Committee hears wide‑ranging debate on parental choice tax credit; sponsors, advocates and home‑education groups split

Representative Cathy Jo Loy presented House Bill 77, described in testimony as the "Missouri Parent Parental Choice Tax Credit Act," which would create state tax credits to offset eligible education expenses for families that choose alternatives to traditional public schooling.

Loy told the committee she carried language to advance "universal school choice" and that early drafts removed the term "homeschool" to respect families that educate entirely at home. The sponsor said the proposal would not force choices on families, would not mandate which vendors parents use, and is designed to be refundable as a tax‑refund mechanism tied to state tax liability.

Supporters included Becky Uccello, a retired public school teacher, who described a personal case in which her daughter left a public school because of unmet needs and later flourished in a parochial setting. Jean Evans of the American Federation for Children and Camelia Peterson of Americans for Prosperity urged the committee to include low‑income access mechanisms modeled on other states (Oklahoma was cited) and said caps and accreditation requirements could be added to protect quality.

Opponents focused on inclusion of home educators and administrative controls. Cheryl Schmidt, lobbyist for Families for Home Education, asked the committee to remove the statutory homeschool definition (RSMo 167.012) from the bill, arguing the Missouri Department of Revenue and Treasurer would gain expansive rulemaking authority, risk a de facto homeschool registry and could require intrusive checks — drawing on experiences from the MOST Scholars program rules she said were problematic.

Committee members asked about program design: Representative Heruza noted concerns about eligibility when families also use the MOST Scholars program or MOST accounts; Loy replied those are separate. Representatives asked whether there is an income requirement (none in current draft) and whether private schools that receive taxpayer funds would be covered (as drafted the bill applies to public and charter schools; private schools without public funding would not be covered). The sponsor and witnesses discussed a likely cap tied to state adequacy per pupil (the sponsor referenced the state adequacy figure in discussion as roughly $7,100 per student) and said the fiscal note will require further work; a committee member quoted a fiscal estimate range of about $928 million to $1.2 billion and said that figure was concerning, noting it assumes high take‑up and maximum credits.

The committee heard both personal accounts supporting broader parental choice and detailed objections from home‑education advocates about rulemaking and privacy. Members and advocates discussed possible amendments to incorporate accreditation rules for private schools, caps for homeschool reimbursements, and mechanisms to prioritize low‑income families.