, health, social studies, and science science;
• To to spend funds on qualified education expenses;
• Annually to participate in annually administered assessment instruments (i.e. state testing, AP exams, etc.);
• Notify to notify TEA if their child enrolls in public school district or an open enrollment charter school;
• Inform and to inform TEA once their child has graduated

Any unused funds would roll over and could be applied to higher education expenses the child may incur after completing the appropriate a K-12 curriculacurriculum.

Currently, Arizona, Mississippi, Florida, Oklahoma and Tennessee limit eligibility to students with special needs, students from low-income families, and/or students in low performing school districts. However, the But the Nevada program is universal, and the Texas program outlined in SB 1178 would allow all Texas students meeting the following conditions to participate (SB 1178, 2015):

...

to participate provided they are between ages 5 and 21 and are either entering first grade or were enrolled in a public school

...

the

...

previous year (SB 1178, 2015).

Once a student is eligible, it is at the discretion of the parent/guardian to decide how the funds will be applied in order to meet the agreed requirements of the program. See below for Eligible Expenses Eligible expenses include

• Private or charter school tuition
• Textbooks
• Curricula
• Tutoring
• Private tuition or specialized therapy for children with disabilities

However, consumables (e.g., pens and paper), transportation, and technological equipment would NOT be eligible expenses under SB 1178.

Program Size and Fiscal Impact

While no fiscal note was prepared for SB 1178 in the 2015 state legislative session, the budget implications in other states with ESA programs can, to some extent, be used as proxies. To date, just two ESA programs - Arizona and Nevada - permit students without disabilities or an IEP to participate. These programs are much larger than similar other state programs and best resemble the proposed Texas program. Evidence documenting the fiscal impacts of voucher programs around the country is forthcoming on a separate Wiki page.

...

Like the Arizona program, the version of SB 1178 introduced in the Texas Senate in 2015 would have created enrollment caps, limiting the growth of the program over time. If enacted, the number of new students allowed into the program each year would have been capped at “one-half of one percent of the total number of students in average daily attendance in grades 1 through 12 in the state during the previous year (SB 1178 - Introduced, 2015).” If more students applied to participate than allotted under this provision, the Texas Education Agency would give first priority to children with disabilities or “education disadvantages” (SB 1178 - Introduced, 2015).” 

...

States (with the exception of Mississippi) determine the amount for each student based upon the average amount the government spends on each student attending public school. This amount varies by special need and poverty level.

• Arizona – 90% of the amount that would have gone to a public school for a given student (FN SB 1363, 2013)
• Mississippi – $6,500, to be adjusted annually in proportion with public student spending (SB 2695, 2015)
• Nevada – up to 90% (SB 302, 2015)
• Tennessee – 100% (SB 431, 2015)
• Florida – $9,000 (SB 850, 2014)

SB 1178 suggests that Texas students would receive 80% of the amount that would have been allocated for him/her in the school district he/she would have otherwise attended. Students with disabilities or “educational disadvantages” would receive the full amount (100%) that would have been allocated for him/her in the school district he/she would have otherwise attended. A third party would assess applications to determine the level of funding for which each student was eligible.

Eligible Expenses

Parents may spend ESA funds on a variety of educational costs. Under SB 1178, these educational costs would include:

• Private or charter school tuition
• Textbooks
• Curricula
• Tutoring
• Private tuition or specialized therapy for children with disabilities

However, consumables (like pens and paper), transportation, and technological equipment are NOT eligible expenses under SB 1178.

Legal Issues

States that have passed legislation adopting ESAs include Arizona, Florida, Mississippi, Nevada and Tennessee (EdChoice, 2016). Legislation is typically challenged on a constitutional basis; 40 states have made constitutional amendments to or included provisions in their constitutions that prohibit public funding of "religious worship, exercise or instruction" (DeForrest, 2003). Referred to collectively as "Blaine Amendments," in reference to the original failed amendment to the United States Constitution, they these state laws are part of the legal landscape in all states that currently have ESAs, with the exception of Tennessee. Plaintiffs argue that because money diverted from public schools to fund ESAs can be spent on tuition at religious private schools, such laws are unconstitutional in states that have such a stipulation in their constitutionwith a Blaine Amendment. Similar forms of school choice, such as vouchers, have also been challenged on this basis in a larger number of states (Burke & Butcher, 2016; Healy & Rich, 2015).

...

“School Choice in America,” EdChoice, last modified Oct. 28, 2016, http://www.edchoice.org/school-choice/school-choice-in-america.

S.B. 1178, Texas 84th Cong. (2015).

S.B. 2695, Mississippi 114th Cong. (2015).

S.B. 302, Nevada 302nd Cong. (2015).

S.B. 431, Tennessee 431st Cong. (2015).

S.N. 850, Florida 116th Cong. (2014).