House committee adopts amendments to Senate Bill 625 tightening rules for Education Freedom Accounts

Representative Keith Brooks, sponsor of Senate Bill 625, told the House Education Committee that the amendment package adopted on the floor clarifies and codifies procedures for Education Freedom Accounts (EFAs), preserves existing funding levels for families and adds guardrails for certain categories of spending.

The measure, presented in committee on the motion to adopt by Representative Brooks and debated over questions from members and public commenters, preserves current per-student funding while adding definitions for allowable courses, expanding the initial application window from Feb. 1–March 31 to Feb. 1–June 1, and creating an appeal process to the State Board when a participating student’s account is closed after an expulsion or similar event.

The bill’s sponsor said the amendment package also clarified that evidence of misuse must be intentional to trigger sanctioning procedures and added explicit language allowing certain nontraditional providers, such as therapeutic programs (Brooks cited “hippotherapy” as an example), to be eligible where appropriate. Brooks described limits on two spending categories that drew sustained committee attention: transportation reimbursements and extracurricular/co‑curricular activities. Under the amended language, the committee was told, districts and families may use up to 25% of the EFA amount per year for transportation reimbursements (Brooks gave a working figure of $1,713 for the coming year as the 25% example) and up to 25% for extracurricular activities.

Committee members asked for detail on how misuse or fraud would be detected and investigated. Courtney Salas Ford of the Department of Education told the panel that the department reviews purchases and works with the vendor that operates the online portal, Class Wallet, to flag purchases for review; she said staff and vendor safeguards are used to detect potentially unusual transactions and investigate whether issues are accidental errors or intentional misuse.

Members also pressed for clarity on definitions for “courses” and whether online offerings would be eligible for EFA funds. The department’s assistant commissioner for school choice (referenced in testimony) said the bill codifies existing department practice and that most online courses already approved under the program remain eligible; parents who have questions about specific vendors or courses are advised to contact department staff or the vendor’s customer service.

Several public commenters addressed the committee during the public-comment period. Homeschool parents who testified said they value the EFA program and expressed concern about both the public rhetoric on misuse and the practical effects of changes made in the middle of a school year. Representative Brooks said the amendments were intended to support long-term sustainability for the program and to clarify existing practices rather than reduce parental choice.

After public comment and brief rebuttals from members, Representative Brooks moved to pass SB 625 as amended; the motion carried on a voice vote. The committee’s passage sends the amended bill forward for further consideration.

Ending: The committee’s action keeps the EFA funding structure in place while adding administrative definitions, a narrow appeal path for account closures and categorical caps that proponents say provide fiscal guardrails. The vote clears the measure from the House Education Committee; subsequent action will determine whether the measure becomes law and how the Department of Education implements the newly codified procedures.