Senate education committee approves limits on Education Freedom Accounts after hours of debate

The Senate Education Committee voted 3-2 to pass House Bill 115 with an underlying replace‑all amendment (Amendment 2025-2044) that adds caps and priority rules to the state’s Education Freedom Account (EFA) program.

The amendment, described by proponents as a mechanism to cap near‑unlimited expansion and to prioritize currently enrolled students and students with disabilities, passed after a contentious floor of committee comments from both supporters and opponents.

Why it matters: Committee members debated whether expanding universal eligibility for EFA pulls state education resources away from public schools and whether the amendment’s priority language adequately protects lower‑income families and students with disabilities. Opponents urged that the program’s original purpose — to help low‑income families whose children were not being served by public schools — is endangered by broader eligibility.

Committee debate and key details Supporters said the amendment creates a controlled rollout. Senator Abbas said the amendment “allows us to implement it” and described the change as consistent with prior, phased expansions of the program. Abbas added the amendment was intended to “roll this program out slowly” and continued the legislative precedent of gradual expansion.

Opponents argued the bill moves away from the program’s original intent and lacks means testing. Senator Prentice said she could not support universal eligibility, adding, “When we first passed this legislature, the idea was to provide … opportunities for children who were struggling in public school but did not have the means.” Prentice said raising the eligibility percentage “goes against the original intent of taking care of those who don't have the means.”

Senator Sullivan also opposed the motion to table and argued for school choice and parental options, saying the program “is finally removing barriers for all families to choose the education that is right for their children.”

A number of committee members pressed the sponsors on priority language and means testing. Senator Prentice and others pointed to provisions that would treat currently enrolled students and certain sibling categories differently, and warned that, without means testing, siblings or families whose circumstances improve could jump ahead of higher‑need children.

What the amendment does (as discussed in committee) - Establishes a temporary cap mechanism to pause automatic expansion and requires the department or legislature to reevaluate enrollment once thresholds are reached. - Creates priority tiers that include currently enrolled students, siblings of enrolled students, children with disabilities, and families under the income threshold currently used (referred to in committee as 350% of the federal poverty guideline). - Leaves in place the existing program structure but changes the mechanics for admitting new participants once enrollment hits the defined trigger points.

Formal actions - Committee adopted Amendment 2025-2044 (replace all language) by recorded voice vote; committee tally reported as aye/yeas and nays (see actions array below). The amendment was described in committee as the Senate’s replacement language and was presented as a full substitute. - Committee then voted to recommend passage of HB115 with the underlying amendment. Final committee vote on HB115 with amendment: 3 in favor, 2 opposed. (The committee chair made the call for the vote and the tally was read aloud; names voting in favor/against were not all recorded on the transcript.)

Discussion vs. decision Committee discussion focused on: (1) fidelity to the original program intent to help low‑income families; (2) fiscal effects on state education funding and the Education Trust Fund; and (3) operational details of priority tiers and whether means testing is required. The formal decision was to report the bill ought to pass with the amendment; the committee did not adopt additional conditions or refer the bill back for further study.

Speakers quoted in committee All direct quotes below are attributed to Senators who spoke on the record in the transcript: Senator Prentice, Senator Sullivan, Senator Abbas and Senator Altschuler.

- “I can't support universal eligibility,” Senator Prentice said, arguing the program was originally intended for families “who do not have the means.” - “This amendment allows us to implement it,” Senator Abbas said in support of the capped rollout language. - “I’m hoping that the more opportunity we give … the better our schools and the stronger our public schools will become,” Senator Sullivan said while arguing against ITL and for broader eligibility.

Ending With the committee recommendation to pass HB115 as amended, the bill will move on in the legislative process. The transcript records the committee action and the 3‑2 result; additional floor amendments or committee of conference action could change the bill before final passage in the Senate or concurrence in the House.