Education committee splits over expanding Education Freedom Scholarships to 40,000

Leader Lamberth told the House Education Committee that HB 2532 would add 15,000 education freedom scholarships, bringing the program to 40,000 awards, and that the scholarships are intended to give families additional choice when public schools are not meeting a child’s needs. "These scholarships are $7,295 in the current budget year and it'll be $7,530 in the upcoming budget year," Lamberth said.

Opponents pressed for more data and accountability. Representative Johnson said the committee lacks basic information about who is benefiting and warned that the program appears to subsidize private schooling for families who were already in private schools: "It looks like 86% of those folks getting vouchers were never in a public school. They've always been in a private school. And so we are subsidizing their private school education." Johnson also cited a fiscal note and said the program could add "about 155 million dollars" to current spending and that the long-term trajectory could reach near a billion dollars.

Leader Lamberth disputed the opponents’ statistics and framed the program as a limited, demand-driven option. He said the state spends roughly $13,861.67 per child across state, local and federal funds and emphasized that the scholarships fall short of per‑pupil public spending: "That falls far short of what we spend on every public school child," he said, arguing the program is designed to help families with children who have special needs or unique circumstances.

Representative Glenn, Representative McKenzie and others questioned capacity and geographic concentration. Committee members cited department and fiscal-review figures showing most scholarships clustered in a handful of populous counties; several members argued the priority rules in the bill would likely direct awards first to existing recipients and then to families meeting income thresholds, leaving open questions about whether the expansion would create meaningful new seats.

Representative Baum said the program may reduce near-term capital pressure on fast-growing districts by shifting some students into private schools, while Representative Mayberry and others described private schools in their districts that report positive outcomes for scholarship recipients.

After extended debate and a roll call, the clerk announced a committee tally of 11 ayes and 9 nays. The clerk’s announcement in the transcript named House Bill 2533 when reading the result; the transcript contains inconsistent bill-number references near the vote. Committee business then moved on.

The committee’s discussion focused on three recurring themes: fiscal impact and long‑term growth of the program, the absence or limits of demographic and prior‑enrollment data on recipients, and whether the state should require more accountability for participating private schools. Several members asked the Department of Education or fiscal review staff to make underlying application and income data public; the sponsor said he would provide department figures referenced in the hearing.

The committee did not adopt new reporting or accountability provisions during the session; members who asked for public release of application income data pressed the sponsor to provide those records afterward. The next procedural step recorded in the transcript was the clerk’s tally and movement of the item as read aloud at the meeting.

Ending: The committee concluded debate after the recorded vote and moved on to other calendar items. The transcript records the clerk’s tally as 11–9 and then proceeds to the next agenda items; committee papers or the calendar should be consulted for the formal docketing and bill number reconciliation.