Working 4 You: Equestrian, martial arts on list of approved vendors for Education Freedom Accounts
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – In just a few weeks, the application portal for the state's Education Freedom Accounts will open, giving all parents in Arkansas the option to choose where their kids go to school.
Education Freedom Accounts or EFA's were a big portion of the Arkansas Learns Act, allowing parents to use state money to pay for private school tuition, home school curriculum, and any other educational activity or supplies needed.
Lawmakers have debated the use of EFA's for well over two years now, but conversations came to a head just a few months ago when an equestrian company posted to social media that they were accepting EFA funds.
Lawmakers against Arkansas LEARNS are now questioning what else parents can use EFA's for.
Working 4 You: How are some recipients of Arkansas Education Freedom Accounts spending the money of Natural State taxpayers
Working 4 You obtained a list of more than 500 approved EFA vendors in November. The list includes private schools, online schools, therapy organizations, tutors, and homeschool curriculum.
There are also gymnastics, martial arts, batting cage facilities, baking box subscriptions, personal training, and horseback riding lessons on the list.
'I think a lot of people were surprised to see some of the things that they could be spent on,' Arkansas State Senator Greg Leding said.
Leding said the extra curriculars on the list are questionable.
'To some extent, I suppose there is a defense in that home school children might not have access to physical education, but I don't think these are the kind of activities Arkansans thought they'd be supporting if they supported school vouchers,' Leding said.
In its first year, the state spent more than $34,000 on EFA's or what some are calling 'school vouchers.'
New lawsuit claims Arkansas LEARNS Act vouchers violate state constitution
Next school year, the program goes universal, opening up applications to all school-age children in the state.
'Let's let parents decide what's best for their kids in education,' Arkansas State Senator Bart Hester said.
School choice is becoming a widely popular idea across the nation, mostly led by the Republican Party.
Hester has been a supporter of school choice and Arkansas LEARNS since the beginning. He said parents should have the option to choose where their children go to school and not be confined to a certain school district or type of school.
'I think if you ask parents, [the EFA program] is going very well,' Hester said.
In past stories, Working 4 You talked to parents using EFA funds for private school, tutoring, and homeschool co-ops.
'For me, it was like this is it,' said Ginny Heisler, who has moved her daughter into a micro school this year. 'I don't worry about her learning anymore and I don't worry about her socially anymore.'
Heisler said Arkansas Learns, and more specifically the EFA program is a blessing for her family.
More than 20K school choice applications submitted in Arkansas in 2024
Its not necessarily stories like these though, that have lawmakers like Leding concerned.
'A lot of [approved vendors] are out of state, out of the country. Some places [listed] in the U.S. are as far away as San Francisco,' Leding said.
Leding went on to say activities like horseback riding and martial arts seem excessive and should not be approved as vendors in the EFA program.
Working 4 You took these concerns to State Senator Hester.
'Look, I hear those arguments all the time. I hear, 'Is it really necessary that we have big football stadiums for football on Friday night?' At the end of the day, everyone's not going to agree. That is why it's important to let parents choose what is best for their child's education,' Hester said.
The application process to become an EFA-approved vendor is briefly outlined on the Arkansas Department of Education website.
Below are the qualifications for vendor approval.Must complete background checks for all student-facing employees
Provide education in ELA, math, social studies, and science
Administer assessments to participating students
Must not discriminate on any basis prohibited by the Civil Rights Act of 1964
Cannot employ anyone who may pose a risk to EFA funds
Provide a list of all goods and services offered with corresponding prices or rates
Provide proof of credentials to demonstrate that relevant staff meet at least one of the following:
Hold an Arkansas Standard or Provisional Professional Training License or qualify through an ADE-recognized Alternative Route ProgramMeet the requirements set by a tutoring organization accredited/recognized by the State BoardAre employed in the teaching/tutoring role at an accredited high education institutionHold a baccalaureate or graduate-level degree in the subject they teachHave at least three years of prior teaching experience demonstrating special skills, knowledge, or expertise qualifying them to provide instruction
Provide evidence of subject matter expertise in their fieldMust complete background checks and fingerprinting
Meet additional requirements based on service type:
Tutors: Provide proof of credentials meeting at least one of the following:
Hold an Arkansas Standard or Provisional Professional Teaching License or qualify through ADE-recognized Alternative Route Program
Meet the requirements set by a tutoring organization accredited by an accrediting association recognized by the State Board.
Are employed in a teaching/tutoring capacity at an accredited institution of higher education
Hold a baccalaureate or graduate-level degree in the subject area for which tutoring or instructional services are provided
Have at least three years of prior teaching experience demonstrating special skills, knowledge, or expertise qualifying them to provide instruction
Provide evidence of subject matter expertise in their field
Therapists: must hold an active state license
Transportation providers: Must hold an active state driver's license
The Department of Education's website has little information about vendor qualifications so Working 4 You asked both state senators.
'I think they just have to prove to the Department of Education that they're a real business, that they're really functioning and that they are providing some service,' Hester said.
'There are some requirements and so you would go through the Arkansas Department of Education,' Leding said.
Working 4 You: Are Education Freedom Accounts truly available to families of all backgrounds?
State lawmakers say they are planning on adding $90 million to the cost for Arkansas LEARNS next school year. Opposers say now is the time to put in more regulations.
'The chief concern for most of us is the voucher program and its cost and so maybe making sure they are going to students who actually need them, not subsidizing families who are already able to send their students to private schools,' Leding said.
We asked Hester if there is a concern with the cost of Arkansas LEARNS as it becomes universal next year.
'There certainly is a concern but we're committed to it,' Hester said. 'The more the cost goes up the more we have to say why are parents choosing this? Why are so many parents choosing to leave their public schools?'
Hester said the state is expecting a $250 million to $300 million surplus this year, and they will likely pull the money from that to help fund Arkansas LEARNS.
Democrats say at this point there is not enough support against the bill to make any changes right now but are expecting conversations to increase after Arkansas LEARNS is fully operational next school year.
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Why California Became Trump's Favorite Target — and Why the State Isn't Backing Down
President Donald Trump and his supporters are right about one thing in this explosive clash between California and the federal government: It is a fight not just over position or even over public safety. It's about values. And it's been a long time building. For Trump, it's a battle of his choosing, giving him the opportunity to escalate conflict on a signature issue, immigration, in a city and state governed by political adversaries. For California, it is the logical result of a long and profound transformation — from the days of Republican Party dominance to Democratic Party control — one I've watched and chronicled for more than 30 years and that I now see culminating in literal fighting in the streets. Californians are turning out against forces sent here by guardians of a value system that the state has rejected. It was within the living memory of many Californians that this state was a solid center of the Republican Party. Most of its greatest governors — Hiram Johnson, Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan — were stalwarts of the GOP, and the state's officeholders were almost universally Republican. Warren was a colossus of the California Republican Party, the first person ever to win three terms as governor and, in 1946 and in an era of cross-filing, the first and only person ever to be nominated for the governorship not just by his own party, the GOP, but also by the Democrats. A few years later, when Pat Brown was re-elected to his second term, in 1962, he was the first Democrat ever to win the governorship twice. That changed. Today's California is as staunchly Democratic as yesterday's was Republican, a flip in orientation that helps to explain the resolve of Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in the current showdown with Washington. No statewide officeholder in California is a Republican. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the last Republican to hold the governorship, and he was an anomaly — a celebrity elected in a recall and one who governed as a centrist. No Republican has served as mayor of Los Angeles since 2001, when the moderate Richard Riordan left the stage, only to be wiped out in his campaign for governor. So far has the spectrum swung that in 2022, when Bass ran for mayor, her opponent, a developer named Rick Caruso, registered as a Democrat just in time for the campaign, realizing that the city would not, under any imaginable circumstance, elect another Republican to lead it. The county's current district attorney made the same calculation in time for last year's race. Many forces have propelled that shift, of course, but chief among them are the parties' divergent approaches to the environment and immigration and the shifting demographics of California, which, like so many things emanating from this state, are just now beginning to wash over the rest of the country as well. The environment is the easiest of those three developments to track. Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, both parties could boast of environmental successes. Democrats were more closely associated with efforts to clean air and water, but it was California's Richard Nixon who founded the Environmental Protection Agency. And though Lyndon Johnson signed the first Clean Air Act, Nixon extended and improved it. In California, reverence for the coastline, redwoods and interior forests was a bipartisan commitment in those years. But as Republicans increasingly came to represent business over stewardship and corporations over consumers, Californians who identified with environmental concerns gravitated to the Democratic Party. By 2020, Trump and other Republicans were calling climate change a hoax, and California rejected them. In that race, 78 percent of all Californians said the environment mattered greatly to them in selecting a president; 91 percent of Democrats ranked the environment as key to their support, and so did 58 percent of Republicans. Joe Biden beat Trump here by almost 30 points. Meanwhile, the state's demographics were changing. Once a part of Mexico, California has always been closely connected to its southern neighbor, with whom it shares ties of culture, trade and family. The percentage of the state whose residents are of Mexican or Latino origin has steadily grown since the 1950s, to the point that Latinos are now the state's largest ethnic group, having surpassed whites. In theory, that could cut both ways politically, and there was a time when Latino loyalties in California were divided between Democrats and Republicans. That ended in 1994, when a ballot initiative known as Prop. 187 sought to deny state benefits — vaccines, education, social services — to those who were in the state illegally. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, endorsed Prop. 187, helping secure his re-election but driving Latinos en masse away from his party. Although California voters approved Prop. 187, it turned out to be the high-water mark for anti-immigration enthusiasm in the state. In its aftermath, most of the measure was thrown out by the courts, and an invigorated electorate turned to candidates friendly to immigrants, no matter how they arrived in the state. But the Prop. 187 debate was three decades ago, and memories fade. Latinos in California and elsewhere favored Kamala Harris in 2024, but Trump outperformed expectations among Latino voters, perhaps signaling a softening of old antipathies. If so, the events of this week may rekindle recollections. As an old saw of California politics goes, it's hard to debate issues when you're busy deporting someone's grandmother. At the core of the separation between California and the national Republican Party, especially in its thrall to Trump, is what that history has produced. Taken together, the shifts of demographics and heightened sensitivity to immigration and the environment, along with a few other issues — police accountability, progressive income taxes, education reform — have produced in California a new and strongly felt agenda. How far has California come? Where Pat Brown was the first Democrat ever re-elected as governor, his son, Jerry Brown was elected twice, in 1974 and 1978. And then, after a 28-year hiatus, twice more, in 2010 and 2014. (Term limits imposed in 1990 constrained governors to two terms in office, but they were not retrospective, so Brown was free to run, and win, again.) Brown is arguably the most respected living person in California politics. If a place as big and diverse as California can be said to have a coherent set of values, those today would include respect for the environment, benevolence toward immigrants, support for living wages and insistence on civilian control over police. And if those values prevail, they do so at the expense of Trump, who is on the opposite side of every one of them. That tension has flared time and again in the Trump era, as the president has bashed California over its struggles with homelessness, its permissive voting rules and its determination to limit auto emissions, all manifestations of those values. Although California is a powerful donor state to the federal government — taxpayers here pay about $80 billion a year more than the state receives in federal services — Trump withheld support for homeowners devastated by January wildfires, demanding that federal aid be contingent on the state adopting Voter ID laws to curb fictional voter abuse that Trump believes cost him the state in his losing campaigns here. That was an attempt at bribery. It failed. Now comes force. From Trump's perspective, California is thumbing its nose at his program for America. He's right about that. What seems to confound him and his allies is that it's not California's political leadership that's behind that contempt — it's not Newsom or Bass or the state legislature — it's the people of the state, in overwhelming numbers and relying on deeply held beliefs. Those leaders are merely reflecting back what their constituents demand. Again, Trump lost to Biden here by almost 30 points — more than 5 million votes —- despite all the state's struggles and all the former president's flaws. In fact, Trump's attacks on Newsom and Bass — including his empty threat to arrest Newsom — may be the best thing that's happened to either in some time. Before all this, Bass was seen as having foundered in the face of the wildfire, which erupted while she was out of town; now, she's the mayor standing up to a deeply unpopular and dangerous president. That helps explain why Trump picked this fight in California, not just to be a bully but to force a showdown of values, to bring California to heel, or least to score points by trying. He authorized aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles. Predictably, those neighborhoods where the raids occurred were shocked and frightened, and in many cases angry. Residents protested, legally and peacefully at first, then with mounting fury. LAPD dispersed the crowd on Friday night. It was akin to a championship celebration that got out of hand. On Saturday morning, the same streets that had been tense the night before woke to calm. Diners lined up at the Grand Central Market in downtown Los Angeles for breakfast. The March of Dimes held a rally across from City Hall. LAPD officers had a booth; one joined the line dancing. Children played cornhole and munched on crushed ice. That felt like life returning to normal. But Trump could not allow Los Angeles and California to right itself, because to allow California to persevere is to risk allowing its values to prevail. Instead, Trump railed at Newsom and Bass and directed the National Guard to deploy in the city. That gave protesters another reason to be angry, and by Sunday afternoon, a much-larger demonstration erupted and then cascaded into the night, with scattered acts of violence. Still not satisfied, Trump sent active-duty Marines. And so, this government-induced unrest continues. If the goal is to calm Los Angeles, the solution would be simple: Withdraw federal forces and let the LAPD and Sheriff's Department do their jobs. But that's not the goal. The unrest goes on because Trump needs it to. He's not just fighting for deportations. He's fighting for his values in a state that rejects them.
Boston Globe
2 hours ago
- Boston Globe
New Hampshire extends ‘education freedom account' eligibility to all students, regardless of income
Get N.H. Morning Report A weekday newsletter delivering the N.H. news you need to know right to your inbox. Enter Email Sign Up With this policy change, state-level spending on EFAs is projected to climb from Advertisement Ayotte said these numbers represent a fiscally responsible approach to a core commitment. 'As a mom, I can't think of anything more important than making sure that every child in this state has the opportunity to reach his or her full potential in the setting that works best for them in terms of education, and that's really what this bill does,' she said. Advertisement Ayotte was joined at a bill-signing ceremony by outgoing Education Commissioner Frank Edelblut, lawmakers who supported the EFA expansion, and a cadre of children. The bill's prime sponsor, Republican Senator Victoria L. Sullivan of Manchester, said the legislation will help Although other states in New England have school-choice programs, New Hampshire's policies already ranked highest in the region in terms of ' With its latest move, New Hampshire has 'set a new benchmark for what educational freedom should look like,' Robert Enlow, president and CEO of Until now, the EFA program had allowed those earning up to 350 percent of the federal poverty level (about $112,500 for a family of four) to take money the state would have contributed toward the cost of their public education and instead spend it on private school or certain other educational expenses. Since the state contributes The actual financial impacts will depend in large part on which newly eligible students opt to participate. A student who uses EFA money to transfer from a public charter school to a private school, for example, could save the state about $5,100 per year, but a student who uses the money to continue attending a private school where they were already enrolled could cost the state an additional $4,400 per year, according to legislation's fiscal impact statement. Advertisement In 2021, when lawmakers first considered establishing the EFA program, the New Hampshire Department of Education estimated that What's more, critics have noted that a public school's overhead costs do not necessarily decrease at a rate proportional to the number of local students who opt to use EFA money elsewhere. Megan Tuttle, president of National Education Association in New Hampshire, said the EFA expansion 'will exacerbate the already inequitable public education funding system in New Hampshire.' Deb Howes, president of American Federation of Teachers in New Hampshire, said the state is 'underfunding' public schools, so it's 'appalling' that the EFA expansion will extend subsidies to families who can already afford to pay for the education of their choosing. 'That is the one priority they're going to fund in the budget, while Democratic Representative David Luneau of Hopkinton said spending on the EFA program could balloon more than the budgeters have projected. 'We're potentially looking at north of $100 million once this program is fully phased in over the next few years,' he said, calling the program 'an unaccountable and Advertisement The legislation that Ayotte signed into law includes a circuit-breaker provision to limit how rapidly the EFA program can expand. No more than 10,000 students will be allowed to participate for the 2025-2026 school year. If more than 9,000 students apply, then the cap will increase to 12,500 students in the following school year. (Whenever the number of EFA applicants exceeds 90 percent of the maximum, the cap will increase by 25 percent in the following school year.) Once the number of applications remains below the cap for two consecutive school years, the cap will disappear. There are currently about The state's EFA program is administered by the Steven Porter can be reached at
Politico
3 hours ago
- Politico
Why California Became Trump's Favorite Target — and Why the State Isn't Backing Down
President Donald Trump and his supporters are right about one thing in this explosive clash between California and the federal government: It is a fight not just over position or even over public safety. It's about values. And it's been a long time building. For Trump, it's a battle of his choosing, giving him the opportunity to escalate conflict on a signature issue, immigration, in a city and state governed by political adversaries. For California, it is the logical result of a long and profound transformation — from the days of Republican Party dominance to Democratic Party control — one I've watched and chronicled for more than 30 years and that I now see culminating in literal fighting in the streets. Californians are turning out against forces sent here by guardians of a value system that the state has rejected. It was within the living memory of many Californians that this state was a solid center of the Republican Party. Most of its greatest governors — Hiram Johnson, Earl Warren, Ronald Reagan — were stalwarts of the GOP, and the state's officeholders were almost universally Republican. Warren was a colossus of the California Republican Party, the first person ever to win three terms as governor and, in 1946 and in an era of cross-filing, the first and only person ever to be nominated for the governorship not just by his own party, the GOP, but also by the Democrats. A few years later, when Pat Brown was re-elected to his second term, in 1962, he was the first Democrat ever to win the governorship twice. That changed. Today's California is as staunchly Democratic as yesterday's was Republican, a flip in orientation that helps to explain the resolve of Governor Gavin Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass in the current showdown with Washington. No statewide officeholder in California is a Republican. Arnold Schwarzenegger was the last Republican to hold the governorship, and he was an anomaly — a celebrity elected in a recall and one who governed as a centrist. No Republican has served as mayor of Los Angeles since 2001, when the moderate Richard Riordan left the stage, only to be wiped out in his campaign for governor. So far has the spectrum swung that in 2022, when Bass ran for mayor, her opponent, a developer named Rick Caruso, registered as a Democrat just in time for the campaign, realizing that the city would not, under any imaginable circumstance, elect another Republican to lead it. The county's current district attorney made the same calculation in time for last year's race. Many forces have propelled that shift, of course, but chief among them are the parties' divergent approaches to the environment and immigration and the shifting demographics of California, which, like so many things emanating from this state, are just now beginning to wash over the rest of the country as well. The environment is the easiest of those three developments to track. Back in the 1960s and early 1970s, both parties could boast of environmental successes. Democrats were more closely associated with efforts to clean air and water, but it was California's Richard Nixon who founded the Environmental Protection Agency. And though Lyndon Johnson signed the first Clean Air Act, Nixon extended and improved it. In California, reverence for the coastline, redwoods and interior forests was a bipartisan commitment in those years. But as Republicans increasingly came to represent business over stewardship and corporations over consumers, Californians who identified with environmental concerns gravitated to the Democratic Party. By 2020, Trump and other Republicans were calling climate change a hoax, and California rejected them. In that race, 78 percent of all Californians said the environment mattered greatly to them in selecting a president; 91 percent of Democrats ranked the environment as key to their support, and so did 58 percent of Republicans. Joe Biden beat Trump here by almost 30 points. Meanwhile, the state's demographics were changing. Once a part of Mexico, California has always been closely connected to its southern neighbor, with whom it shares ties of culture, trade and family. The percentage of the state whose residents are of Mexican or Latino origin has steadily grown since the 1950s, to the point that Latinos are now the state's largest ethnic group, having surpassed whites. In theory, that could cut both ways politically, and there was a time when Latino loyalties in California were divided between Democrats and Republicans. That ended in 1994, when a ballot initiative known as Prop. 187 sought to deny state benefits — vaccines, education, social services — to those who were in the state illegally. Then-Gov. Pete Wilson, a Republican, endorsed Prop. 187, helping secure his re-election but driving Latinos en masse away from his party. Although California voters approved Prop. 187, it turned out to be the high-water mark for anti-immigration enthusiasm in the state. In its aftermath, most of the measure was thrown out by the courts, and an invigorated electorate turned to candidates friendly to immigrants, no matter how they arrived in the state. But the Prop. 187 debate was three decades ago, and memories fade. Latinos in California and elsewhere favored Kamala Harris in 2024, but Trump outperformed expectations among Latino voters, perhaps signaling a softening of old antipathies. If so, the events of this week may rekindle recollections. As an old saw of California politics goes, it's hard to debate issues when you're busy deporting someone's grandmother. At the core of the separation between California and the national Republican Party, especially in its thrall to Trump, is what that history has produced. Taken together, the shifts of demographics and heightened sensitivity to immigration and the environment, along with a few other issues — police accountability, progressive income taxes, education reform — have produced in California a new and strongly felt agenda. How far has California come? Where Pat Brown was the first Democrat ever re-elected as governor, his son, Jerry Brown was elected twice, in 1974 and 1978. And then, after a 28-year hiatus, twice more, in 2010 and 2014. (Term limits imposed in 1990 constrained governors to two terms in office, but they were not retrospective, so Brown was free to run, and win, again.) Brown is arguably the most respected living person in California politics. If a place as big and diverse as California can be said to have a coherent set of values, those today would include respect for the environment, benevolence toward immigrants, support for living wages and insistence on civilian control over police. And if those values prevail, they do so at the expense of Trump, who is on the opposite side of every one of them. That tension has flared time and again in the Trump era, as the president has bashed California over its struggles with homelessness, its permissive voting rules and its determination to limit auto emissions, all manifestations of those values. Although California is a powerful donor state to the federal government — taxpayers here pay about $80 billion a year more than the state receives in federal services — Trump withheld support for homeowners devastated by January wildfires, demanding that federal aid be contingent on the state adopting Voter ID laws to curb fictional voter abuse that Trump believes cost him the state in his losing campaigns here. That was an attempt at bribery. It failed. Now comes force. From Trump's perspective, California is thumbing its nose at his program for America. He's right about that. What seems to confound him and his allies is that it's not California's political leadership that's behind that contempt — it's not Newsom or Bass or the state legislature — it's the people of the state, in overwhelming numbers and relying on deeply held beliefs. Those leaders are merely reflecting back what their constituents demand. Again, Trump lost to Biden here by almost 30 points — more than 5 million votes —- despite all the state's struggles and all the former president's flaws. In fact, Trump's attacks on Newsom and Bass — including his empty threat to arrest Newsom — may be the best thing that's happened to either in some time. Before all this, Bass was seen as having foundered in the face of the wildfire, which erupted while she was out of town; now, she's the mayor standing up to a deeply unpopular and dangerous president. That helps explain why Trump picked this fight in California, not just to be a bully but to force a showdown of values, to bring California to heel, or least to score points by trying. He authorized aggressive immigration raids in Los Angeles. Predictably, those neighborhoods where the raids occurred were shocked and frightened, and in many cases angry. Residents protested, legally and peacefully at first, then with mounting fury. LAPD dispersed the crowd on Friday night. It was akin to a championship celebration that got out of hand. On Saturday morning, the same streets that had been tense the night before woke to calm. Diners lined up at the Grand Central Market in downtown Los Angeles for breakfast. The March of Dimes held a rally across from City Hall. LAPD officers had a booth; one joined the line dancing. Children played cornhole and munched on crushed ice. That felt like life returning to normal. But Trump could not allow Los Angeles and California to right itself, because to allow California to persevere is to risk allowing its values to prevail. Instead, Trump railed at Newsom and Bass and directed the National Guard to deploy in the city. That gave protesters another reason to be angry, and by Sunday afternoon, a much-larger demonstration erupted and then cascaded into the night, with scattered acts of violence. Still not satisfied, Trump sent active-duty Marines. And so, this government-induced unrest continues. If the goal is to calm Los Angeles, the solution would be simple: Withdraw federal forces and let the LAPD and Sheriff's Department do their jobs. But that's not the goal. The unrest goes on because Trump needs it to. He's not just fighting for deportations. He's fighting for his values in a state that rejects them.
