In this blog post, we’ll explore House Bill 612 from the 89th Texas Legislature and its potential impact on public education in Texas.
Introduction to House Bill 612
House Bill 612, filed on November 12, 2024, by Representative Matt Shaheen of House District 66, proposes significant changes to education funding and parental rights in Texas.
Key Findings of the Bill
The bill emphasizes parental empowerment and diverse educational options, stating that parents should direct their children’s education. It underscores that no single best educational option exists for all children and that education should follow the child to meet their unique needs.
The bill also references legal precedents supporting the use of state tuition assistance for religious schools, citing United States Supreme Court cases like Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue and Carson v. Makin.
Attorney Fees Provisions
Sec. 30.024. AWARD OF ATTORNEY’S FEES IN ACTIONS CHALLENGING CERTAIN EDUCATIONAL CHOICE LAWS. (a) Notwithstanding any other law, any person, including an entity, attorney, or law firm, who seeks declaratory or injunctive relief to prevent this state or a political subdivision, governmental entity, public official, or other person in this state from enforcing any statute, ordinance, rule, regulation, or other type of law that empowers parents to direct their children’s education, including an educational choice program in which money follows a child to an educational option selected by the child’s parent or an insurance premium tax credit program used in whole or in part to pay for such an educational choice program, in any state or federal court, or that represents any litigant seeking such relief in any state or federal court, is jointly and severally liable to pay the costs and attorney’s fees of the prevailing party.
Section 30.024 addresses attorney fees, deterring legal challenges to educational choice laws by imposing liability for attorney’s fees on those who lose. This provision could discourage legitimate concerns from being raised, potentially protecting flawed implementations of educational choice programs from scrutiny.
Education Savings Accounts
A key component of the bill is the establishment of Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), funded outside the Available School Fund. Certified educational assistance organizations must inform parents about the limitations in private school services for children with disabilities.
The bill highlights that private schools are not subject to the same laws as public schools regarding educational services, meaning children with disabilities may not receive the same support.
Credit Against Premium Taxes
Chapter 230 introduces a state tax credit for contributions to the ESA program, encouraging donations with tax incentives. However, this primarily benefits wealthier contributors and may increase educational disparity by diverting resources away from public schools.
Concerns Raised by House Bill 612
The bill raises several concerns, including inequity, as tax credits mainly benefit those who can afford large donations. This could widen the gap between public and private education, leaving public schools underfunded and disadvantaged.
Another significant concern is the lack of accountability and transparency. Contributions to ESAs may not be subject to the same rigorous oversight as public school funding, leading to potential misuse of funds.
The implications for public schools are dire. Reduced state funds could weaken the financial stability of public schools, limiting resources for essential programs and affecting the quality of education.
My Take on HB 612
Public schools are the backbone of our communities, educating millions of children and fostering social development. They ensure equal opportunity for all students, creating a strong and equitable society. The role of public education is vital and cannot be overstated.
House Bill 612 threatens public school funding by diverting resources to private schools, decreasing financial stability, and reducing program resources. Insurance Premium Tax Credits further exacerbate inequity by shifting taxpayer dollars to private education, subsidizing private school tuition for wealthier families.
Public schools operate under strict accountability and transparency, unlike private schools, which face less oversight. This disparity makes it difficult for parents to compare educational institutions effectively.
Section 30.024’s attorney fees provision is STRANGE and very much is meant to discourages legitimate legal challenges, undermining the accountability of educational choice laws.
Most concerning is the impact on students with disabilities. ESAs offer limited services in private schools, which lack the legal mandates to support these students adequately. Parents who choose ESAs give up basic rights and safeguards. Private schools accepting public funds should be held to the same standards as public schools to ensure fair and equitable education AND provide the SAME basic protections for ALL STUDENTS.
Ensuring equitable education is essential. Public schools provide Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE), including individualized education programs (IEPs) and specialized services. Parents must be aware that ESAs might limit these protections. Our students and families deserve better, and we must advocate for the continued support and funding of public schools.
Resources
- HB 612 (Texas Legislature Online)
- Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue (U.S. Supreme Court)
- Carson v. Makin (U.S. Supreme Court)
Stay Connected:
- Visit Us on Facebook: facebook.com/txmessenger
- Join the Roundtable: facebook.com/groups/txmroundtable
- Visit Us on Instagram: instagram.com/txmessenger1
- Visit Us on X: x.com/txmessenger
