The Texas House Committee on Public Education held a marathon hearing on House Bill (HB) 3, a major school choice proposal that drew passionate testimony from hundreds of citizens over nearly 24 hours, spanning two days. The bill, introduced by Rep. Brad Buckley (R-Salado), is part of a larger education plan known as the “Texas Two Step”, which aims to reshape the state’s public education system by introducing universal education savings accounts (ESAs).
If passed, the bill would create a $1 billion ESA program, allowing families to use state funds for private school tuition, homeschooling expenses, tutoring, and other educational costs. Supporters argue this measure empowers parents to make the best choices for their children’s education, while opponents fear it could drain resources from already underfunded public schools.
What House Bill 3 Proposes
Buckley opened the hearing by explaining the bill’s goal: expanding educational freedom for Texas families.
"House Bill 3 creates an educational savings account program to be administered and regulated by the Texas comptroller's office," he stated.
"Utilizing state funds, ESAs will allow participating Texas families to pay for a range of educational expenses outside the traditional public school system—empowering parents to choose the educational path that best fits their child's needs."
Under HB 3, any child eligible for public school—including those in pre-K and students already in private schools—could apply for an ESA. The amount each student receives is tied to the state’s Foundation School Program (FSP):
85% of the total state and local per-student funding under the FSP would go into an ESA.
Special education students would receive additional funds based on their home district’s Special Education Allotment, capped at $30,000 annually.
Homeschool students would be eligible for up to $2,000 per year.
Buckley emphasized that the ESA model would be flexible, allowing parents to use funds when and how they need them to best support their child's education.
Debate Over Accessibility, Equity, and Public School Impact
As expected, HB 3 sparked intense debate among lawmakers and the public. Opponents argued that a universal ESA program—one open to all income levels—could disproportionately benefit wealthier families who already send their children to private schools, while supporters insisted that low-income and special needs students would be the primary beneficiaries.
Rep. James Talarico (D-Austin) pressed Buckley on whether the bill could be amended to exclude millionaires and billionaires from accessing taxpayer-funded ESAs.
"We could cap the income of those eligible for the program, meaning millionaires and billionaires cannot take advantage of this program—we could do that, right, as a Legislature?"
Buckley responded:
"We can do whatever we wanna do, but the reality is you need a universal program that gives access, that is prioritized in a way that meets the needs of the most vulnerable."
He further argued that school choice programs in other states have shown that non-wealthy parents are the ones taking advantage of these programs to move their children into better educational settings.
Opponents, however, remained skeptical. Diana Herrera, a retired teacher from Edgewood Independent School District, warned lawmakers that diverting public funds to private education could weaken public schools, particularly in rural areas where private options are limited.
Steven Aleman, a policy specialist at Disability Rights Texas, expressed concerns that HB 3 would give private school students more rights than their public school counterparts. He noted that while public schools must comply with federal disability laws, private institutions accepting ESA funds would not be subject to the same regulations, potentially leaving students with disabilities vulnerable.
Private Schools and Religious Liberty Considerations
While many private school advocates support the bill, some emphasized that certain protections must be in place for it to be viable. Laura Colangelo, executive director of the Texas Private Schools Association, testified in favor of HB 3 but stressed the importance of religious liberty protections and maintaining private school autonomy.
"For private school choice to be viable, the bill must include robust provisions for religious liberty and private school autonomy and must meaningfully prioritize low-income students and children with special needs," Colangelo said.
"This bill has language that fits all of those conditions."
Her comments highlight the delicate balance lawmakers must strike—ensuring parental choice while respecting the independence of private institutions.
The Next Steps for HB 3
At the end of the marathon hearing, HB 3 was left pending in committee, meaning lawmakers will continue to deliberate before deciding whether to send it to the House floor for a vote or propose amendments.
With school choice remaining a politically divisive issue in Texas, the fate of HB 3 is far from certain. As lawmakers continue weighing the arguments, the debate over public vs. private education funding, parental choice, and educational equity is expected to remain a major point of contention in the weeks ahead.
Key Questions Moving Forward:
Will lawmakers amend the bill to exclude high-income families from ESA eligibility?
How will Texas ensure accountability for ESA funds?
What impact could this program have on rural and underfunded public schools?
Will private schools accepting ESA funds be required to follow the same regulations as public schools?
