PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION OF GEORGIA EDUCATORS

The loss of state funds triggered by the voucher program would not be matched by a comparable drop in districts’ expenses. If 20 students leave a district to take ESA vouchers, districts cannot cut their teachers’ salaries by a proportional amount, nor can they reduce other costs including support services such as counselors and media specialists, transportation, and utilities.

 

Although HB 60 contains a public school enrollment requirement, it lacks a public school attendance requirement for qualifying students. This proposed policy creates opportunities to misuse the program if students enroll in a public school for a few weeks or days to meet eligibility requirements. This could drive up state costs. HB 60’s enrollment requirement should be amended to reflect a public school attendance requirement of at least one school year.  

 

Once students qualify for ESA vouchers under HB 60, they receive it until they graduate, return to public school, or reach 20 or 21 if they have special needs. Changes in their qualifying eligibility—such as increases in family income above 200 percent of the federal poverty line—do not alter their receipt of the voucher. HB 60 should require routine evaluation of student eligibility.  

 

Voucher Plan has Inadequate Quality Safeguards and Gives Parents Little Information

 

The ESA voucher plan outlined in HB 60 falls short of rigorous quality and transparency standards. The most important in-school component of student learning is a skilled teacher. HB 60 does not require teachers at participating private schools to have a bachelor’s degree or a teaching certificate.

 

Parents’ ability to compare prospective private schools with their children’s public school is hampered by the lack of comparable data. The easiest solution is requiring voucher students to take Georgia Milestones, but HB 60 does not do so. The lack of comparable data would also impede lawmakers’ ability to assess the program’s costs and benefits and set clear benchmarks for removing private schools or other service providers that perform poorly, an accountability measure the bill lacks.

 

Other accountability measures in HB 60 are also insufficient. Participating private schools are not required to provide an annual financial audit, unlike public school districts. In addition, a review committee, which makes determinations about allowable expenses and considers appeals from private schools and providers denied approval to participate, is made up of eight parents of participating students appointed by the GSFC executive director. No instructional experts from the public education sector are members of the committee.

 

Recommendations

 

There are multiple strategies lawmakers can pursue that would yield greater benefits for Georgia public school students instead of sending public funds to private schools through a flawed program. Legislators should:

 

1. Eliminate state austerity cut in full and address ongoing funding gaps including student transportation and school counselors.
    

2. Implement overdue transparency and accountability measures to Georgia’s existing voucher programs.
    

3. Identify, implement and fund strategies to help public school students surmount learning and mental health challenges associated with the COVID-19 pandemic

​

​

Appendix A: Structure of HB 60 ESA Voucher Program

 

Students would be eligible for an ESA voucher under HB 60 if they have a parent who currently resides in Georgia and meet one or more of the following criteria:

 

• A family income below 200 percent of the federal poverty line and currently enrolled in a public school in Georgia (see Footnote 2)

• Been adopted from foster care and was enrolled in a public school in Georgia immediately prior to adoption

• A parent who is an active duty military service member stationed in Georgia within the previous year and is currently enrolled in a public school in Georgia

• Has an IEP and is currently enrolled in a public school in Georgia (see Footnote 3)

• Has a Section 504 plan related to one of the following conditions or has a diagnosis for one of these conditions from a physician or psychologist:
   

  • Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)

  • Autism spectrum disorder

  • Bipolar disorder

  • Cancer

  • Cerebral palsy

  • Cystic fibrosis

  • Deafness

  • Down syndrome

  • Drug or alcohol abuse

  • Dual sensory impairment

  • Dyslexia

  • Emotional or behavioral disorder

  • Epilepsy

  • Hearing impairment

  • Intellectual disability

  • Muscular dystrophy

  • Specific learning disability

  • Spina bifida

  • Traumatic brain injury

  • Visual impairment

  • Any rare disease identified by the National Institutes of Health’s Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center’s list of rare diseases OR

• Was enrolled in a public school in the previous year that did not offer 100 percent in-person instruction for a semester.

 

The number of participating students would be capped at a quarter of one percent of the total statewide public school enrollment in year one of the program and expand by a quarter of one percent annually up to two and one-half (2.5) percent. Based on current enrollment data, about 44,000 students could receive an ESA voucher under the two and one-half percent limit (see Footnote 4).

 

The number of participating students from an individual school district is limited to one-half of one percent of the program total in the first year and increase by one-half of one percent in subsequent years up to four percent. Districts with a lower enrollment than the statewide average would have a lower cap: one-fourth of one percent of the program’s total enrollment in the first year with an increase of one-fourth of one percent in subsequent years to a maximum of 2.5 percent.

 

Participating students could continue receiving an ESA voucher until they graduate from high school, turn 20, or, for special education students, turn 21. Students with an IEP or a Section 504 plan would be required to waive their rights to services under federal law.

 

The ESA voucher program would be funded with state money allotted to public schools. Voucher students would receive the amount their school districts would be allocated to serve them minus the local five mill share. The money would be deposited into accounts set up for each student and could be used for one or more of the following:

 

• Tuition, required fees and textbooks at participating private schools

• Tuition, required fees and textbooks at a community college or postsecondary institution

• Tutoring services provided by an educator certified by the Georgia Professional Standards Commission

• Purchase of a curriculum and supplemental materials

• Tuition and fees for a nonpublic online learning program or course

• Services from a physician or licensed therapist including occupational, behavioral, physical or speech-language

• Fees for the management of account funds

• Computer or other technological devices for students’ educational needs

• Transportation to a private school or service provider (see Footnote 5)

 

Unused funds would rollover to subsequent years. If any funds remain after a student graduates from high school, the funds could be used at a postsecondary institution in Georgia.

 

The Georgia Student Finance Commission (GSFC) would operate the program, which it could engage a nonprofit organization to undertake. GSFC’s tasks would include setting standards for participating private schools and service providers. It would also institute a system for paying private schools and service providers, a task it could retain a private management to perform. Up to three percent of the funds diverted to private schools could be used to cover the cost of these administrative functions.

 

A committee of eight parents whose children receive an ESA voucher would be established to review expenditures to determine if they meet program qualifications. Committee members would be appointed by the GSFC executive director and would serve one-year terms. They could be re-appointed for an unlimited number of terms. This committee would also review appeal requests from private schools and service providers denied approval by GSFC to participate in the program.

 

Participating students would take a national norm-reference test identified by the commission or Georgia Milestones annually. Data on student grade level, gender, family income level and race would be collected as well as high school graduation outcomes. The commission would publish an annual report, which would include

​

• Number and demographics of participating students and number of schools

• Student performance on assessments

• Parent satisfaction

• Percentage of funds used for each type of qualified expense

• Fiscal impact

 

The Department of Audits and Accounts would conduct an audit of the program every year.

 

 

Appendix B: HB 60 Cost Estimate

 

The estimated cost of HB 60 is $195 million by year 10 when about 44,000 students would get an ESA voucher. This approximation is based on funding for the Quality Basic Education (QBE) formula in the original Fiscal Year 2021 budget and assumes an estimated average per student cost of $4,455.

 

​