logo
Proposed Texas voucher would fully-fund tuition for most private, Catholic schools

Proposed Texas voucher would fully-fund tuition for most private, Catholic schools

Yahoo12-03-2025

The Brief
A Texas House committee held a hearing House Bill 3 on Tuesday.
The legislation would create $10,000 education savings accounts for students.
Private school leaders say it would fully-cover tuition at most of their schools.
AUSTIN - On Tuesday, the Texas House debated a bill that would create "education savings account" stipends of $10,000 for students in the Lone Star State.
That money would cover the annual tuition cost of most Texas private and parochial schools, according to executives representing nearly 1,300 private and Catholic campuses.
The so-called school choice legislation has been a top priority for Governor Greg Abbott, but has been consistently derailed in the House.
What they're saying
The House Public Education Committee called several executives representing private schools to debate House Bill 3.
Jennifer Allmon with the Texas Catholic Conference of Bishops urged lawmakers to empower parents to choose the best educational environment for their children.
"The ESA amounts in the bill will cover the average tuition amounts in our Catholic schools. Catholic schools in Texas are growing and ready to serve," Allmon said. "We estimate that 90 percent of our schools will participate, and we have capacity to add about 25,000 new students in the 2026-2027 school year. Our average K-8 tuition is under $8,000 with schools as low as $2,000 or $3,000. Our average high school tuition is less than $12,000."
Laura Colangelo, Executive Director of the Texas Private Schools Association, sought to dispel the widely reported notion that the proposed state subsidy would fall well short of funding the full cost of attending non-public institutions.
"There are currently 75,575 open seats in accredited schools across the state with the median tuition of $9,400 and 90 percent of those schools are interested in participating in this program," said Colangelo who represents more than 900 schools.
Colangelo also countered claims that private schools exclude disabled students.
"Currently, 19 percent of students enrolled in private schools have special needs. This is a higher percentage of children with special needs in private schools than in public schools. To say that private schools do not serve these children is simply not true," said Colangelo.
READ MORE: Latest poll shows most Texans support school choice
In its current version, HB3 would fund $1 billion for ESA'S, enough to provide stipends to 80,000 of the state's 5.5 million students.
75 percent of HB3's funding would be reserved for low-income students and those challenged with special needs.
State Representative Brad Buckley, HB-3's author says his legislation is about empowering parents.
"I know the private schools in my district. I know the kids who go there. Many families are struggling and forgoing college savings, vacations, saving for retirement to make sure their kids are in the best environment," said Buckley.
The other side
At Tuesday's hearing, State Representative James Talarico (D-Austin) led the opposition.
"Your bill allows people who are literally millionaires to take money that could go to public schools to subsidize their private school tuition. Are you okay with that?" asked Talarico.
The Differences
The Texas Senate passed its version of a school choice bill, Senate Bill 2, in February. That bill also establishes savings accounts for families to use public money for private education.
House Bill 3 is similar to Senate Bill 2 in that both bills would require a $1 billion investment from the state to establish the accounts.
Under both bills, families chosen for the program would be allowed to use the funds on private school tuition, textbooks, transportation and other education expenses.
READ MORE: Texas Senate passes SB2, would allow parents to use tax funds for private schools
The bills start to move away from each other when it comes to who is considered for the accounts and how much each student would receive.
While Senate Bill 2 would add a flat $10,000 to a student's savings account, the House version sets the number at "85 percent of the estimated statewide average amount of state and local funding per student in average daily attendance for the applicable school year."
The other difference is in how the programs choose who gets a spot if more applications are received.
If both bills are passed, leaders will have to come to an agreement on the differences between the bills.
The Source
Information in this article comes from testimony made in a House Public Education Committee hearing on March 11, 2025. Other information comes from past FOX coverage and House Bill 3 and Sente Bill 2.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence
Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence

Yahoo

time16 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Republicans, some Democrats and even ex-Gov. Rod Blagojevich weigh in on ex-Speaker Michael Madigan's sentence

In what's become somewhat customary once an Illinois political titan falls, leaders throughout the state responded with condemnation and called for reforms upon hearing Friday that ex-Speaker Michael Madigan was sentenced to seven and a half years in federal prison and fined $2.5 million on federal corruption charges. House Republican leader Tony McCombie of Savanna and Senate Republican leader John Curran of Downers Grove called for bipartisan ethics reforms in the wake of the sentencing, with Curran specifically requesting committee hearings and votes on potential changes — something that didn't happen this session. Madigan's sentencing was 'a stark and shameful reminder of the corruption that has plagued Illinois government for far too long,' McCombie said in a statement. 'Justice was served — but the damage to public trust runs deep.' But Illinois' last prominent statewide politician who went to federal prison, former Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich, held back on the chance to take a swipe at a bitter nemesis when Madigan was sentenced. Though the two were Democrats, they feuded for nearly all six years Blagojevich was in office between 2003 and 2009. 'When that guy, Madigan, was on the top of the mountain, they were all kissing his ass,' Blagojevich said. 'Now they're going to be stomping all over his grave. And it's really, it's really sort of an unappealing side of human nature.' Blagojevich said Madigan's conviction underscores the systemic problems in politics and government in the state Capitol. 'Is the system in Springfield corrupt, in many ways, absolutely,' Blagojevich said in an interview with the Tribune while insisting he didn't break the law. 'It's a system, I've been saying this from the beginning, it all too often works for itself on the backs of the people.' Blagojevich — whose 14-year federal prison sentence for corruption was commuted by President Donald Trump, who ultimately also pardoned Blagojevich — didn't want to celebrate Madigan's prison sentence despite the two's often-tense relationship. 'I just don't think it's right for me to kick a man when he's down,' Blagojevich said. 'What's happening now to him, I know what it's like. And it's really easy for these politicians to get on their high horses and start kicking someone, stomping on someone.' Senate President Don Harmon, a Democrat from Oak Park who is facing a potential fine of nearly $10 million from the Illinois State Board of Elections for improper political fundraising, said Friday's sentence represented 'a solemn reminder' that the duty of public office holders is to serve 'and that there is accountability for those who do not.'

SNAP user's testimony causes backlash, cruel feedback
SNAP user's testimony causes backlash, cruel feedback

Miami Herald

time39 minutes ago

  • Miami Herald

SNAP user's testimony causes backlash, cruel feedback

After President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed the House, it introduced new fears for millions of Americans who rely on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) to survive. The bill proposed an estimated $300 billion in cuts to SNAP over the next decade. If that portion of the bill passes the Senate as it is currently written, it would leave 12.6% of Americans potentially unable to afford shelter and food. Don't miss the move: Subscribe to TheStreet's free daily newsletter The way it currently works is that states would begin to pay at least 5% of food benefit costs, and up to 25% if they have higher error rates, forcing states to choose between raising taxes, cutting other programs, or limiting SNAP access, per the Food Research & Access Center. Related: Scott Galloway sends bold statement on Social Security, US economy Republican senators pushed back hard on the cuts, leading to June 10 reports that the SNAP changes were being scaled down. The reworked plan cuts the state penalty for error from 25% to 15%, but Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) told Politico that they are "still negotiating." Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota took to social media on June 11 to share a video she surely thought would be of help to advocate for keeping SNAP intact. But her efforts have backfired. The video Klobuchar shared is of a SNAP recipient named Felecia talking about her experience as a mother of four living on SNAP benefits. Klobuchar said, "Today, we heard from Felecia, a single mom of four who works up to three jobs at a time to make ends meet. She counts on SNAP to help put food on the table. This is who Republicans in Congress are trying to take food away from. Listen to her story." In the video, Felecia says, "I would like to tell you my story on how SNAP benefit has helped me," becoming visibly emotional. "When I had my oldest daughter 21 years ago, I was working three jobs," Felecia said. "One job alone, I had to pay childcare. Another one to pay food, which wasn't enough. And one to pay the bills, and I still struggled alive." Related: Social Security income tax deduction hits major roadblock Felecia went on to say that she now has a full-time job as a bus monitor, but she only gets paid once a month, which is why she still needs SNAP. "By the time I get my bills paid, I have nothing left to pay for food and other basic needs. If it wasn't for SNAP benefits, I wouldn't be able to feed my children," she said. The comments on the video exploded, causing it to rake in 75,000 views and make the terms "SNAP" and "Felecia" go viral on X. But instead of garnering empathy, it achieved the opposite effect. People in the thread savagely attacked the mother of four, mostly with comments about her weight. "I'm not saying take her SNAP benefits, but what I'm saying is she doesn't need as much as she's getting," X user currermell said. "Either she's eating it all and her kids are already going hungry, or the handouts meant to sustain her life are having the opposite effect." Related: Walmart issues urgent message about the alarming cost of food "Do you know how many calories it takes to look like her? She's doing fine," X user Rafester said. Some opted to attack Felecia's relationship choices instead of her weight, saying, "Why does she have 4 children and no husband? Life choices matter. Sorry but 4 unplanned pregnancies and no partner present is absolute nonsense," X user fictitiousfruit said. A few rare voices in the thread abstained from insults. "Not a single person wants SNAP taken away from Felecia. Every single person wants SNAP revoked for people who aren't trying or aren't contributing to the country they take advantage of," user Zac DiSalvo said. The Arena Media Brands, LLC THESTREET is a registered trademark of TheStreet, Inc.

Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement

timean hour ago

Why thousands of NCAA athletes might wait over a year for share of $2.8 billion settlement

The attorney who negotiated the $2.8 billion legal settlement for the NCAA said Friday that thousands of former athletes due to receive damages could have to wait months or maybe more than a year to get paid while appeals play out. Rakesh Kilaru, who served as the NCAA's lead counsel for the House settlement that was approved last week, told The Associated Press an appeal on Title IX grounds filed this week will hold up payments due to around 390,000 athletes who signed on to the class-action settlement. He said he has seen appeals take up to 18 months in the California-based federal court where this case is playing out, though that isn't necessarily what he expects. 'I will say that we, and I'm sure the plaintiffs, are going to push,' Kilaru said. A schedule filed this week calls for briefs related to the appeal to be filed by Oct. 3. Kilaru doesn't expect anyone on the defendant or plaintiff side to file for extensions in the case 'because every day the appeal goes on is a day damages don't go to the student-athletes.' He said while the appeal is ongoing, the NCAA will pay the money into a fund that will be ready to go when needed. The other critical parts of the settlement -- the part that allows each school to share up to $20.5 million in revenue with current players and set up an enforcement arm to regulate it -- are in effect regardless of appeals. 'I think everyone thought it was important and good for this new structure to start working because it does have a lot of benefits for students,' Kilaru said. 'But it's very common for damages to be delayed in this way for the simple reason that you don't want to make payments to people that you can't recover' if the appeal is successful. A group of eight female athletes filed the appeal. Their attorney, Ashlyn Hare, said they supported settlement of the case 'but not an inaccurate one that violates federal law.' "The calculation of past damages is based on an error that ignores Title IX and deprives female athletes of $1.1 billion,' Hare said. Kilaru agreed with plaintiff attorneys who have argued that Title IX violations are outside the scope of the lawsuit. Other objections to the settlement came from athletes who said they were damaged by roster limits set by the terms. One attorney representing a group of those objectors, Steven Molo, said they were reviewing Wilken's decision and exploring options.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store