In 1989, the state constitution was changed by voters through Prop. 98, a school finance mandate setting minimum education funding levels. Today, through Prop. 98’s formula, California is required to spend roughly 40% of the state’s general funds on K-14 education—public schools and community colleges. California is spending $95 billion on K-12 education in its most recent state budget.

Advocates are right to worry whether California’s next generation will be equipped for jobs of the future. Despite spending the equivalent of $17,000 per pupil, California’s students are underperforming the national average on standardized testing. For example, the National Assessment of Educational Program, which is called the nation’s scorecard, shows only 29% of California’s eighth graders were at or above proficiency in mathematics, and 30% were at or above proficiency in reading in 2019, the most recent year available.

It’s fair to ask, why should arts and music education spending be mandated by the state constitution, especially when student proficiency in core areas like reading and math is far from desired? Only a few years ago, then-Gov. Jerry Brown championed eliminating so-called “categorical funds” which earmark state education money for specific programs. However well-intentioned the funding restrictions are, they inevitably narrow local school officials’ budgeting options. Brown saw this problem plague Oakland during his time as mayor of the city. When he returned to Sacramento, Brown reformed the state’s K-12 finance system by reducing formula complexity and empowering local policymakers who are, by definition, closer to students. Several studies have given this reform high marks, and California school district superintendents have shown widespread support for the new funding formula.

The state government already mandates that school districts provide visual and performing arts instruction for students in first through sixth grade. It also requires them to be offered as an elective, for seventh- and eighth-graders.

To graduate from a California high school, students must also complete a year’s coursework in the arts or supplement this requirement with a foreign language or career technical education. Additionally, nearly half of California’s school districts have independently adopted even more rigorous arts and music graduation requirements on top of the state’s.

The best practices in education finance policy show that governments should be moving away from state spending mandates and toward giving local leaders and schools more control over how money is spent to best serve their students. The more that local school districts are empowered by state government and held accountable by parents and voters, the more that education reforms and innovation can be responsive and effective.

For example, under California’s 2017 District of Choice Program, a school district may designate itself as a District of Choice, which allows students from other localities to enroll in its programs as long as space permits. Under this environment of open enrollment, school districts have been incentivized to build tailored programs, including some schools specializing in the arts, foreign language, science, and technology. Expanding and improving the state’s open enrollment program so that every school district in the state participates could further benefit students.

Going forward, California would benefit from implementing “learn everywhere” policies. The state board could approve education providers offering curricula that allow students to take courses from California’s large array of businesses and nonprofits in the music, arts, and entertainment industries. Students could earn credits while developing skills with professionals from diverse artistic backgrounds.

Arts and music are important for students, and many innovative options are available to California’s schools. Unfortunately, decades of rising state education spending show that an influx of tax dollars does not guarantee improved student outcomes. In this case, Prop. 28 would tie the hands of legislators and school officials with unnecessary budget mandates that ultimately mean less flexibility for students and teachers.

A version of this column first appeared in the Orange County Register.

The post California’s Prop. 28 would erode local control of education budgets appeared first on Reason Foundation.

A downward trend started long before stay-at-home orders and other COV ID-19 pandemic-related measures prompted more parents to seek alternatives to public schools. New York City’s Independent Budget Office began reporting public school enrollment declines in the 2015-16 school year. From 2002-to-2020, New York state experienced the nation’s sharpest loss, losing 11% of public school students over two decades.  

Despite these well-reported enrollment figures, some New York City officials said they were shocked to see their budgets taper for the 2022-23 school year. Politico reported on the New York City Council backtracking after it initially passed a budget that included a $215 million reduction in education spending:

But the Council is now requesting that the Adams administration reverse the very cuts it voted to approve — cuts that were included in the preliminary budget in February — as well as look into allocating federal stimulus dollars directly to schools, POLITICO’s Madina Touré reports.

Council members also called on the administration to update the Fair Student Funding formula, which was created in 2007 as serves as the primary source of funding for individual schools’ budgets.

“That distinction is critical, because the fiscal year 2023 city budget actually invested over $700 million more in city funds for DOE than the previous budget, bringing total city funds spent on DOE to the highest level that our city’s history has ever seen. Yet some of our individual and local schools are facing budgets that are drastic and different for the next school year,” claimed New York City Council Speaker, Adrienne Adams (D-Queens), who voted for the budget.

Common sense budgeting and education finance policy suggest that public schools serving fewer students would be receiving less taxpayer money than they did when they had tens of thousands more students. But that’s not the way New York has treated K-12 education funding in recent years.

New York’s inflation-adjusted education spending increased by $26.4 billion between 2002 and 2020. The state now spends a staggering $30,723 per student—the highest per pupil spending in the country.

Along with education expenditures failing to connect with the reality of declining student enrollment, unfortunately, New York also has little to show regarding student achievement improvements. 

The National Center for Education Statistics found New York eighth graders weren’t exceeding national reading or math scores averages in 2019, despite the state’s exorbitantly above-average spending. In 2019, only 34% of New York’s eighth-grade students performed at or above the National Assessment of Educational Progress proficiency level for math, 32% of eighth graders were at or above proficient in reading, and 30% were at or above proficient in science.

When reviewing scores of students from low-income families, in particular, states such as Florida and Indiana outperformed New York, all while spending significantly fewer tax dollars. For comparison, Florida spent $11,526 per pupil compared to New York’s $30,723 per student.

But Florida, despite spending just over one-third of what New York spends per student, got similar student test results. In 2019, 31% of Florida eighth-grade students performed at or above the National Assessment of Educational Progress proficiency level for math, and 34% of Florida’s eighth graders were at or above proficient in reading, and 33% were at or above proficient in science.

The Shanker Institute, a think tank “endowed by the American Federation of Teachers and named in honor of its late president,” claims there is a direct link between higher public spending on education and improved student achievement. Nearly every New York school district not only met the Shanker Institute’s education budget targets, but most are also spending in excess of the group’s recommendations. Thus, according to Shanker’s research, New York school districts should be performing well above average on national math and reading exams. In reality, the state continues to perform no better than the national average. 

New York’s historic public school system price tag can be traced not only to maintaining the country’s highest average teacher salary and increasing pension benefit costs but also to personnel hiring outside of the classroom. The number of school administrators in New York schools, for example, grew by 64% per pupil over two decades, exceeding the nationwide average. Over this same period, New York’s total personnel benefit spending increased by 141% per-pupil, the fifth highest rate in the United States. The overwhelming costs of all American public school systems stem directly from personnel salaries and benefits. 

Crystal Peoples-Stokes (D-Buffalo), majority leader of the New York State Assembly, asked the right question during a committee hearing:

“[We are] sending far too many students to college that are not prepared to be in college and that is not a very good return on the investment that we put in for K-12. I’m appreciative that [the Department of Education] will get access to additional positions, although I hope those positions end up having some real concerted focus on making sure that foundational education is provided for everyone who attends school in the state of New York. Given that does not happen, how are we ever going to hold someone responsible that every year we spend more but every year we’re not getting more?”

New York’s education spending and public school system are not producing the desired results for students, so more parents are seeking alternatives. Public charter schools in New York City have seen a 9% rise in enrollees over the past two years. Today, one in every four black students in New York City is being served by a public charter school. Interestingly, these alternative schooling environments are a desirable option for New York’s families despite charter schools receiving an estimated 19% less per student in funding than their traditional public school counterparts, according to research from the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas.

Regrettably, the state legislature imposed a ban that prevents any additional charter schools from opening.

New York’s enrollment figures are dropping while student test scores are, at best, stagnating. Policymakers and community leaders should be looking for ways to better serve students through a more market-driven and student-centered approach. 

The post New York’s public school spending continues to grow while enrollment declines appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Prop. 28 would also direct a higher proportion of this dedicated funding to schools with a concentration of low-income students. Larger schools, with 500 or more student, would have to use 80% of the funding for employing teachers and 20% for training and materials.

Fiscal Impact

Proposition 28 would require education funding in addition to the state’s Proposition 98 minimum guarantee. Therefore, according to the California Legislative Analyst’s Office, public school spending in the state would likely increase between $800-$1 billion annually in 2023-24 if passed. The LAO finds, “Beginning next year, Proposition 28 would increase state costs by about $1 billion annually. This amount is less than one-half of 1 percent of the state’s total General Fund budget. The additional funding would be considered a payment above the constitutionally required amount of funding for public schools and community colleges.”

Proponents’ Arguments For

Few places conjure the image of the creative economy like California. Former education policymakers Arne Duncan and Austin Beutner wrote in CalMatters that this status, however, rests on tenuous ground. They claim that only “1 in 5 public schools in California has a dedicated teacher for traditional arts programs like music, dance, theater and art, or newer forms of creative expression like computer graphics, animation, coding costume design and filmmaking.”

The campaign for “Yes on 28” warns that across grade levels, 90% of elementary schools, 96% of middle schools, and 72% of high schools in California are not providing a high-quality course of study across arts disciplines.

A decline in arts programming may be due to prolonged underfunding, supporters of Prop 28 say. Without raising taxes, Prop 28 supporters hope to reserve 1% of combined state and local education spending for developing and maintaining arts education.

Accountability would be ensured through both spending restrictions and reporting requirements. School officials could only spend the new revenue on arts teachers, classified personnel, and teaching aides. Annual reporting from each school district would require details on arts programs, including student participation levels.

Supporters expect Prop. 28 to not only increase student engagement, cognitive development, and creative and critical thinking skills but also equip students for good-paying jobs. This could be especially critical to students from families struggling financially. For this reason, advocates included additional curriculum funding for schools serving low-income communities.

Advocates further argue, that when compared to other high-cost states, such as New York, California lags in education per-pupil spending overall. While there may not be the political will for a tax increase to fund arts education, simply prioritizing existing spending not only reflects the values of California, in their mind but invests in its future workforce, supporters say.

Opponents’ Arguments Against

In 1988, voters passed Proposition 98 requiring roughly 40% of California’s general funds to be spent on public schools and community colleges. Proposition 28, if passed, will require additional education spending on top of Proposition 98’s minimum guarantee.

California already spends $95.5 billion on its public school system, translating to around $17,000 per student. This figure puts California in the top 10 states for per-student education funding. California’s current spending on K-12 education has reached a historic high, while public school enrollment is the lowest in two decades. Prop. 28 opponents wonder whether this level of spending can be sustained, especially if the student population continues to drop.

Prop. 28 opponents such as Reform California further warn of locking in nearly $1 billion of education spending through an earmark that may come at the expense of other education spending priorities. A mandate on arts spending would be unique, as no such mandate exists for math, science, reading, or physical education, opponents say.

Locking in spending requirements could also reduce financial flexibility when leaders respond to education policy under new economic and social changes over time, including public school enrollment decline. Leaders would have fewer resources to address the state’s backlog of debt or the next economic downturn.

Discussion

California is no stranger to financing arts education through its state budget. Tens of millions of dollars are appropriated annually for arts initiatives. Visual and performing arts instruction, including music, is currently required for all students in grades 1-6, and schools are required to provide these courses to 7th-8th grade students as electives.

To graduate from a California high school, students must choose to complete a year’s course work in visual or performing arts, a foreign language, or most recently, career technical education.

Each local school board may set additional graduation requirements. For example, a 2017 study found nearly half of the state’s school districts prohibit swapping a year’s course work in visual or performing arts with a foreign language or career technical education. This change sought to reflect California public university admission requirements, which demand a year of exclusively visual or performing arts education credit.

If Prop. 28 passes, a 1% combination of state spending, in addition to the spending of each locality through property taxes, would be solely dedicated to music and arts education. Based on previous year enrollment figures, 70% of this newly authorized spending would be distributed among California school districts. The remaining 30% would be reserved for school districts based on their proportion of economically disadvantaged students. Among California’s six million public school students, 60% come from low-income families.

While laws in California require arts education to be included, to varying degrees, across students’ public school careers, Proposition 28 would create the first-ever revenue stream dedicated to these programs exclusively. This creates a tradeoff between a value for arts education and a value for local control by schools over how to use resources. If the primacy of local control is retained, students, parents, and other advocates can make the case in their own school communities about spending priorities, including the arts.  There is no guarantee, either, that this new influx of spending will improve student academic or social outcomes. Higher spending in the public school system has largely failed to guarantee greater student achievement. 

Voters’ guides for other propositions on California’s 2022 ballot.

The post California Proposition 28 (2022): Art and music K-12 education funding appeared first on Reason Foundation.

Reason Foundation’s Ari DeWolf and Christian Barnard recently sat down with the bill sponsor, Arizona State Senator Sine Kerr, to discuss the new policy and how she believes removing unnecessary busing regulations will help families and schools across the state.

DeWolf: Before we talk about the substance of your K-12 transportation policy reform from the 2022 session, would you share a little bit about your background before becoming a member of the Arizona State Senate? What got you involved in public policy and in public life?

Senator Kerr: Yes. Thank you so much for that. I always love to talk about my background because I think it is relevant to any American citizen who has even had a fleeting thought of becoming an elected official. My husband and I are longtime dairy farmers in Buckeye, Arizona, which is about 35 miles west of Phoenix.

Through agriculture, I got involved in leadership programs from the Arizona Farm Bureau with United Dairymen. I began taking leadership classes and anything else I could get my hands on. That’s where I learned to love engaging in public policy. I spent a lot of time at the state legislature meeting with members and advocating on behalf of agriculture.

Early on, it was apparent to me. that government regulation could really hurt you – and hurt you quickly. I understood how critical it was to have decision-makers who understood the impact each and every piece of legislation could have on farmers and ranchers, not only in Arizona but across our country. That carried over for me a love for policy and a recognition of how critical it is to have decision-makers who understand their impact on small businesses and other entities and folks trying to do what they do best.

DeWolf: What first made you see the need to reform the way K-12 institutions are incorporating or utilizing 11-to-15-passenger vans to meet students’ transportation needs?

Senator Kerr: This was a result of a first-of-its-kind in-the-nation grant program put into effect in Arizona last year. Through the granting application process, they found a large number of students came from rural schools. Lack of transportation flexibility was a frequently made comment, especially in those areas.

Great Leaders, Strong Schools, asked if I would be interested in the issue. I said, “Absolutely.” I represent a rural area. I raised our family in a rural area and they all attended, what I call, a small, rural farm school. Oftentimes, in rural areas, the roads are not maintained like in our urban areas. There are long distances that many of our bus drivers had to go, either to pick up students or deliver them at the end of the day. It was, in my opinion, a no-brainer and very common sense. We would offer flexibility to districts wanting to take this up. I heard from Reservation school officials about how this could be beneficial. And when, in our urban areas, there is a route that didn’t have a whole lot of students, then they could use this type of vehicle and be way more efficient.

Most importantly, are the safety features added to the program. These vehicles are already being utilized by sports teams and other groups. They have already been utilized to safely transport children for many, many years. This new law just allows these vehicles to be used on regular bus routes.

Barnard: I think every state needs these flexibility measures, especially as school choice proliferates. Students are zigzagging everywhere, trying to attend the school best for them. Yellow school buses are great, but they’re not able to serve every student, in every case. And they can be really expensive for districts trying to pick up only four or five students. So where do you see the benefits of this legislation? How do you see it affecting school choice students in Arizona?

Senator Kerr: There’s a great benefit to school districts of any size. As we all know, there’s currently a shortage of drivers who have CDL licenses. Fuel costs are through the roof. And there are maintenance costs for the standard 80-passenger buses.

For our school choice students, it provides an opportunity for those who wouldn’t have it. Parents could not always secure transportation for their children. This could be organized in those circumstances. I heard from a wonderful woman who oversees a school for autistic students and she expressed how beneficial this will be. Again, providing that flexibility too often lacking in public policy. And helping the drivers, who have to go through all the safety training with only one exception – they don’t have to have a CDL.

Barnard: What kind of pushback did you get to the legislation? What kind of pushback can policymakers in other states expect if they introduce similar legislation?

Senator Kerr: The biggest pushback was around safety concerns. And, again, it’s clearly outlined in the bill. Our Department of Public Safety, which oversees our current training for our bus drivers and bus safety, will oversee this program as well. The same agency dealing with safety and rulemaking on all the important safety decisions will still make decisions for these 11-to-15-passenger vehicles. There is also the Student Transportation Advisory Council overseeing the use of any vehicles. They will work in tandem. They are able to offer opinions and oversight on safety features as well. That was the biggest pushback I got. And really, I argued against that because it simply isn’t the case. It will be a very safe program.

The other pushback was with insurance concerns. If a district doesn’t have an insurance company agreeing to back them, then obviously, they are unable to utilize this program. It’s an opt-in opportunity, it’s not required. Hopefully, most of the districts needing the flexibility are be able to work with their insurance agencies to establish a good plan.

Barnard: What interest have school officials shown so far? You said school districts that were applying for the grant wanted more flexibility. Do you think there’s going to be a lot of take-up by districts in the next year or two?

Senator Kerr: I do. Many rural districts, and even our larger, urban districts, have thanked me for the opportunity to have more tools in their K-12 transportation toolbox. I’m excited to learn how districts utilize this refreshing flexibility.

Barnard: And that makes sense because schools are already using them for things like transporting the tennis team or debate club. There are some federal barriers to purchasing vans for school transportation, but many districts already have these vans and they’re just sitting in the lot. Do you think many districts already have 15-passenger vans?

Senator Kerr: I do. And with the bus driver shortage, some bus routes get canceled. I can’t imagine, as a parent, getting a message while running out the door that says, “Oh, I’m sorry, we don’t have enough drivers. We won’t be running your route today.” It creates quite a bind for families. We’re going to alleviate a lot of bus schedule challenges because again, those drivers won’t have to have a CDL. But they are trained. The students are in good hands. The vehicle will have all the required safety features. It’s going to be a win-win for everyone.

DeWolf: As Christian referenced before, this is an idea policymakers in other states are likely to take up. Do you have any advice on how your leadership style allowed you to shepherd this bipartisan bill into law?

Senator Kerr: Yes. I guess I just bring the way I’ve always conducted myself. I’ve always been a good listener and, especially with all the bills we go through, I’m always listening to the pros and the cons. I feel it’s in that tension, it’s in that discussion, where we really craft the best legislation for the state or for that group a bill is affecting. I used to resist the tension and the fight. You can be at odds with members in your own caucus or members in the party opposite. I finally learned to embrace that tension, because again, that’s where the best legislation is hammered out and ideas emerge that you didn’t consider. Perspectives from all angles are really important. They can be put into a bill, making a good bill, a great bill.

The post Arizona State Senator Sine Kerr on transforming student transportation policy appeared first on Reason Foundation.

But the rate of school choice policy proposals becoming law has slowed. Below is a look at notable school choice-related education reform policy wins and defeats in states that have already gaveled out of their legislative sessions for the year.

Alabama

In Alabama, the Parent’s Choice Act (SB 140) would have provided families with an education savings account of $5,500 for each school-aged child. This money was set to be used to pay for private school tuition, standardized test prep, and homeschooling, among other qualifying education expenses. The measure introduced by Sen. Del Marsh (R-Anniston), stalled in early March, despite passing the Senate Education Policy Committee.

Sen. Dan Roberts (R-Mountain Brook), however, successfully passed an increase to the Alabama Tax Credit Scholarship (SB 261) which could benefit up to 2,000 new students. The program, which provides funds that students can use to attend a private institution, will continue prioritizing students attending a state-designated “failing school.” Currently, 3,431 students use the tax credit scholarship to attend a private or non-failing school. Families who qualify must have a household income at or below 185% of the federal poverty guidelines. The new law increases Alabama’s existing 50% tax liability cap on individual and corporate donations to 100% (not exceeding $100,000). 

Alaska

Rep. Ron Gillham (R-Kenai) introduced two school choice bills in Alaska, neither of which moved out of committee. The first, HB 328, would have allowed interdistrict open enrollment, a policy that provides public school choice to families. There are two types of open enrollment: Interdistrict open enrollment allows families to attend schools outside of their assigned district while intradistrict open enrollment lets families enroll in schools inside their school district, but outside their attendance zone.

The second of Gillham’s failed measures, HB 329, would have provided almost $6,000 in a portable education savings account scholarship for students with disabilities, those attending low–performing schools or who have parents in the military. 

Arkansas

SB 63, introduced by the Joint Budget Committee, was amended by Rep. David Ray (R-Maumelle) to increase the Succeed Scholarship program from $3.3 million to $6.3 million. Starting in the fiscal year 2023, the scholarship’s one-time federal funds were set to run dry and would no longer cover some 200 current recipients, the majority of which are students with dyslexia and other disabilities. Although the amendment repeatedly failed to garner enough votes from the bipartisan, bicameral committee, Republican Gov. Asa Hutchinson secured additional appropriations from an emergency education relief fund to boost the program’s funding.

Colorado

If a Colorado school was required to be on a turnaround plan for 5 consecutive years, Rep. Dan Woog’s (R-Erie) HB 22-1207 would have allowed any of those enrolled students to take their $5,000 per-pupil funding through education savings accounts to attend a private or charter school. 

Sen. Paul Lundeen (R-Monument) presented SB 22-039, creating the Hope Scholarship Program, in order to provide individual students with funds to directly pay for various education expenses of their choice. 

Sen. Rob Woodward (R-Loveland) sought to establish learning pods that could be eligible for those Hope Scholarship dollars in SB 22-071. Learning pods and micro-schools are becoming increasingly popular education alternatives. 

None of these reforms moved out of their assigned committee. 

Connecticut

In Connecticut, two initiatives that did pass from their assigned committees both failed to become law. 

SB 229, introduced by Sen. Anthony Nolan (D-New London), was an attempt to streamline the public charter school authorization process. Instead of the legislature allocating operational funds for each newly established charter school, a grant would be funded directly and operated by the Board of Education under the bill. Language, however, did mandate that no more than two new charter school applications could be approved each year.

HB 5283, introduced by Rep. Raghib Allie-Brennan (D-Bethel), would have created a new student-centered funding formula for Connecticut’s K-12 school system. The language also provided students a choice program if attending interdistrict magnet schools and vocational agriculture programs. 

Delaware

Rep. Kim Williams (D-Wilmington) introduced HB 270 in the hopes of streamlining the application process for charter schools and other education alternatives. The bill also gives admittance priority to siblings of already enrolled students. The bill awaits a signature from Democrat Gov. John Carney to become law. 

Georgia

The Georgia Educational Freedom Act (SB 601), introduced by Sen. Butch Miller (R-Gainesville), was defeated on the Senate Floor this spring. If passed, the bill would have provided $6,000 annually for students to cover private school tuition and other education costs like tutoring, specialized therapies and homeschool curriculum. The House version, HB 999, was introduced by Rep. Wes Cantrell (R-Woodstock). 

HB 517, introduced by Rep. John Carson (R-Marietta) has been signed into law by Republican Gov. Brian Kemp. The reform will double the cap on donations to student scholarship organizations. It is estimated that 4,000 additional Georgia students will gain access to additional educational choices each year because of this move. 

Hawaii

The Strong Students Grant Pilot Program was introduced in the House as HB 1834 by Rep. Troy Hashimoto (R-Maui) and in the Senate as SB 2816 by Sen. Michelle Kidani (D-Mililani). The proposals would have created a one-year pilot program where students (prioritizing those from low-income families) could receive $1,000 to purchase educational equipment or therapies. Neither version of the reform advanced. 

Rep. Val Okimoto (R-Honolulu) introduced the School Choice Scholarship Program (HB 2326) which would have secured funds for families with proven financial need to enroll in a nonpublic school of their choosing. The bill was stalled in Committee.

Idaho

In Idaho, the Self-Directed Learner initiative (S 1238), which mirrors the innovative approach New Hampshire has taken to learning that happens outside of the classroom, passed the legislature and was signed by Republican Gov. Brad Little. Under the new law schools can grant academic credit to students taking authorized advanced courses or engaged in extracurricular activities and even part-time jobs. The bill was introduced by Sen. Steven Thayn (R-Emmett).

The Empowering Parents Grant Program (S 1255), introduced by Rep. Wendy Horman (R-Idaho Falls), was also signed into law by Gov. Little. The program provides $1,000 per student (with a maximum of $3,000 per family) to cover educational expenses such as technological equipment, textbooks, standardized testing fees, and other educational services. The grant will be offered first to students in households making less than $60,000 per year, followed by $75,000, and then eventually becomes available to any student, regardless of family income. Funding is initially derived from the federal American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Instead of seeing those dollars consumed by the general education budget, legislators are directly sending them to families.

Gov. Little did, however, veto H 723 which would have changed the way students are counted in the state’s education funding formula. Under the legislation, instead of measuring average daily attendance (ADA), the state would measure using full-time equivalent enrollment (FTE-E). Idaho is only one of seven states currently using the outdated ADA formula.

Additionally, H 669, the Hope and Opportunity Scholarship Program, introduced by Republican Rep. Dorothy Moon (R-Stanley), was defeated in the House Education Committee. It would have established a $5,950 education savings account for families to use on private school tuition, tutoring, laptops, special-needs therapy, and other approved, education-related expenses.  

Illinois

Rep. Curtis Tarver (D-Chicago) introduced HB 4126 to grant super-priority status to current recipients of the Invest in Kids Tax Credit Program. The new language provides assurance to students that they can continue in their current schools by ensuring if they receive a scholarship one year, they will also receive it next year. The measure is awaiting action by Democrat Gov. J.B. Pritzker.

Iowa

Republican Gov. Kim Reynolds championed The Student First Scholarship. The language was included in SF 2369, a Senate Appropriations Committee initiative, which, among other provisions, would have allowed students in underperforming districts access to roughly $5,000 in state funds which could be used for other educational opportunities. Though it passed the Senate, it stalled in a House subcommittee. 

An amendment to budget bill SF 2589, successfully passed and will eliminate the open enrollment deadline of March 1st, which now allows student school transfers throughout the academic year. The bill has been sent to Gov. Reynold for her signature. 

Kansas

SB 61 sought an expansion to the state’s tax credit scholarship for students who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch. This initiative by the Senate Education Committee died in the House K-12 Education Budget Committee. 

The Student Empowerment Act HB 2550, introduced by Rep. Patrick Penn (R-Wichita) was also stalled in the K-12 Education Budget Committee. This education savings account measure would have been accessible to students currently eligible for free or reduced lunch or who have been designated to receive at-risk services. Funds would have beenn set aside for educational materials such as tutoring and textbooks, special-needs therapy, and private school tuition. 

The Kansas House Ways and Means Committee, however, passed open enrollment reform through HB 2567, which was recently signed into law by Democrat Gov. Laura Kelly. School districts throughout the state will now be required to develop plans and guidelines laying out how many total students the school district can handle, and how many nonresident students they can accept into each grade.

Kentucky

Kentucky Democrat Governor Andy Beshear vetoed HB 9, introduced by Rep. Chad McCoy (R-Bardstown), which sought to provide a permanent charter school funding mechanism based on student enrollment. Lawmakers were successful in overriding the veto, making charter schools in the commonwealth easier to open. While the state’s ban on charter schools was lifted in 2017, none have ever actually been approved, in large part because of funding issues. Kentucky is one of only seven states without a single operational public charter school. 

Both education savings account bills, HB 305, introduced by Rep. Josh Calloway (R-Irvington), and SB 50, introduced by Sen. Ralph Alvarado (R-Winchester) stalled in their respective committee. They were attempts to expand the program passed into law last year, as well as address issues cited by a recent judicial ruling. 

Maryland

The Right to Learn Act, introduced through HB 737 by Del. Jeffrey Ghrist (R-Caroline), stalled in the House Ways and Means Committee. It would have established the Right to Learn Program to provide students attending a failing school with scholarships for an alternative education plan. 

Del. Delegate William Wivell’s (R-Washington) education savings account measure HB 1156 never moved past the House Appropriations Committee. It allows any student to receive funds to pay for educational expenses, such as non-public school tuition, textbooks, uniforms, tutoring, and therapeutic services.

Minnesota

SF1525 introduced by Sen. Roger Chamberlain (R-Lino Lakes) and HF 1528 introduced by Rep. Sondra Erickson (R-Princeton) would have created education savings accounts to meet the costs of tutoring or supplemental curriculum, mental health treatment, special education services and therapy, or tuition at a non-public school. 

Neither measure made it to the governor’s desk. 

Missouri

Sen. Rick Brattin’s (R-Harrisonville) education savings account program, SB 841, stalled in the Missouri Senate Education Committee. It would have reduced the current program’s existing restrictions, including lifting the $25 million dollar cap and eliminating geographic boundaries.

Comprehensive open enrollment reform nearly passed the General Assembly this year through Rep. Brad Pollitt’s (R-Sedalia) HB1814. While the original language did not succeed, Sen. Cindy O’Laughlin’s (R-Shelbina) SB 681, a much narrower version primarily allowing families who own residential or agricultural property to send their children to any school within the district they pay taxes, did succeed and has been sent to Republican Gov. Mike Parson.

Mississippi

Mississippi saw the defeat of an education savings account reform, the Mississippi Scholarship Act bill (HB 874), introduced by Rep. Chris Brown (R-Littleton), along with bills HB 1349 introduced by Rep. Jansen Owen (R-Poplarville) and SB 2177 introduced by Sen. Chris Johnson (R-Hattiesburg) that would have established open enrollment reform for public school students in the state.

Nebraska

LB 364, the Opportunity Scholarship, introduced by Sen. Lou Ann Linehan (R-Elkhorn) in Nebraska’s unicameral legislature, would have provided low-income students a path to attend private schools through state tax breaks. After failing to garner enough votes to cut off an eight-hour, bipartisan filibuster, the bill died.

New Hampshire

HB 607 would have created school vouchers for parents between $291-$41,000 per student to use on education-related costs such as non-public school tuition. The reform, introduced by Rep. Kevin Verville (R-Rockingham) was tabled early this winter. 

New Mexico

The Charter Schools Facility Improvements bill (HB 43), introduced by Rep. Joy Garratt (D-Albuquerque), passed and was signed into law by Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. The measure standardizes public charter school facility funding and allows the state to loan funds for their capital projects, including renovation and construction, as well as paying off lease-purchase agreements. School districts will also be required to make any facility available for lease or purchase to charter schools if not in use for educational purposes.

Oregon

In Oregon, SJR 201 was filed to establish the right of parents to choose the school their child attends. The measure was introduced by Sen. Arthur Robinson (R-Cave Junction) and stalled in the Senate Education Committee.

South Dakota

South Dakota saw a school choice victory through SB 71 which increased the South Dakota Partners in Education, an education savings account scholarship, from a maximum of $2 million to $3.5 million. At least 143 South Dakota students were on a waiting list to obtain the scholarship for private schools before the increase passed. The measure was introduced by Sen. Lee Schoenbeck (R-Watertown) and signed into law by Republican Gov. Kristi Noem. 

Tennessee

Tennessee House Leader William Lambert (R-Portland) and Senate Leader Jack Johnson (R-Franklin) moved a historic overhaul of the K-12 funding formula through both chambers that was signed into law by Republican Governor Bill Lee. The Tennessee Investment in Student Achievement (TISA) (HB 2143/SB 2396) establishes a student-centered funding system, as opposed to the resource-based model of the past. 

Utah

Utah saw the Hope Scholarship Program (HB 331) defeated by the House of Representatives after Republican Gov. Spencer Cox vowed to veto the reform, even if passed. The scholarship, introduced by Rep. Candice Pierucci (R-Herriman), would have given priority to low-income children experiencing documented and reported bullying in their currently enrolled school. 

Washington

HB 1215 would have allowed parents to apply for a $7,000 per child education savings account scholarship for the costs of educational materials such as tutoring or textbooks, as well as private school tuition. The measure was introduced by Rep. Vicki Kraft (R-Vancouver) but did not advance. Some 130,000 students would have been eligible, with 25% specifically earmarked for students who are homeless, in foster care, have special needs or come from low-income families. 

West Virginia

In West Virginia, the recently passed SB 268 will allow both micro-schools and education pods to be established in the state and ensures there are no enrollment caps for either such program. The measure was introduced by Sen. Amy Grady (R-Mason) and signed into law by Republican Gov. Jim Justice. 

Wisconsin

Democrat Gov. Tony Evers’ veto of AB 970 could not be overridden by the state legislature. The measure, introduced by Rep. Robert Wittke (R-Racine), would have universalized the state’s voucher program by striking enrollment and income limits for all Wisconsin students. 

Gov. Evers also vetoed AB 122, defining and establishing “micro education pod” programs (referring to a program provided to between two and ten family units at a physical location). The measure was introduced by Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) and would have also added the new term to all current homeschooling statutes. 

Wyoming

HB 138, introduced by Rep. Ocean Andrew (R-Laramie), sought to establish the Hope Scholarship, allowing funds to be distributed to students and made eligible for private school tuition, tutoring, therapies, transportation, and other education-related expenses. The reform was defeated on the House Floor. 

The post How school choice legislation has fared in 2022 appeared first on Reason Foundation.