Introduction

On a Tuesday morning, Texas State Representative Brad Buckley, who chairs the House public education committee, introduced House Bill 3, advocating for the bill as a means to empower families in selecting suitable educational settings for their children. He emphasized the bill’s aim to support high-needs and vulnerable populations.

Public Hearing and Key Provisions of the Bill

The committee held a lengthy public hearing lasting over 23 hours, with over 300 individuals registered to testify. Ultimately, they decided to leave the bill pending without an immediate vote. Among the concerns raised were those expressed by Democratic Representative James Talarico, who remarked on a significant gap between the stated intentions of the bill and its actual contents.

House Bill 3 proposes a universal voucher system, offering approximately $10,330 per student to those attending private schools, with additional funding for students with disabilities. Homeschooled students could receive $2,000. The funding is pegged to 85% of the average local and state funding provided to public schools, with estimates suggesting an increase to $10,889 by 2030. The state has allocated $1 billion for the program for 2027, but projections from the Legislative Budget Board suggest that the net cost could approach nearly $4 billion by 2030.

Support and Opposition

Proponents argue that HB 3 prioritizes low-income students and students with disabilities, outlining a hierarchy of need if applicants exceed available capacity. Nonetheless, critics argue that systemic barriers still exist that may hinder the targeted beneficiaries from effectively accessing these funds. Talarico noted, “Prioritization in a lot of states is window dressing because what matters is who actually gets the funds; who actually gets admitted; or who’s already been admitted.”

Moreover, Democratic Representative Harold Dutton highlighted how high tuition rates at private institutions could limit access for low-income families, questioning the effectiveness of partial voucher funding amid substantial tuition costs. He stated, “If you get $10,000, you’re still $17,000 short. And for most of these families that are poor families, that creates, you know, a mirage that they can now access it.”

Proposed Amendments and Concerns

Talarico called for adding a firm income cap for eligible families and prioritizing current public school students over those already enrolled in private schools. He cautioned against using taxpayer dollars to support already wealthy families. “What we’re talking about is we are sending our limited, precious taxpayer dollars to the wealthiest families in the state who are already sending their kids to private school. If you say that’s not the purpose, then put it in your bill,” he emphasized.

Suggestions for amendments included a mandate for private schools to waive tuition differences for low-income applicants, which was met with opposition from Jennifer Allmon, executive director of the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops, who described it as an unnecessary regulation. Matthew Ladner from the Heritage Foundation echoed similar views, stating that such a requirement could deter private school participation in the voucher program.

Impact on Students with Disabilities

Under HB 3, students with disabilities attending private schools could potentially receive up to $30,000 annually. However, critics noted that private schools are not legally obligated to provide special education services, as required by federal law in public schools. Steven Aleman from Disability Rights Texas expressed concerns about the loss of protections under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) once a student enrolls in a private institution.

Testimonies during the hearing included real-life accounts from affected families. One student shared his struggles to find suitable schooling, stating, “My mom has tried and looked at private schools for me, but they turned me away because I’m in a wheelchair.” Liz Piñon, a mother of children with disabilities, echoed the sentiment that private schools often closed their doors upon learning about their children’s needs.

Bipartisan Criticism

Opposition to the bill appeared across party lines, with Republican and conservative voices, including retired teachers and education advocates, expressing concerns over the financial burden placed on taxpayers. For instance, Mary Ann Jackson, a retired teacher, urged committee members to reconsider, saying, “My input for you today is to kill this bill.”

In a separate context, discussions also centered on House Bill 2, termed as a landmark funding initiative for schools by Buckley, which has faced criticism for inadequately addressing teacher pay and insufficient increases to the basic allotment for schools.