Senate committee debates rival school-choice bills and cost estimates; no final vote

The Senate Education Committee spent an extended committee-work period discussing two school-choice proposals under consideration (referred to in committee as bills 2300 and 2400). Committee members and witnesses debated program design, projected costs and potential effects on rural districts and public-school finance, but the committee took no final votes on either bill during the session recorded in the transcript.

Senator Wabam (sponsor of a broadly written Education Savings Account-style proposal discussed in committee) walked the committee through a redlined amendment and a fiscal worksheet he prepared. He said the Department of Public Instruction’s preliminary fiscal note omitted a 20% adjustment factor; with corrected assumptions and an assumed 45% take-up rate the sponsor’s worksheet reduced an initial high-end estimate to roughly $137 million under the model used in his calculation. The sponsor flagged the sensitivity of total cost to the assumed participation rate and urged committee members to consider range scenarios (60%, 70% take-up, etc.) and possible caps or phased implementation.

Committee members pressed on several points: whether participating students in Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) schools or youth-correction facilities would be eligible (staff said participating nonpublic schools must be certified and BIE-funded schools would not be counted the same way), whether funding could cause public districts to lose necessary revenue, and whether nonpublic-school tuition would rise if public dollars followed students. Several senators said they were concerned about potential public-school closures or destabilization in small and rural districts, and others argued that giving families more options could spur innovation and better outcomes. "If this state maintain[s] what I believe to be their responsibility of teaching all children, we've already — it's not just public schools," one senator said in favor of the bill’s potential to expand choice.

Technical design issues dominated the committee discussion. The sponsor proposed that an account be funded at a per-pupil amount roughly related to the state per-pupil payment, with mechanisms to roll unused funds into a 529-style college account and limits on annual rollover (the amendment discussed a maximum rollover of up to 25% of an annual allocation). The amendment also listed qualified expenses for accounts, including textbooks, supplies, therapies and transportation. Witnesses and members debated whether accounts should be allowed to pay tuition directly; one senator circulated an amendment to prohibit tuition payments and limit use to ancillary services — tutoring, therapies and the like — to try to win broader committee support.

Several witnesses told the committee they expected differing take-up rates depending on program design and eligibility. The sponsor cited Heritage Foundation research and data from other states (New Hampshire and Iowa) and said national comparisons are sensitive to eligibility rules. Committee members suggested using a phased approach, caps, or pilot funding so lawmakers could observe real take-up and costs before full-scale implementation.

No committee votes occurred on the underlying bills during the recorded session; senators agreed to continue work after a recess and to bring fiscal details to appropriators for further discussion.