Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the School Choice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
LESC hears national review of school‑choice options and questions testing, oversight
Summary
NCSL analyst Lauren Jindell briefed the committee on national school‑choice trends—charters, open enrollment, vouchers, ESAs and tax‑credit scholarships—while committee members pressed for clearer outcome data and asked how the new federal tax‑credit scholarship would be implemented at the state level.
SANTA FE — As the LESC continued its Nov. 17 session, the committee heard a national overview of school‑choice policies from Lauren Jindell of the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Jindell defined the range of programs lawmakers see across the country, from public options such as charters and open enrollment to private‑choice policies like vouchers, education savings accounts (ESAs) and tax‑credit scholarship programs. She said 46 states have charter provisions, 9 have voucher programs, and 18 have ESAs; she also noted 18 states have tax‑credit scholarship programs and that a new federal tax credit scholarship enacted earlier in the year allows donors a dollar‑for‑dollar credit of up to $1,700, subject to Treasury regulations.
Why it matters: Committee members repeatedly asked whether outcomes evidence supports expanding choice programs. Jindell answered that research is mixed and that comparability is limited by variation in program design and state reporting. Several lawmakers said that if taxpayer funds follow students to nonpublic settings the state should require testing and reporting to ensure accountability.
Federal tax credit scholarship: Jindell explained that the federal program requires states to ‘‘opt in’’ for students in that state to be eligible for scholarships; the decision must be taken by the governor or another entity the state designates for tax decisions. She said Treasury guidance and implementing regulations could change program details and that NCSL has published resources for states weighing participation.
Committee concerns: Members raised specific questions about special‑education students, who may need additional oversight if services shift to private providers; about the potential for private institutions to raise tuition in response to public funding; and about whether program designs include data collection on who benefits. Several members urged care before adopting programs that could draw funds from public schools without clear evidence of improved outcomes.
Next steps: Staff and Jindell offered to share examples of states that publish program participation and outcome data. The committee recessed for lunch and scheduled further budget and accreditation items after the break.
