Ben DeGrow is a Senior Policy Director of Education Choice for ExcelinEd.
As the number and size of education scholarship account (ESA) programs grow, so do complaints about how parents can use funds. Many critics are bent on depriving families of choices, cherry-picking what they believe are egregious examples of families misusing ESAs or wrapping their desire to maintain the status quo in layers of hypothetical spending situations.
While some concerns may be well founded, they can miss the dangers that accompany overly prescriptive and heavy-handed controls on how families need and use ESAs. For example, children with autism may benefit from equine therapy, which critics then decry as “extravagant horseback riding classes.”
States adopt ESA programs with the promise of offering students greater educational opportunity through state-supervised, parent-directed spending. Yet too often, policies are written or implemented in a way that’s far too restrictive, inadvertently pushing away some families in need.
There is no perfect solution to ensure every ESA expenditure is properly made—or that every person agrees on what are appropriate and allowable expenses. Fortunately, officials can fulfill their charge while preserving the robust flexibility families need. Three specific policy measures can help.
First, states can preserve the flexibility of what should be a customizable account by not forcing parents to spend funds in a certain way. For example, families in Iowa and Tennessee must enroll in a private school before they can receive funding. They can then make other purchases with any money that’s left over. In most cases in Florida, ESA parents must first pay a child’s school tuition bill before making other eligible expenditures. Such restrictions make it much harder for families to try hybrid learning, microschools or other customized educational approaches in which their children might thrive.
Limiting how ESAs can be used in this way also shields traditional schools from broader competition with educational goods and services. Instead, all programs can be open and available, giving families greater freedom to decide how they use the first and last dollars in their accounts. That encourages additional innovative providers to participate and helps to keep prices down for all families.
Second, states can expand the list of qualified education expenditures. Not surprisingly, there are many similarities in eligible spending among the 15 states that have enacted ESA programs. Beyond private school tuition, nearly all states allow funds to pay for private tutoring, curricular materials, testing fees and educational therapies. Some ESAs can underwrite education-related transportation and technology, individual public-school courses, career training, dual enrollment or afterschool programs. No two lists are identical, and no state has fully expanded the range of possible options.
Several states, including West Virginia and New Hampshire, give a special board or program administrator discretion to approve requests for education-related purchases beyond the itemized list. That’s a helpful way to ensure goods and services are available for purchase that may not have been contemplated when the original law was passed.
Third, states can include parents in helping to determine specific spending parameters. This means establishing an open process to review “gray area” expenses and add lines of black and white where needed. The process may take the form of an appointed board or review commission, but it ought to incorporate direct, actionable input from parents alongside other voices. The result can preserve broad options while setting commonsense boundaries.
For example, New Hampshire limits use of Education Freedom Accounts to buying one computer or tablet every three years, and it authorizes payments for “hot-spot” Internet access but not household wireless service. Arizona spells out a host of supplemental materials that are automatically approved and also clarifies that families can use ESAs to pay for ridesharing services or commuter passes to access a qualified school. No administrator has shared more detailed determinations than the purchasing guide published by Step Up for Students for Florida’s newly universal ESA program. The guide even has updates as a result of parental input.
Admittedly, the level of detail in Florida’s guide has drawn extra scrutiny from skeptical media. ESA administrators across states generally desire to meet real needs and get to “yes” in honoring spending requests. But accountable to political oversight, they often feel even more pressure from media headlines that question public funds being spent on items like trampolines or televisions (up to 55 inches), even if these are integral for families customizing learning options for a child.
Wise observers recognize that the educational value of certain choices rests in the eye of the beholder. As some have pointed out, the very same spending decisions made by public schools don’t generate controversy. ESA administrators are finding that families appreciate consistency and transparency as they assess ESA spending decisions.
Because support for choice also tends to broaden and deepen as more students benefit from expanding programs, administrators will want to tread lightly. Overly tightening what counts as an “allowable expenditure” may seem responsive to the critics, but it inevitably irritates parents and ultimately undermines the program’s purpose.
This trap can largely be avoided by enacting the threefold combination:
Even the best efforts can’t eliminate all gray areas of spending, although improvements in technology may eventually make the job easier and more cost effective. For now, state policymakers can empower administrators to keep families’ needs at the forefront as they navigate the tradeoffs of spending flexibility and financial oversight. After all, their success is closely tied to helping students and parents thrive.
