Texas School Vouchers: Who Benefits, Who Doesn't, and Why It Matters

Accessible Education
Aug 5
9 min read

Updated: Nov 10

In our last post, Understanding Texas Senate Bill 2 (SB2): Educational Savings Accounts, we explained how the bill structures eligibility, funding, and oversight of the new ESA program. In this follow-up, we examine the most common criticisms of school vouchers—who really benefits, what the risks are to public schools, and how SB2 does or doesn't respond.

Check out our full coverage for the latest TEFA/ESA program updates.

Think SB2 Supports Your Stance on Vouchers and Public Schools? You Might Be Right - Or Not. Here's What the Actually Law Does

Image of a Texas Education Savings Accounts town hall meeting with supporters and opponents of school vouchers; used to illustrate both sides of the SB2 debate and introduce a fact-based analysis of its impact. — While advocates promote school choice and critics warn of harm to public schools, both sides raise valid points — but here are the facts behind SB2’s impact.

While there was significant debate, Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) establishing the ESA program was signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott on May 3, 2025, culminating a years-long effort. The Comptroller's office is now tasked with creating the program and finalizing rules by May 15, 2026, with applications expected to open for the 2026-2027 school year.

Critics argue that rather than expanding opportunities for disadvantaged students, the proposed voucher system may primarily serve as a subsidy for wealthy families while undermining public schools that most Texas children depend on.

Let's examine what critics are saying, what the actual bill provides, and what it all means for different types of families.

What Critics Say: Does the Voucher Program Favor the Wealthy and Harm Low-Income Families?

A Subsidy for Families Who May Not Need Financial Assistance

One of the strongest criticisms of SB2 is that it provides taxpayer-funded vouchers to families who don’t need financial help and are already paying for private education. Evidence from other states supports these concerns:

Arizona: 75% of voucher applicants were children already attending private school
Florida: 69% of new universal ESA funds went to students who were already privately enrolled
Texas projections: The fiscal analysis for SB 2 anticipates that 175,000 students already in private school would apply in the first year, compared to only 24,500 students leaving public schools

This means the majority of voucher funds could go to families already paying for private education, effectively providing them with a taxpayer-funded discount.

Broad Definition of Who Qualifies as "Low-Income"

The Texas bill's eligibility criteria are surprisingly broad. Up to 20% of the initial $1 billion budget could go to families earning at or above 500% of federal poverty guidelines (FPGs), which is roughly $160,000 or more for a family of four. While families earning over $100,000 are included in the broad "low-income" definition of SB 2 (up to 500% FPG or $160,000 for a family of four), they are not prioritized equally. This means that families earning over $100,000 annually would fall into the third or fourth tiers, meaning lower-income families would generally receive priority. The bill establishes a tiered priority system if demand exceeds funding:

Students with disabilities from families at or below 500% FPG.
Families at or below 200% FPG (around $62,400).
Families between 200% and 500% FPG.
Families at or above 500% FPG, who are the lowest priority group.

Voucher Amounts May Not Cover Full Tuition

The typical ESA amount in Texas would be roughly $10,000 to $10,900 per student, with up to $30,000 available for students with special needs. However:

A professionally dressed woman smiling and running away from a public school building carrying an oversized sack of money, used to highlight misconceptions about Texas ESA eligibility; the caption clarifies that while higher-income families are eligible, SB2 prioritizes lower-income and special needs students. — While families of 4 earning over $160K are eligible for ESAs under SB2, they’re the lowest priority and can receive no more than 20% of funds — the bill is structured to favor lower-income and special needs students first, despite perceptions that it mainly benefits the wealthy.

Private school tuition in Texas averages over $11,000
Elite institutions can charge up to $40,000
Special education schools cost around $19,000

Even with voucher assistance, lower-income families would still need to cover significant costs that may remain prohibitive. Additionally, "school choice" doesn't guarantee "parent choice" since private schools can set their own admissions policies and aren't required to accept all students.

Potential Harm to Public Schools and Students Who Remain

Critics argue that vouchers will cause significant harm to the public school system, particularly affecting students from low-income families:

Funding Structure Problems:

Texas already ranks 46th nationally in per-pupil funding
The state spends over $5,000 less per student than the national average
When students leave for private schools using vouchers, public school districts lose per-pupil funding
Fixed costs like teacher salaries and building maintenance remain the same
This forces public schools to implement budget cuts, reduce programs, increase class sizes, or lay off staff

Limited Oversight for Taxpayer Funds

Unlike public schools, private schools receiving voucher funds aren't subject to the same regulations and transparency requirements:

No requirement to administer state standardized tests like STAAR, though they are required to administer a nationally recognized norm-referenced test for grades 3-12
No requirement to follow the same grievance policies
Less democratic oversight compared to public schools with elected boards

Some argue that there is no mandated transparency about curriculum or teacher certification. This is partially accurate. Here are the details:

Private schools receiving funds are not required to follow state curriculum standards or teacher certification requirements in the same way as public schools
However, the bill does outline qualifications for individual private tutors, therapists, or teaching services to be preapproved, including certain educator qualifications, licenses, or criminal history record reviews
Private schools must demonstrate accreditation recognized by the Texas Private School Accreditation Commission or TEA

Worsening Inequities Across Texas

The voucher program may worsen existing educational inequities:

A tumbleweed blows across the empty parking lot of a rural Texas school at sunset, symbolizing concerns that SB2 may shift funding away from rural public schools without providing new educational options. — Rural communities may see funding leave their public schools without gaining new choices.

Rural Communities:

Fewer private school options are available
Will still experience public school funding cuts
Gain no new educational choices, at least initially

Special Education Students:

Private schools aren't obligated to follow federal special education laws
No requirement to provide Individualized Education Programs (IEPs)
Despite higher voucher amounts, services and protections may be reduced
Private schools are not obligated to follow federal special education laws or IEPs; though they may choose to do so

An important note on Special Education and students currently homeschooled or enrolled in private schools: Before Senate Bill 2, there was a mechanism for parents of children not currently in public school to request a full individual and initial evaluation (FIE) from their local school district to determine their child's eligibility for special education services and, if eligible, to develop an Individualized Education Program (IEP). This will continue to be the case under SB2. This will be important for establishing eligibility for the ESA program as a child with a disability. This is an important provision for families seeking to qualify for the higher ESA amount for students with disabilities.

Mixed Results from Other States

Research from other states with voucher programs offers limited encouragement. Studies from Florida and Wisconsin have shown mixed or even negative academic outcomes for students who use vouchers, particularly low-income students. While some research suggests public schools facing voucher competition may improve slightly, these effects are often small compared to what could be achieved through direct investments in public education.

What the Bill Actually Says: Addressing or Not Addressing the Concerns

To fairly assess these criticisms, let's examine how the actual bill text (S.B. No. 2) addresses or fails to address each concern.

Does the Program Prioritize the Wealthy?

Critic Concern Status: Partially Addressed

The bill includes some protections but doesn't fully prevent wealthy families from benefiting:

What the Bill Does:

Requires priority for students enrolled in public schools for at least 90% of the preceding year
Caps spending for highest-income families (500%+ of federal poverty guidelines) at 20% of the total budget ($200 million)
Creates a tiered priority system favoring lower-income families

What It Doesn't Do:

Doesn't prevent students already in private schools from applying
Still allows "wealthy" families to access funds, just at a lower priority

Are Families Making $160K+ Still Eligible?

Critic Concern Status: Confirmed by Bill

Yes, families earning at or above 500% of federal poverty guidelines (roughly $160,000+ for a family of four) remain eligible. While they're designated as the lowest priority group, the bill explicitly allows up to 20% of each year's budget to go to these families.

Can Low-Income Families Afford Private School Even with Vouchers?

Critic Concern Status: Confirmed by Bill

The bill confirms that ESAs may not cover all private school costs. It states that parents "may make payments for the expenses of educational programs, services, and products not covered by money in the account." This directly confirms that families must cover any remaining costs, supporting concerns that the program doesn't work for truly low-income families.

Will Public Schools Lose More Than They Gain?

Critic Concern Status: Legitimate Concern Remains

While the bill specifies that ESAs cannot be funded using certain dedicated public school funding sources, it is funded through the general revenue fund, which is a primary source of state funding for public schools. Money appropriated for ESAs could otherwise be allocated to public schools.

Important Detail: The bill includes a minor incentive for public schools when students return (an additional 0.1 basic allotment), but this doesn't offset the full per-pupil funding loss.

What Oversight Will Private Schools Face?

Critic Concern Status: Partially Addressed

The bill includes some accountability measures but leaves gaps:

Academic Oversight:

Requires nationally norm-referenced assessments or state assessments for grades 3-12
Mandates annual reporting of results
Requires accreditation by recognized organizations

Financial Oversight:

Annual audits of accounts and eligibility data
State auditor reviews 10% of applications
Private schools must provide proof of third-party financial audits

Remaining Gaps:

No requirement for state curriculum standards
There are no specific teacher certification requirements, but the bill does set qualifications for individual private tutors, therapists, or teaching services to be "pre-approved education service providers"
Private schools retain full autonomy over instruction methods
There is no elected oversight like public schools have for private schools

Are Rural and Special Needs Students Protected?

Critic Concern Status: Mixed Results

Rural Students:

The bill includes no provisions to create private school options in underserved rural areas
Rural families may see public schools harmed without gaining new choices

Special Education Students:

Bill allows up to $30,000 for students with disabilities
However, requires written notice that "private schools are not subject to federal and state laws regarding the provision of educational services to a child with a disability"
Confirms private schools aren't bound by federal special education laws or required to provide IEPs

Is the Loss of Local Accountability a Real Concern?

Critic Concern Status: Confirmed by Bill

The bill explicitly states that education service providers receiving program money are "not considered to be a state actor on the basis of receiving that money." This deliberately removes private schools from the direct governmental oversight and democratic accountability that applies to public schools.

Which Concerns Are Real? A Quick Guide

Concerns the Bill Clearly Addresses:

Financial fraud and misuse through auditing requirements
Academic measurement through required assessments
Priority systems that favor lower-income families over higher-income ones

Concerns the Bill Doesn't Fully Address:

Fund diversion from public schools
Guaranteed access to private schools
Full cost coverage for low-income families
Rural equity and access
Democratic accountability for taxpayer funds

Concern	Status	Bill Response
Primarily benefits wealthy families	Partially valid	Families of 4 earning $160K+ are considered "wealthy" and are at the bottom of the priority structure, but are still eligible
Broad income eligibility	Confirmed	Families earning $160K+ are explicitly allowed (but a max of 20% of the program budget can go to these families)
Insufficient funding for poor families	Confirmed	Bill acknowledges that families must cover the remaining costs when tuition exceeds the funding provided
Private school admissions discretion	Confirmed	Schools explicitly granted full autonomy over admissions
Public school funding loss	Valid concern	Funded from general revenue that could go to public schools
Limited accountability	Partially addressed	Some auditing/testing required, but less oversight than public schools
Rural inequity	Unaddressed	No provisions for creating rural private school options
Special education concerns	Confirmed	Private schools are explicitly not bound by federal special ed laws, but students eligible for an IEP are entitled to additional funding
Loss of democratic oversight	Confirmed	Private schools are explicitly exempted from state actor requirements

Separating facts from fear — identifying which concerns about Texas Education Savings Accounts are supported by the bill, which are partially addressed, and which may be overstated.

The Bigger Picture

The Texas ESA law includes some real safeguards, but many of the concerns raised by critics still stand. The way the program is structured means it is more likely to support families who already have access to private options, while it may weaken the public schools that serve most students.

This post focused on the critics' perspective. Next, we’ll look at why many families and advocates support school choice and whether SB2 lives up to those expectations.

Understanding both the benefits and the limits of this program is key to making informed decisions for your family.

Have questions about how SB2 might affect your family or educational organization? Contact us, follow us on Facebook, Instagram, or subscribe to our newsletter for the latest updates and insights.