By Tessa Weinberg
But even with support from key legislative leaders, the idea faces long odds.
Senate Bill 841, sponsored by Sen. Rick Brattin, R-Harrisonville, would remove many of the limits imposed on the iteration of the program passed last year. That includes striking geographic boundaries that kept the program out of rural areas and lifting a $25 million funding cap lawmakers put in place.
(Photo- State Sen. Rick Brattin, directly behind podium is joined by family and supporters including his wife, Athena Brattin, daughter Hannah, far right, and son Garrett, to announce his bid for the 4th Congressional District seat. Rudi Keller/Missouri Independent)
“It’s basically the voucher system is what it would be,” Brattin said, “administered by the the (state) Treasurer, and the monies that would be associated with your kid going to your local school would then go to you as the parent, or to that account, and you could deem to where those kids go.”
Any push to expand the program’s reach would have two key allies who said they support the idea: House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee Chairman Chuck Basye and Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Cindy O’Laughlin.
But that might not be enough.
The bill establishing the tax credit program barely eked out of the House last year without any votes to spare. In the months since it passed, some of those votes in support are no longer in the legislature, likely leaving any school choice bill short of the support it needs to pass.
“I fully support expanding the ESA program to make it fully functional as far as an alternative to the traditional public school,” said Sen. Andrew Koenig, a Manchester Republican who was the Senate handler of the bill that founded the ESA program last year. “However, I do think it’s not something that’s likely to pass.”
Basye, R-Rocheport, agreed that the shrinking GOP majority in the House puts the idea in danger.
“We might not have the votes necessary to get those passed,” he said, “unless we can persuade some members to change their vote in order to export an initiative.”
Expanding ESA
Brattin’s bill would not delete the language lawmakers passed last year that established the “Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program,” but he said the expanded program his bill would create would be the “the whole kit and caboodle” — and likely be more widely used.
It would dramatically expand the current ESA program’s reach by removing major concessions that had been added in order to secure enough support for its passage last year.
Among the requirements to participate in the current ESA program, students must live in a county with a charter form of government or a city with at least 30,000 residents — limiting the bill to the state’s major metros, like St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, Cape Girardeau, Jefferson City, Springfield and Joplin.
That stipulation, along with a provision that caps the amount of tax credits that can be issued in the program’s first year at $25 million and a requirement tying the program to state transportation aid being funded at 40%, were changes added over the course of last year’s session to gain support.
Brattin’s bill doesn’t include geographic limits — which have long been a feature that’s been centered around the debate on expanding charter schools in Missouri — and would open the program to students across the state. It also does not include a transportation funding trigger.
“Why, because of your ZIP code or where you’re located, should you be stymied from being able to have access to go somewhere that’s going to educate your kids?” Brattin said.
Rather than being funded through donations to nonprofits that donors could receive tax credits for, the expanded program under Brattin’s bill would be funded by an appropriation state lawmakers would allocate.
In order to receive the funds, which would equal the amount of state aid students’ resident districts would have normally received, parents would also have to agree they would not enroll their student in a public or charter school — limiting options to private school, home schooling or virtual education.
The bill would also change the order in which eligible students had been prioritized to receive funds, and remove the prioritization of special needs students with an approved individualized education plan, or IEP.
Instead, the bill would first prioritize students who had previously received grants. Next would be students whose families’ income is at or below the income standard to qualify for free or reduced price lunch — a little over $49,000 for a family of four — and lastly to students whose families’ income is two times that amount — a little over $98,000 for a family of four.
If the number of eligible students exceeds the amount of funding, then a lottery would be held to select students for remaining grants. Once a student receives a grant, they would remain eligible regardless of income changes
The funds would also be managed by “private financial management firms” rather than nonprofits, but still be overseen by the state Treasurer’s office.
“It’s basically the voucher system is what it would be,” Brattin said, “administered by the the (state) Treasurer, and the monies that would be associated with your kid going to your local school would then go to you as the parent, or to that account, and you could deem to where those kids go.”
Any push to expand the program’s reach would have two key allies who said they support the idea: House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee Chairman Chuck Basye and Senate Education Committee Chairwoman Cindy O’Laughlin.
But that might not be enough.
The bill establishing the tax credit program barely eked out of the House last year without any votes to spare. In the months since it passed, some of those votes in support are no longer in the legislature, likely leaving any school choice bill short of the support it needs to pass.
“I fully support expanding the ESA program to make it fully functional as far as an alternative to the traditional public school,” said Sen. Andrew Koenig, a Manchester Republican who was the Senate handler of the bill that founded the ESA program last year. “However, I do think it’s not something that’s likely to pass.”
Basye, R-Rocheport, agreed that the shrinking GOP majority in the House puts the idea in danger.
“We might not have the votes necessary to get those passed,” he said, “unless we can persuade some members to change their vote in order to export an initiative.”
Expanding ESA
Brattin’s bill would not delete the language lawmakers passed last year that established the “Missouri Empowerment Scholarship Accounts Program,” but he said the expanded program his bill would create would be the “the whole kit and caboodle” — and likely be more widely used.
It would dramatically expand the current ESA program’s reach by removing major concessions that had been added in order to secure enough support for its passage last year.
Among the requirements to participate in the current ESA program, students must live in a county with a charter form of government or a city with at least 30,000 residents — limiting the bill to the state’s major metros, like St. Louis, Kansas City, Columbia, Cape Girardeau, Jefferson City, Springfield and Joplin.
That stipulation, along with a provision that caps the amount of tax credits that can be issued in the program’s first year at $25 million and a requirement tying the program to state transportation aid being funded at 40%, were changes added over the course of last year’s session to gain support.
Brattin’s bill doesn’t include geographic limits — which have long been a feature that’s been centered around the debate on expanding charter schools in Missouri — and would open the program to students across the state. It also does not include a transportation funding trigger.
“Why, because of your ZIP code or where you’re located, should you be stymied from being able to have access to go somewhere that’s going to educate your kids?” Brattin said.
Rather than being funded through donations to nonprofits that donors could receive tax credits for, the expanded program under Brattin’s bill would be funded by an appropriation state lawmakers would allocate.
In order to receive the funds, which would equal the amount of state aid students’ resident districts would have normally received, parents would also have to agree they would not enroll their student in a public or charter school — limiting options to private school, home schooling or virtual education.
The bill would also change the order in which eligible students had been prioritized to receive funds, and remove the prioritization of special needs students with an approved individualized education plan, or IEP.
Instead, the bill would first prioritize students who had previously received grants. Next would be students whose families’ income is at or below the income standard to qualify for free or reduced price lunch — a little over $49,000 for a family of four — and lastly to students whose families’ income is two times that amount — a little over $98,000 for a family of four.
If the number of eligible students exceeds the amount of funding, then a lottery would be held to select students for remaining grants. Once a student receives a grant, they would remain eligible regardless of income changes
The funds would also be managed by “private financial management firms” rather than nonprofits, but still be overseen by the state Treasurer’s office.
No comments:
Post a Comment